The Consequences of Action, Inaction, and Destraction
Lileks bleats a flowing essay that manages to move from autumn to Tom Daschle by way of a video game. In doing so, he makes the point that pro-attack-Iraq folks aren't "gungho to kill Iraqis," but they've decided that, as bad as the option of war is, the option of doing nothing is worse.
John Hawkins makes much the same point, in the context of anti-war folks having no other solutions (that haven't been tried ad destructum). We simply can't wish these problems away, no matter how much effort we put into changing the way we perceive those who would destroy us. In the Nordlinger piece linked in my previous post, he makes the point that, to many "activist" types: "Nuclear weapons are to be worried about only when they're in the hands of Ronald Reagan not so much when they're in the hands of a Third World anti-imperialist like Saddam Hussein." (By the way, isn't it funny that the "anti-imperialist" is the one with palaces?)
And somehow, this all relates, it seems to me, to an article, to which Amy Welborn links, about how activists of a different stripe (though many of them are quite possibly the same people) have brought about mass starvation by convincing African leaders to lock emergency-relief food away from their people because it may have been genetically engineered.
I suppose, for many, there can be no adverse consequences when there are good intentions... or perhaps "pretentions" would be a better word.
Posted by Justin Katz @ 02:02 PM EST