CATO paper

[Henry C.K. Liu]

There is no inconsistency or lack of logic in the Cato paper.  The American
rightwing regards Russia (because of it socialist history and potential
rebirth) and socialist China as America's fundamental enemies.  US policy
toward Russia and US "constructive engagement" policy on China are merely
attempts to moderate hostile trends in these countries.
Cato's anti-war position over Kosovo is based on the logic of
effectiveness.  Cato is not against an eventual war with these "threatening"
nations.  It is only opposed to the wrong battles, in the wrong places and
at the wrong times, within the definition of which Kosovo falls.
As Cato fears, the failure of American policy on Kosovo has damaged NATO,
enhanced isolationism in the US and discouraged future interventionism in
cases that really "matter".

The Left, while opposed to the war, can take comfort that the long-term
impact of Kosovo may in fact contribute to world peace, not because of the
the success of the moral interventionist policy behind it but because of the
failure.

Henry C.K. Liu

"W. Kiernan" wrote:


> C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> >
> > A distressingly cogent analysis from the soi-disant Right...
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: Jim_Jatras at rpc.senate.gov (Jim Jatras)
> > >
> > > ...and harmed our relationship with Russia, which should be among
> > > our first priorities -- having vindicated every lie the Soviet
> > > Union ever told about NATO's aggressive intentions...
>
> I hate to sound like a Commie or something awful like that, especially
> this morning after Memorial Day when, as a U.S. citizen, I ought to be
> be blur-eyed hung over with patriotism, but how annoying the idea in
> that sentence.  Mr. Jatras's essay was otherwise pretty reasonable, so I
> wonder if he was conscious of the illogic there.  What does the word
> "lie" mean?  If "every" one of them has now been "vindicated," then they
> were not "lies."
>
> Yours WDK - WKiernan at concentric.net