Bob Kagan's
argument in today's WaPo is very odd. On the one hand Kagan criticizes Kerry for glossing over late nineteenth and early twentieth century examples of American foreign military adverturism. Yet few people nowadays would think that the Spanish-American war – a war fought primarily to gain colonies by conquest – was a positive development in American history. It is not a war that is honored prominently in the nation's capital, and the political parties do not refer to "Manilla" or "the
Maine" when they want to make a point about military intervention. Instead, they invariably talk of Munich or Normandy. We do not hear much about the history of the acquisition of Hawaii, or Puerto Rico, or the U.S. occupation of Cuba. In fact, the people who have the most interest in American military intervention in the age of colonialism are those like Latin American historians who tend to criticize such interventions.
In addition, neither left nor right really wants to repeat the gunboat diplomacy of the early twentieth century. In fact, when folks on the left speak of American imperialism in the same breath as the U.S. invasion of Iraq, they are pilloried by folks on the right for falsely describing American motives in the Persian Gulf. The right does not want to see the U.S. described as a neo-colonial power any more than the left wants to advance a neo-colonialist foreign policy.
One might think that Kagan means to enlighten his readers about the true history of American military interventions, then, much as New Left historians criticized mainstream Republicans (and many Demcrats) for claiming that our nation was
in fact, and not just in ideal, "conceived in liberty" and dedicated to the equality of all human beings. And if the first half of Kagan's essay had been written by the editorial staff at Mother Jones, such an interpretation might be plausible.
Instead, though, Kagan wants to
encourage an imperial attitude. Hence, according to Kagan, Kerry's failing is not simply that he overstates our historical reluctance to use force in dubious circumstances. Instead, for Kagan, Kerry won't provide what is needed, namely, more military intervention abroad, more assertions of U.S. power.
If he had more space, perhaps Kagan would continue to spin out his thesis about Americans being Hobbesian sheriffs in the global world order, willing to use force abroad in order to advance our national interest even when multinational organizations express reluctance or even opposition.
However you might stand toward Kagan's interpretation of the national interest, perhaps most memorably expressed in
Of Paradise and Power, don't believe Kagan that a Kerry administration will be "isolationist." Whether Kagan intends to advance it as such or not, this line is the latest in a series of Republican talking points – rich from the folks who brought you Pat Buchanan and a 2000 pledge from the incumbent President to eschew Clintonian "nation-building."
Readers who picked up the print copy of today's WaPo would have found two editorials that seem to cut against Kagan's description of Kerry as an isolationist. First, consider
this editorial on the need to intervene in Darfur. Whom would you expect would be more likely to intervene in a humanitarian mission in the Sudan – Kerry or Bush? Kagan thinks that he can subsume all interventions abroad under the heading of "war," so that when Kerry speaks of "not fighting wars because we want to," somehow this will imply an unwillingness to engage in humanitarian relief efforts or peacekeeping missions. Such a suggestion is weird, though.
Second, consider
this editorial on Kerry's energy policy, which proclaims that Kerry will "return to the international arena" in the interest of controlling global climate change.
In addition to redefining the meaning of "war," then, so that it includes all humanitarian and peacekeeping missions, Kagan redefines the meaning of the word "isolationism" so that it excludes all attempts at multilateral approaches to shared global problems.
Go figure.
---------
MORE: Links fixed.
