The Bar Changes--Again!

I'm talking about the bar at which we decide to invade or not to invade a country. A couple of months ago it was widely admitted that the celebration of the Iraqis in their liberation was justification for the invasion, even if we never found those Weapons of Mass Destruction. And there was talk about the new mission of America to liberate oppressed people everywhere.

Well of course at the time we all knew that was largely nonsense, but now the proof is in the pudding. And America has just been handed a big steaming bowl of pudding named Liberia. As one might expect, Conservatives are backpeddling on their conception of American duty to rescue the poor benighted peoples of the world.

For example, Mona Charen commented, "But when Americans are asked to risk their lives, it should only be to protect the interests of the United States. Those interests were very much at stake in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Liberia, they are not. John Quincy Adams said 180 years ago that America was "the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

Perhaps someday the world will maintain an all-volunteer force of liberators to save places like Liberia and Burma and Sierra Leone. But that day is not at hand, and the United States cannot range abroad "in search of monsters to destroy."

This is a minor problem for President Bush after all. If it turns out it wasn't about Weapons of Mass Distruction and it wasn't about liberating oppressed people and fighting evil regimes, well, what was it about? Those people at the anti-rallies seem to have some theories.