Would that the questions were easier. The tradeoffs not so grave, the deaths not so real, the chaos not so close. Would that war was heroism and grandeur and the bad guys were tangible and near and the snipers could aim and shoot. Would that we could fight, and win, and have it be better than it is now.
But that is not the way of it, which is why I'm so disappointed to see the effusive reaction being offered to the Euston Manifesto (site may be temporarily down, here's a cache). The document, scrawled out by Norm Geras during a short burst of inspiration and arrogance, is some sort of statement of principles meant to sort those on the good, "responsible" left from the defeatist, terrorist-sympathizin' softs currently infecting the coalition. All the usual suspects are signed up, and Bill Kristol made it the subject of his weekly editorial.
Yawn. Sign me up, I guess. Hitchens and me, marching gloriously forth to face the barbarians. Who woulda thunk? I mean, I think dictatorships are bad, and terrorists should be stopped, and human rights respected, and all the rest. And if anyone wanted to throw in a pony, I'd be for that, too. But the problem with this document, which is also the problem with the contemporary right, is that there's no mention of the actual disagreements at work, the questions of war and tactics, of death and destruction, of blowback and radicalization, go entirely unmentioned.
But the disputes at work, the disagreements this manifesto supposedly clarifies, are not of principles but of tactics, not of who we dislike but of how we defeat them. It's easier, simpler, starker to etch out manifestos and petitions, to take applications for the Great Men of History Club (no libs allowed), but to do so is to truly underestimate the stakes. This isn't a game, it's not a chance to define the self against far away, never-to-be-seen horrors. It's real, it's high-stakes, and it's serious. Would that those demanding fealty to such values in the abstract actually applied them.
