Yalta...Posted by C

The Yalta comment had multiple purposes.

First it was an inexpensive bone to toss to wingnuttery. There are still enough people around to whom that would be ingratiating.

But, more importantly, it was also a set up for his next sentence, re-casting of the age old question of "freedom versus security" as "freedom versus stability."

One reason for this re-casting is that "security versus freedom" is a legitimate trade-off: left and right may chose different amounts of the two, but both agree that you have to give up some of one to have more of the other, and that it's okay, a necessary evil.

Freedom versus stability, though? Not so compelling a balancing act. "Stability" at the cost of freedom sounds more like unfairly protecting entrenched political interests, yes? Not fair to those yearning for freedom.

This brings us to Bush's foreign policy. What has it wrought? Instability. And this is more and more clearly the only thing that it has wrought. Reasoning backwards from effect to intention-- perhaps Bush's real foreign policy goal is, in fact, instability.

Why instability as a foreign policy goal? Because it creates the conditions under which ruthless corporatists can expropriate resources. Or because it will hasten Armageddon. Take your pick.

But instability as a foreign policy goal cannot be spoken. It needs a cover. Now we have it: the U.S. must support freedom, even at the cost of stability. It justifies the war on Iraq at a time when the previous justifications are being proved lies, and it justifies future acts of war against the targets of Bush's choice.

...  ¶ 10:19 AM