Libya and Signaling

I tweeted earlier that "Michael Lind's opposition to Libya War makes me more favorably disposed toward Obama's policy." That prompted some requests for clarification.

So for starters, obviously that's a joke. Michael Lind's opinions don't cut one way or another on the merits of Obama's policy. But I do find myself with mixed feelings on the matter. I also feel like this is just one of those weeks when it's really bad to be a general purpose political pundit who's supposed to write a high-volume blog. I can hardly just ignore Libya, but I don't have strong convictions one way or the other about it or a strong knowledge base. Had this not gotten UNSCR authorization, I'd be clearly opposed and I'd have lengthy and well-considered reasons for that opposition, but that's not the case.

As for Lind, it's just that generally speaking I find that Michael Lind is a forceful exponent of mistaken viewpoints. Back when we both wrote for TPM Cafe we would frequently clash over my view that Mexicans are human beings and that ethical public policy ought to consider the interests of Mexican people when considering immigration measures. That Lind's version of foreign policy realism is literally grounded in the straw man viewpoint that the welfare of foreigners should be completely irrelevant to our decision-making renders a lot of it suspect. So does the fact that his skepticism of foreign military entanglements doesn't extend to Vietnam. Less relevant to foreign policy, but still speaking to the overall question of judgment is his hatred of Star Wars.

The flipside of this, to be clear, is that some of the folks banging the drums loudest for war are the John McCains and Joe Liebermans of the world. And, again, it's often forgotten how cartoonish McCain's warmongering is. But recall that amidst the Kosovo War his view was that "the only thing to discuss with Milosevic is his unconditional surrender." That's insane. And it's amazing to me that one could take that line and emerge regarded by the media as being an unusually credible voice on foreign policy relative to other senators.

That returns us to the underlying merits of the issue about which, again, I have mixed feelings.