Brought to you by Glenn Greenwald:
That is why war opponents on the “left” — including bloggers — were and still are deemed Unserious even though they proved to be correct. Their opposition was not based (at least principally) on the belief that we were using the wrong “force deployment packages,” that the timing was wrong, that we should have waited a little longer (that type of “opposition” was the only permitted type). Rather, it was largely based on the notion that the war itself was illegitimate because Iraq had not attacked us and could not threaten our national security, and that going around bombing, invading and occupying other countries which haven’t attacked us is both immoral and/or self-destructive.
Yet these days, expressing that rather ordinary belief — that it is wrong to start a war against a country except where they attack you, are about to, or directly threaten your national security (such as by harboring terrorist groups waging attacks on your country) — will subject you to the accusation that you are a “pacifist,” a term Daniel Drezer incoherently (though revealingly) applies to me.
That is how far we have come, how low we have fallen, how recklessly and extraordinarily pro-war we are as a country as a result of our Foreign Policy Community. Now, if you believe that we should wage war only when a country actually attacks us or threatens our national security, then you are a “pacifist,” an unserious leftist who is removed from mainstream discourse.
You shouldn’t invade the wrong fucking country. The Very Serious Foreign Policy experts need to get that.