The Ethics of Iraq: Moral Strength vs. Material Strength

-->

Earlier, Shep quoted (and Wince endorsed) this piece from Peter Daou at Salon. I figure anything both of these guys like must be worth reading.

And it is:

The unbridgeable divide between the left and right’s approach to Iraq and the WoT is, among other things, a disagreement over the value of moral and material strength, with the left placing a premium on the former and the right on the latter.

The right (broadly speaking) can’t fathom why the left is driven into fits of rage over every Abu Ghraib, every Gitmo, every secret rendition, every breach of civil liberties, every shifting rationale for war, every soldier and civilian killed in that war, every Bush platitude in support of it, every attempt to squelch dissent. They see the left's protestations as appeasement of a ruthless enemy.

For the left (broadly speaking), America’s moral strength is of paramount importance; without it, all the brute force in the world won’t keep us safe, defeat our enemies, and preserve our role as the world’s moral leader.

Wasn't it Machiavelli (or maybe it was Michael Corleone) who said that it was better to be feared than to be loved because love fades, but fear does not.