Skimming recent issues of the Wall Street Journal just now, I was struck by a pull-out quotation in an editorial. I was also struck by my own reflexive reaction to it.
The pull-out quotation, from “Assad on the March,” (Saturday/Sunday, June 1-2, 2013), reads, “Has Obama decided that he wants Syria’s dictator to win?” My reaction: What the hell business is it of his?
The Wall Street Journal, which I like very much for the most part, drives me a little nuts with the inconsistency between its opposition to U.S. government intervention in the domestic economy and its support of U.S. government intervention in the affairs and quarrels and wars of other nations.
Their reasons for non-intervention in the economy square with my own: politicians and bureaucrats have neither the knowledge necessary to intervene to good effect in the economy, nor reliable incentives to do so, even if they could know how.
How is it that those reasons don’t apply with even more force to intervention in the affairs of peoples and nations half way around the world? Why do the fiascos in Iraq and Vietnam not give them pause?
And then there is the constitutional issue, which is more to the point of my reflexive reaction. Where in the Constitution is the president of the United States granted authority to decide who should win civil wars in other nations?