Freedom and Force

Ronald Aronson has a good piece in The Nation on the failure of the Russian Revolution. Unfortunately, after a lengthy, intelligent discussion, he can't help himself. He ends with: "we have learned that force cannot create a humane society. It is a lesson that the neoconservative architects of the Iraq War and their liberal hawk fellow travelers have yet to absorb."

Hmm. Has Aronson learned the right lesson?

Not that long ago, all Europe--all the world--was threatened by fascism. Both democratic and communist countries fought it. The force used by the democratic countries led to freedom for those whom they liberated; the force used by the communists led to unfree countries under communist control. The message is not that force can't work--in fact, force is sometimes necessary--but that communism doesn't work.

Is Aronson so blind (and his deadline so early?) that he can't see what's happening in Iraq, and threatening to happen elsewhere. Iraq was run by a cruel tyrant who would not voluntarily give up rule. Force was necessary to knock him out to allow any chance for a free and humane society to take root. Is Aronson on the side of the insurgents, who target and blow up innocent Iraqis, or on the side of those millions who voted? Those Iraqis weren't being "forced" by us to vote--no, our "force" was what allowed them to vote in the first place. In fact, the only "force" being used that day was against the brave voters, by those who wished to deny them freedom. It's not clear, in Aronson's mindless hatred of neocons, that he understands this.

Perhaps I shouldn't blame Aronson. After all, this was just another Nation ceremonial swipe at neocons, regularly dropped in no matter how foolish or off-topic, and there's no reason to think there was any actual thought behind it.