I had a brief correspondence with Kim Oserwalder today, based on a comment I left on his site. After writing it, I realized that it set out my core views on the war, and the central argument I felt brought me to support it. I’m putting our messages up here, and understand that he’s putting them up on his site, we’ll collect our comments and see what happens.
________________________
From: armed@armedliberal.com
To: halfabee01@cox.net
Subject: Re: War
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:47:42 -0500
First, let me make it clear that I am a recent and reluctant convert to the ‘war’ camp. I’m deeply suspicious of the honesty and competence of the current Administration (although the last was no picnic in the park either, and Gore would not, I believe have been better – I’m no fan of the DNC).
The position (you have to make a case for acting) is not unreasonable in the abstract; but in the less-abstract world, you have to weigh the consequences of _not_ acting against the consequences of acting.
And the consequences are material, and real.
I’m not a Den Beste ‘war with Islam’ believer; but I do believe that there are elements in the Islamic world that want a war with us.
And I do believe that we need to defeat them…both with arms and with alms.
And while I wish that we had not done the things we have done – created and supported tyrannical oligarchies in the Middle East – we did them, and you and I bear our share of the responsibility for those actions (LES MAINS SALES). And having done them, and looking at the consequences of what we’ve done – to create a reservoir of rage that threatens us, people in the Middle East, innocent people in many parts of the world where enraged Islam is at war – doesn’t mean that we should commit suicide to try and atone for the wrongs we have done.
So we are left with two bad choices…Fortress America, and war. I choose war, because first, I believe that if we don’t have it now, it will come to us soon enough, and that the war and our response to it will be even more horrible…I have used the word genocide, and I don’t think I’m far off…and second, because I believe that the overall weight of human suffering – death and horror, not ‘lower standards of living’ – that will fall over the rest of the world if we don’t act are more than I could bear.
That’s how I’ve wound up where I am.
What I expect from those opposed to war is another path through the problem; some facts and ideas that don’t leave us pinned in this bad fork.
When I criticized you, _that_ was what I was looking for.
Thanks for writing, and thinking, and caring about all this. I have three sons and I lose sleep every night over this.
A.L.
Original Message:
—————–
From: kim halfabee01@cox.net
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:03:17 -0800
To: armed@armedliberal.com
Subject: Re: War
Hi,
First, let me say that I feel that since it is your side that is proposing to kill many thousands of people, the onus is on you to offer convincing arguments. It is up to my side to respond only by saying “yes, that is sufficient to convince me that you may be right,” or to say “no, your argument is insufficient to justify killing the innocent.” That’s all there is to it. Any discussion can only concern WHY we think that your arguments are insufficient, which is objective. You hunt, while I have difficulty killing ants in my kitchen. (No judgment is intended.) It is easier to convince some to kill then others. So to say that my argument is weak is incorrect. My argument (killing is bad) may seem simplistic, but it is the only real argument, and the only one that there can be. All other anti-war arguments are incidental.
I get very impatient listening to Bush administration’s reasons for war. The idea that any country be asked to “disarm” — especially one with such highly sought after natural resources — is laughable. A “disarmed” country is left completely vulnerable, and I can understand any reluctance to rely only on the goodwill of others. Only when they give us the real reasons for invasion can any real debate begin. In the future (unless we change our course) there will be plenty of leaders that we dislike, and many will have nuclear weapons. We will need to formulate some plan for dealing with them that doesn’t involve killing. We may as well start now. Maybe we should try to have a foreign policy that doesn’t make people around the world want to kill us. I don’t know if this is even remotely possible, but we should feel obligated to give it a try.
At this point I think that all discussion on this topic has been superficial. I would like to hear someone try to make a really good case for invasion. I would like to hear some pro-war person explain that yes, we can’t stop at Iraq, we will go from there to Iran, Syria, etc. We won’t have a choice but to dominate the whole region. Explain that yes, there will be more terror incidents on our own soil if we invade, but that is the price we pay for our high standard of living. Some Americans have to die so that others can be well off. Acknowledge all these things and then explain why this is preferable.
And on the anti-war side we need to acknowledge that not invading means that we may have to except a somewhat lower standard of living at some point in the future (as the currency for oil is converted to euros rather than dollars,) but that is the price we pay for our reluctance to kill children. (50% of the population of Iraq are under the age of 15.) The anti-war side has to acknowledge that we may be trading our nice cars, computers, college educations for our offspring, etc. (although I don’t think the effect will be so drastic, if we are clever about things) for the privilege of not killing and dying in the Persian Gulf.
I can’t really find anything here that I disagree with.
You seem to be saying that attacks such as Hiroshima and Dresden are justified, because they had the effect of shortening the war and thus possibly limiting casualties.
This is correct, once a conflict has started. Don’t you think that this is a good argument for not letting armed conflicts start in the first place?
Thanks for contacting me. I enjoyed reading these. They are good and thoughtful pieces, but I don’t think that they argue in favor of the pending invasion. If you do write something, I hope you will let me know. I remain open on this question, despite what it may seem — especially considering this: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html.
kim osterwalder http://www.freepie.org/
(edited slightly for spelling and grammar)
The problem with the “we created tyrannical oligarchies” argument is that those regimes in the Middle East with which the United States has had little involvement are just as bad as those which the US has had considerable involvement. Also, even those which the US has been considerably involved with in recent time were badly governed before the US became involved with them. The Camp David agreement led to considerable US involvement with Egypt. But Egypt didn’t have democracy or a low level of corruption or freedom of the press before that.
The “America caused this mess” argument says more about the parochial (no, the US does not cause everything that happens in the world) relexive anti-Americanism among the Western left than it does about the facts of the matter. The real problem with this argument is that it prevents people from understanding the real problems underlying Arab nation misgovernance and Arab and Muslim hostility toward the West and toward the United States specifically.
I would strongly urge you all to read the articles by Jeffrey Goldberg, Stanley Kurtz, Fouad Ajami, and others I link to in my Clash Of Civilizations archive for background on alternative interpretations of the problem with the Arabs and Muslims. Also, see my Reconstruction and Reformation archive. The article at the end by Kurtz is essential and shows what an uphill road we face in trying to reform Arab societies.
Randall, I’ll read those as soon as I can (probably tomorrow); but I’ll point out that my understanding is that the core ME governments were first, post WWI constructions by the British and French, and then post WWII constructions sponsored by, or approved by, the US – hence my comment about our responsibility.
A.L.
Why is it that all the liberal civilian casualty assessments look only at those lives lost as a result of our potential “action” and do not take into account the just as innocent lives that would continue to be lost by our inaction?
Any civilian casualty estimates are just that – hypothetical estimates. Don’t quote tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands as if there is a certainty to those numbers.
The reality is that without a war people are still dying every day. I assume it’s okay for thousands of civilians to die as long as we aren’t pulling the trigger so to speak?
Where is the morality in that?
Saddam’s Iraq is not a safe haven for civilians. It is not a country like any of us are used to living in. It is not Canada, Mexico or even France. Death of the innocents has been a way of life there for decades.
Unless you acknowledge and address that fact in your arguments you are disingenuious and hiding your real motives.
Another point. To equate Dresden to Hiroshima is to simply ignore the facts of history. Read “Unjust Enrichment” if you can’t see the difference.
Kim says:
First, let me say that I feel that since it is your side that is proposing to kill many thousands of people, the onus is on you to offer convincing arguments. It is up to my side to respond only by saying “yes, that is sufficient to convince me that you may be right,” or to say “no, your argument is insufficient to justify killing the innocent.”
Respectfully, no. You have much more responsibility than to simply say “yes, you convinced me”, or “no, I disagree”. Can’t you admit that you at least have to make the pretense of confronting the pro-war argument?
You can’t simply ignore the fact that no matter what we do, war or no war, innocent people will die in large numbers. By advocating the no-war position, you are claiming that A) more innocents will die if a war happens, B) the innocents that die in a war are worth more to you than the larger number of innocents that die without war, or C) deaths of innocent people don’t matter so long as it’s not us who does the killing.
Which is it?
At this point I think that all discussion on this topic has been superficial. I would like to hear someone try to make a really good case for invasion.
The Blogosphere bangs its head on the wall in frustration. Millions of words, but they are “superficial.” We’ve wasted out time…
I would like to hear some pro-war person explain that yes, we can’t stop at Iraq, we will go from there to Iran, Syria, etc. We won’t have a choice but to dominate the whole region. Explain that yes, there will be more terror incidents on our own soil if we invade, but that is the price we pay for our high standard of living. Some Americans have to die so that others can be well off. Acknowledge all these things and then explain why this is preferable.
If we did we would be making a stupid anti-war argument. In fact, we are going to LIBERATE millions of the most oppressed people on earth, and even try to give them a chance to be strong and free and have their OWN high standard of living. While the sour reactionaries of the anti-war left try their best to leave them in misery. Dominate the region? George Bush is going to try to let the common people of the Middle East dominate their OWN region. He said so last night, and I’ll be glad to make bets that he is going to give it a real try.
And on the anti-war side we need to acknowledge that not invading means that we may have to except a somewhat lower standard of living at some point in the future (as the currency for oil is converted to euros rather than dollars,) but that is the price we pay for our reluctance to kill children.
Those children are dying NOW. Some are starving. Some are tortured to extract confessions from their parents. That is the price YOU pay for your complacent acceptance of fascist regimes.( And the Euros thing is an urban-legend that has been well debunked.)
The argument that no sovereign nation in possession of valuable resources should be expected to disarm is a superficial gloss over the normal purposes of military forces. Such forces are comprised of defensive and offensive systems, and their respective roles are dramatically different. It is precisely this substantive difference which causes US concerns about Iraqi WMD, as opposed to its defensive weapons systems. Osterwalder doesn’t seem to perceive this fundamental strategic delineation. Iraqi WMD poise a potential offensive threat on a regional, if not international basis, but this threat is apparently of no concern to Osterwalder.
It makes my head spin to think that there are people out there that are so ignorant to think that War is not justified. It also makes me question the intelligence of these same people who say that there is no evidence that Iraq poses any threat to our country. I suppose that these people have open access to classified material and intelligence that our government and President has on a daily basis. Now since I know that this is not the fact, I can only make the assumption that the nay-sayers are ignorant.
Our great nation is in the cross hairs of these rogue nations, don’t kid yourself. If we don’t take care of our enemies, rest assured the next 9/11 will be twice as bad. But I forget that most of the Anti-War movement have already forgotten that we lost thousands of Americans just over a year ago.
War is in our midst weather we like it or not, I for one think that this war was brought to us and now, just as the Japanese did during the second world war, the sleeping gaint has been awoken.
Let’s also not forget that during the Gulf War, Saddam waged war on Kuwait. Iraq lost, there were certain concessions as a result of their lose. And Iraq has broke all the concessions that they made. The United States has a responsibility to America and the World to take Saddam out of power and restore some security to our country and freedom from terror to the Iraqis.
Our President knows the threats that our Country faces. He hears and sees the Intelligence, and it is his responsiblity to protect our country against ALL enemies, foreign or domestic. As this was the Oath that he took.
For all of you who think that thousands of lives will be lost if there is war. Do you forget Desert Storm. How many people lost there lives in that war, when Iraq was a much more powerful opponent than they are today. I would challenge you to find the numbers and then compare them to the number of people Saddam has killed in the last 10 years. You may be suprised.
I’m somewhat intrigued by the assertion that we may have to except(sic) a somewhat lower standard of living as the price for reluctance to kill children. Following that logic, wouldn’t a reduced standard of living in the US, in turn, reduce the amount of US foreign aid which would also lead to the deaths of children? (As a side note, if it could be guaranteed that only adults would be killed, would the prospect be more palatable?)
Perhaps if Luddism is being proposed, it ought to be proposed outright. Nice cars, computers, and college educations are not just symbols of wealth (filthy lucre), they are the tangible proof of progress.
Lastly, the fact of the matter is, while offering convincing arguments is nice, at this point, whether you are convinced is no longer important. The UN and the Congress have already provided the authorization. The time for discussion was prior to the votes.
The war started on 11 Sept. 2001.
The only questin now is how bloody it must get until the other side quits preaching hate.
It will not end until the haters quit.
If you want the war to end you must convince the Islam uber alles folks to desist. America will not quit until that happens.
A pro-war Jeffersonian view
If we don’t win the war, we will have to live with less freedom in America. We have fewer liberties now then we did Sept 10. It was necessary to protect the country, but the freedoms are gone. The government has greater power to search and seize, particularly at airports. The only way to get these freedoms back is to win the war. The longer the war lasts, the greater the damage to our democracy. If there are more mass murder attacks, more freedoms will be lost. If nuclear devices are used against us, say goodbye to a lot of the Bill of Rights. This would be very bad. Unfortunately, it would be the only way to prevent further attacks. The government would have to grow, becoming ever more watchful and intrusive. The methods necessary to prevent terrorism on a mass scale would give the government unprecedented power. Such power, while necessary for our national existance, would inevitably reduce personal freedom for all americans. Also, once such power is given, it is hard to reclaim. The US could become, if not a police state, a surveilance state. The technology to catch terrorists could be used to watch us all. Opposing such measures after a nuclear attack would be difficult, and suicidal.
The alternative is to win in the middle east. While fraught with its own dangers, it is preferable to watching the disintigration of civil rights at home. While it is difficult to accept policies that outrage allies and bring opproboriam from the Arab world, the alternative is the erosion, perhaps forever, of freedoms that have taken two centuries to build and preserve.
John: Long term, your reservations have the largest significance for Americans. The most dangerous Consul is the Consul appointed with unlimited powers to protect the state.
Videant consules ne quid detrimenti capiat respublica.
A.L., I reiterate: there were many Arab governments whose internal politics are security were little influenced by the United States which are just as bad as the ones which the US was involved with. Egypt is certainly “core” and yet it was messed up well before the United States started supplying it with significant aid. Before the Carter Administration the US had little influence over the events in Egypt.
Also, for most of the history of US involvement in the Middle East the US has not tried to influence internal politics most of Arab countries. They were free to develop in different directions. If the U.A.E.’s or Oman’s or Bahrain’s people had demanded democracy, free speech, and all that the United States would not have attempted to prevent it.
Too many on the Left make what I call the “prime mover” mistake of attributing too much of what happens or doesn’t happen in the world to what the United States does or does not do. Local factors in each region and country are overlooked in this kind of ideologically driven analysis and the foreordained conclusions (i.e. that it is the fault of the United States) are hopelessly naive.
Randall –
I promise to follow your links this weekend; until then let me clarify one point where you may be misreading me. I don’t see the U.S. as the ‘prime mover’ in modern Middle Eastern history – the U.K. and France certainly have deeper roots there (which is part, I argue of why France is so determined to keep us out). The ‘West’ has drawn the nations, loaned and spent the money to build the palaces and hire thye secret police, and done so with a very explicit eye on keeping our ‘friends’ in power.
I think we, in the U.S., are getting stuck with the check, which seems to be our natural condition.
A.L.