Here’s the second part of Andrew’s argument, including (about halfway down) his suggestions for what we do now.
Point: The Iraq War caused severe damage to international and domestic institutions, probably on purpose
From my perspective, a consistent and unfortunate habit of the Bush Administration across many issues has been self-confidence and self-righteousness so extreme that all restraints imposed by law or tradition are seen as hindrances. The Executive of the strongest power the planet has ever seen must not be encumbered (at least when the incumbent is a "good man" from the Republican Party).
The archetypical example is related to the War on Terror on its domestic front. In the case of José Padilla, the Bush Administration has torn up literally eight centuries of Anglo-American law that established the right of citizens to trial before a neutral tribunal. The Bush Administration’s position is that American citizens may be detained incommunicado, indefinitely, without any recourse to the courts, entirely at the President’s pleasure. I start with this example because even a number of conservative lawyers [Volokh, link is audio file; Viet Dinh] are opposed, as are some of the pro-war readers of this blog.
The Iraq War is the first implementation of the Bush Doctrine of Pre-emptive War, and Iraq is to the doctrine of casus belli as Padilla is to the Bill of Rights. There have been several blog arguments on whether the Administration claimed that Saddam constituted an "imminent threat". The pro-war position, oddly enough, is in the negative. Now, it’s beyond question that the Administration portrayed Saddam as all manner of terrifying threat: "grave and gathering", "immediate", "mushroom cloud". (Donald Rumsfeld on "Meet the Press" denied ever using "immediate threat" and was then left looking silly when Thomas Friedman read his own words back to him.) Given that we were going to war—war!—with Saddam, what exactly was the problem with calling him an imminent threat? The answer, I believe, is that "imminent threat" is a term-of-art in international law, and acting against such a threat is as justified as self-defense after an attack is already underway. (See in particular, 1967 Israeli attack on the Egypt.) So if we called Saddam an "imminent threat" then there would be nothing novel, no bounds broken, in the Bush Doctrine. The faulty intelligence isn’t the reason Bush avoided this one specific word, because the Iraq we actually invaded was neither imminent, nor grave, nor capable of mushroom clouds, nor very threatening to American security at all.
Bush, in campaign mode, ridicules the idea of multilateralism as holding
Point: The
Let’s be blunt: even though I find the humanitarian argument for the Iraq War insufficient, it’s much, much better than the argument by the Administration at the time. That argument was based almost entirely on the putative threat, and on spurious connections between Saddam and the 9/11 attack (largely by VP Cheney), and there can’t be any force to an argument whose premisses are not true. Out of the rival threat assessments available to the Administration before the war, they chose to be deceived utterly by a convicted grifter, Ahmad Chalabi, whom we are still paying hundreds of thousands of dollars monthly. This was no innocent error. Chalabi told the marks what they wanted to hear: not only about WMD, but about his internal resistance movement ready to create a pro-American and pro-Israel (!)
Those of you who don’t think that knowingly false propaganda contributed to public acquiescence in the war: something like half of the country believes that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi, when of course the correct number is zero. On 9/12, what reason would anyone have for this erroneous belief? None. I suspect at that time those Americans who could answer the question at all would remember that nearly all of the terrorists were Saudi. The error came from frequent and deliberate juxtaposition of Saddam and 9/11 in repeated speeches that (with the exception of an egregious statement by Cheney that Bush was forced to repudiate) were not literally untrue, but which were designed to leave a false impression.
Here I must admit that my pre-existing animus against George W. Bush probably contributed to my belief that most of his WMD allegations weren’t true. Even in my dreams, though, I didn’t guess that they had simply decided on WMD as an expedience because the Administration was divided on other rationales. And those other rationales would never have gotten enough support in the Congress and in the American public to support a war. I don’t think that sending the President (State of the Union), the Vice President, and much of the Cabinet out to snow the American people is healthy for our democratic political system, nor is insulting the intelligence (pun intended) of our allies good for our position in the world, and I think that the war should have been resisted on these grounds alone.
Point: Even before the war, there were reasons to believe we were entering a quagmire.
Here I have to admit, I was one of the war’s opponents who overestimated the difficulty of taking
Point: What we could do now.
Armed Liberal suggested that besides rehearsing why I opposed the war (which is something of a moot point, except to the extent that I think the Administration responsible for this error should not be returned to office), I mention how I think the situation can be improved.
- Apologize publically to our allies for the falsity of the Powell slide show and for the way we pressured them on the basis of forged and faked "intelligence". We need to restore our working relationship with our allies (we also need their money, cooperation from their police forces, and contributions of troops).
- Have the IRS review Chalabi’s tax returns, and on finding his 1040 omits bribes and kickbacks, bring him back to the
- We need Arabic speakers in our armed forces desperately, enough that we can stop discharging the ones who are homosexual. Seriously, we need to increase the existing strategic language initiatives.
- Offer
- Increase armed presence (not necessarily
- Fire anyone who doesn’t perform. Kofi Annan just sacked people he held responsible for not protecting the UN mission in
We can’t follow
Query: Is this the final part of this installment or are there going to be more? I ask because I desire to critique several of your points but do not wish to do so until you’re finished making your argument.
Apologize to our “allies.”
I assume you mean France, Germany and Russia?
First, since when have they been our allies since WWII? They certainly have not been our allies in a long, long time.
Second, when are they going to apologize to us, for trying to thwart American power and influence simply as a matter of principle and for their own economic and political gain?
“Any 20 year-old who isn’t a liberal doesn’t have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn’t a conservative doesn’t have a brain.”
Winston Churchill (1874 – 1965)
Lonestar:
Nope it doesn’t mean ncessarily them. It’s Canada and Chile; as well as a lot of Latin American countries and the other NATO countries. In the end, the smugness that WMDs existed and the refusal to allow extend the inspections was a serious blunder. One that aliented many sympathetic/allied countries who came to the conclusion that it was best to stay away from America until it cooled down. It wasn’t worth being hassled by the country
xavier
Having read Andrew’s Post I and now Post II, I can’t say I see much that is persuasive.
He has failed to adequately address all of the crucial pro-war arguments. Specifically:
(a) There has been no sustained critique or refutation of the democratization theory.
(b) We are told the humanitarian justification was insufficient, but we are not told why: no utilitarian, deontological or marxist analysis is presented in support of his claim. He presents no unflinching criticisms of his anti-war position that condemned Iraqis to slavery, torture and genocide.
(c ) Neither does he broach the manifest and anticipated strategic and deterrent effects of the policy of (pre-emptively) removing depraved rogue regimes reasonably thought to have WMDs.
(d) No alternative theory and approach to terrorism is suggested by which to evaluate the competing Bush policies. Given that political decisions are mostly about choosing between alternative policies (rather than between a policy and some Platonic Ideal), this is important.
Instead, we get a few unrelated points, some better or worse.
It is obviously true that (e) WMD were chosen as the most vociferously argued reason for invasion. It is also true that, as yet, no WMD have been found (although evidence of WMD programs have been found). It remains to be seen if any US official knew none would be found, yet stated otherwise. At most, we have improperly founded and ill-considered pronouncements, rather than deception. It remains to be seen if evidence of the latter will emerge.
However, it will not avail anti-war leftists to claim that the arguments (a)-(d) were not made prior to the war and thus can be ignored. They were indeed made, as can be quickly shown in any competent online search. The fact that argument (e) is not persuasive does not excuse a war opponent from dealing with the other arguments.
Andrew makes a few other points. He attempts to blame the alleged misconceived conflation of Iraq with Al Quaeda, but fails to provide a causal link between this belief and the official US position (which was to the contrary). This straw man has been identified as such long ago. He does not demonstrate the relevance of a wrongly held belief to the general justification for the war.
He attempts to suggest that Bush policies damaged the UN and US relations with Europe. Even if true, there is good reason to believe that pre-war relations were not preferable and should be subject to re-evaluation.
First, it is not clear that the UN, composed of number of undemocratic, illiberal and immoral regimes, is an institution that could not use reform. Certainly, an institution that engages in financial fraud and theft of Iraqi food & medicine, with the complicity of European partners, is unfit to act as a moral or legal arbiter. Rather, the UN has become an abuser, unwilling to enforce its own laws but willing to commit crimes for gain.
In this regard, the act of the Coalition in liberating Iraqis from genocide, rape and torure – in which the UN was complicit – can be seen as an attempt to have the UN enforce its own founding Charter and its Declaration of Human Rights, containing, as they do, obligations of all member countries to promote and rectify illiberal and abusive political circumstances.
Second, a number or European countries actively profitted from and encouraged Saddam’s atrocities; essentially, Europe was engaged in slave trading – Iraqi blood for petro-dollars. European opposition to the Iraq war can thus be seen as a desire to continue its execrable practices. The morally proper US response, in my view, was a repudiation of such conduct.
Third, it is not certain that the UN and the EU, could be trusted to use sound moral and political judgment in assisting Iraqis they had previously condemned to slavery. The prisoner is unlikely to ask his abusive jailor to dinner.
So far, I have seen few good arguments against the war, and many attempts to avoid the tough questions.
Even if every single word of that were true, it wouldnt matter. The only measure of Iraq is whether at the end of the day it will be a successful stroke in the war on terror. Lincoln and FDR basically shredder the constitution in their wars. Bush, at worst, has given it a bit of a nudge (we still have a legislature that in fact passed the patriot act no? A supreme court? Lets call a spade a spade this is hardly King George territory). We are at war, if we win this is all academic. If we lose we will have struck our iceberg and these little problems will be pleasant memories.
-Point: The Iraq War caused severe damage to international and domestic institutions, probably on purpose-
Domestically, I’m not going to defend Bush and his holding of Padilla. I will admit that it bothers me. If Bush were to start imprisoning more U.S. Citizens, especially overt political opponents, then I would protest. However, I don’t believe this damage started with Bush. Remember Clinton used the FBI and the IRS to audit his political opponents. Albright kidnapped Elian under gun point. Under Clinton respect for the law became as fleeting as his definition of “is”. Regardless, the Iraq war did not cause this damage, it was already here.
-But the interesting thing is, when Al Qaeda attacked us, even though we hardly needed permission from the world to take out the Taliban, not only permission but all sorts of aid were given to us freely. Doesn’t the refusal of so many of our allies to do likewise for Iraq tell us something?-
It tells us that France, Russia and the UN profited from the oil for food embargo too much to do what is right. Canada could not have helped us militarily, and was a reluctant member of the Afghanistan coalition as it was. Does their refusal mean we have exhausted our political capitol, or does it mean there was not much to begin with? What is the EU’s plan to stop terrorism? Surely they know that they are targets, what have France and Germany done to protect themselves? Little to nothing. Other then participating in the Afghanistan those countries have not cooperated. They still treat Hamas and Hezbollah as legitimate groups and not terrorists! Their anti-terrorism is little more then law enforcement actions and monitoring of Arabs. Germany acquitted the one 9/11 guy they caught. More over they continue to hide their own anti-Semitism and poor treatment of immigrants, as well as their own failed economic policies.
-I opposed the Iraq War in part, then, because bad as multilateral institutions are, they are still better than the alternative.-
The alternative being: Assemble a coalition of like minded countries and enact a plan to curtail terrorism and its causes, IE middle eastern oppression and tyranny?
From the same article you linked too
[I remember, that we had abandoned 50 years of reliance on the doctrine of collective security, I think. I’d have to go back and get the quote. But basically it’s as though for 50 years we’d been relying on the United Nations and this document was going to undo it, as opposed to for 50 years we’d relied on NATO and our alliances in Northeast Asia and this document was trying to support them.]
[I think, a difficulty in distinguishing what was American interest from what were sort of vaguely seen as international community preferences. But I’m not a unilateralist by any means. In fact I don’t think you can get much done in this world if you do it alone.]
[First of all, diplomacy that it’s just words is rarely going to get you much unless you’re dealing with people who basically share your values and your interests. I’m not against, I mean sometimes it does help to just have a better understanding.
But if you’re talking about trying to move people to something that they’re not inclined to do, then you’ve got to have leverage and one piece of leverage is the ultimate threat of force. It’s something you need to be very careful about because, as Rumsfeld likes to say, don’t cock unless you’re prepared to throw it.]
I think it should be obvious that the UN and the Middle East are not inclined to help us, even if we had not invaded. Therefore our political capitol would not have done much without force. Without the will to act there will be no change. We could not keep troops on the borders indefinitely, so we either had to withdraw and abandon efforts to change the Mid East, or invade.
-I also opposed it because I think that the greatest success of the American Revolution was to give us a government of laws and not of men.-
More like a government whos laws were directly controlled by the people. Hamurabi had a government of laws. East Germany had a government of laws. The US and other democracies have laws determined by the people who are subject to them. To give nations like Syria, Iran, North Korea, China, and Saudi Arabia a big say in our laws it to abrogate that. They have no interest in our justice, only in hobbling our ability to impact their corrupt rule.
-I think we should be doing everything possible to replicate this arrangement in the international sphere, and organizations like the UN and the EU must be part of this process.-
To make the UN a functional organization would require us to make the loser nations of the world representative democracies, something you oppose. Otherwise you would support the conversion of Iraq, and then want to move on to other regimes.
As the UN stands now it is run by a host of corrupt politicians and ambassadors, largely from nations who have no concept of the rule of law or the rule of the people. The oil for palaces program being the big example. The EU suffers similarly from a largely unaccountable bureaucracy and France and Germany have already exempted themselves from its rules over economic growth and national debt. Look how the EU can’t even investigate itself, and imprisons journalists who question it. If Bush’s handling of Padilla is not up to your standards, neither is the EU or UN. If Europe can’t hold itself together in the EU and it contains largely peaceful democratic states, how can the UN when it contains many more dictatorships?
-Point: The Iraq War was sold with falsehoods and lies, and should have been opposed on that basis if no other.-
-I find the humanitarian argument for the Iraq War insufficient-
That is your choice, but I would like to hear how many lives need to end before you think it is appropriate to act? Did you support Clinton’s efforts in Serbia?
-there can’t be any force to an argument whose premises are not true-
Of course. Your evidence is that we have not found WMDs yet. Ignoring the delivery systems found by Blix and Kay, would you change your mind if they did find some? Your argument here is predicated on a negative, which is shaky at best.
-Better intelligence was available from the United Nations team under Hans Blix, –
Like “I can neither confirm or deny the presence of Iraqi WMDs” Ok that’s a cheap shot. Just like your claim that Chalbi was the sole source of info. He must have duped every other intelligence agency and Clinton too.
Saddam wanted the weapons. It is clear from Kay’s report that he was simply trying to maintain as much as he could till the sanctions ended. He gave every indication that he would attempt to get WMDs when sanctions were lifted, and he showed us that he was unafraid of using them. Bush did not have to fabricate evidence, as you accuse Powell. Just because his presentation is unconfirmed does not mean it is disproven.
-my pre-existing animus against George W. Bush probably contributed to my belief that most of his WMD allegations weren’t true-
That is your call. I take what he said at face value because I regard him as a truthful man. I understand you see it differently, but you have not provided any reason why I should see him as a liar other then the lack of WMDs in Iraq. As it is a very real possibility that they were hidden or moved to Syria, that alone is not enough for me to doubt Bush.
-Point: Even before the war, there were reasons to believe we were entering a quagmire.-
-However, it appears as if the serious misjudgment of what Iraq would be like the Day After was systemic, originating to a great degree in over-reliance on Chalabi-
Chalabi is a straw man argument. The point was well made beforehand that the reconstruction would be difficult and expensive. The US could not have known beforehand how extensively Saddam had armed the country, but even with the readily accessible weaponry the Insurgents have been unable to oppose the US directly. I suppose it does come down to your definition of a quagmire. Was Vietnam one? We won in Vietnam militarily, but politically we lost. I am of the opinion that then, as now, people like Andrew were part of that loss, because they allowed their opposition to the war to be turned into a weapon against it. You cry about what a quagmire it will be, how chemical weapons will kill all our troops, how it will be a million Mogadishus, but you never offer up a solution other then to stay home. Where was the democrat’s plan for the reconstruction? What is Kerry’s? For some the cost will always outweigh the risk of action, and for them war will always be a quagmire.
-Point: What we could do now.-
• Apologize publically
This is exactly the behavior the terrorists want. Terrorism is predicated on the belief that we are unwilling to sustain the casualties and harm that they heap upon us, and that we will relent. Throughout his post, Andrew behaves as they wish. He is unwilling to stop terrorism through the means before us, unwilling to confront those who support terror, and would rather negotiate and only act when we have consensus with the very enemies we wish to confront.
We have not wronged others. France was stabbing us in the back before and during the war. They leaked our intel and sold Iraq weapons. Russia was the same way. Germany was the single country whom I think had a genuine difference of opinion, but even then their government was appealing to its anti-American base.
• Have the IRS review Chalabi’s tax returns
A useless act. This will do nothing for our cred. In the Mid east or elsewhere.
we need Arabic speakers in our armed forces desperately.
Given the treatment of gay Arabs in their home countries you may want to reconsider this. It would probably offend more arabs then it wins us friends.
• Offer Jordan a Marshall-type Plan
For what? What has Jordan done to deserve anything from us? Where are the Jordanian clerics opposing Hamas or Osama?
We make a public insistence that there are no more expropriations of Arab lands in the Territories.
This will not solve anything. Israel is not the problem, they have shown a willingness to negotiate in good faith. Hamas and the other terrorists have shown that they will not honor any agreement. Until they prove they can, negotiation is useless, as is retreat by the Israelis.
Increase armed presence (not necessarily USA) in Afghanistan
I thought we were doing this by recruiting Afghans for their new military. Oh, you mean send in more foreign troops to occupy their country. I’m sure that is a better solution…Not.
• Fire anyone who doesn’t perform
Like Kofi, his son, the UN, the French, the Russians, Clarke and Sen. Kerry. Good point, lets do it.
Rats, all the quotes fell out of my post. I hope it’s still obvious what points are Anthony’s and which are mine.
After reading Part II of Andrew Lazarus’s post, I have to admit I am disappointed. I thought that Part I was interesting and well-articulated and I agreed with substantial parts of it. I was looking forward to Part II being equally engaging.
It wasn’t.
Attribution of malice is the critical argument in every paragraph of his first two points. In fact it is the argument. Since his acknowledged animus precedes the acts he castigates rather being derived from them, it is, at least a reasonable conclusion.
Ignoring the ad hominem component he argues that the Iraq war has damaged international and domestic institutions. His argument on the internal side is non-existent, it’s just an assertion. For harm to have been done he would have to be able to demonstrate either by testimonial or circumstantial evidence that there is something the injured parties would have done that they have not, in fact, done. I don’t doubt that France, Germany, and Russia’s feelings have been hurt. That is not damage. What cooperation, information, or material support would these three have supplied that they have not, in fact, supplied? The answer to this is that they have done what they perceived to be in their own best interests and absolutely nothing else. I expect them to continue to do so. To tell the truth, I’d go farther. By their refusal to enforce U. N. resolutions it is France, Germany, and Russia that have damaged international institutions.
Mr. Lazarus’s arguments on the domestic side are stronger as he himself seems to know since he presents them first. However, I believe that the problem the administration has in dealing with Padilla and the detainees at Guantanamo is that they don’t like any of the alternatives available to them and are just stalling. I don’t attribute that to malice. Incompetence, perhaps.
GWB did articulate a doctrine of pre-emptive war. But the war in Iraq is not pre-emptive. It’s merely a continuation of the hostilities of Gulf War I due to the failure of the Saddam Hussein regime to live up to the commitments it made to secure a cease-fire.
Mr. Lazarus’s second point appears to be that even a just war should be opposed if it’s not presented correctly. This is obviously wrong. When you remove the ad hominem components from the remainder of this discussion under this point nothing remains.
His third point is that Iraq is a quagmire. One year does not a quagmire make. Time will tell.
I was most disappointed in Mr. Lazarus’s failure to make any material contribution to the counter-alternatives for pursuing the War on Terror. As best as I can determine none of the suggestions he makes would have any material effect either on the the situation in Iraq or the War on Terror generally. Perhaps they would make Mr. Lazarus feel better.
> Point: The Iraq War caused severe damage to international
> and domestic institutions, probably on purpose
Counterpoint: Since I see the UN still standing, I say the damage was neither severe enough nor, alas, sufficient.
> Point: Even before the war, there were reasons to believe we were entering a quagmire.
Counterpoint: Nope, I can’t even agree our current current position deserves the dubious term “quagmire”–nobody ever said the process would be instant, and considering where we started, I don’t think we’re doing badly at all.
Andrew,
I believe I speak with many who are silent that I enjoyed your piece and it articulated my opposition to the war in an eloquent and persuasive manner. I am very happy that you wrote it.
Oh, and of course, I am voting for the Democrat in November.
I too am disappointed by part 2. I am especially disappointed because I was hoping to finally find a coherent, accurate, and internally consistent critique of the invasion of Iraq. Instead I was treated to a meatloaf of moldy cliches. In particular, I take strong exception to the statment that Bush lied to justify the invasion.
Let’s look at the text of UN Resolution 1441, shall we? Scroll down to 1441. Starting with the fourth paragraph “Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security”. Was the UN Security council lying?
Here’s the WMD argument, as I understand it. a) Saddam had chemical weapons. This is a fact, because he used them against the Kurds, at a minimum. b) the UN ordered Saddam to (among other things) i) destroy his WMD and ii) *DOCUMENT* that he destroyed them. Saddam failed to provide documentation of the destruction of his stocks of WMD. Therefore he was in material breach of 1441. Also, it is logical to assume that he still had WMD, since he refused to provide the documentation demanded by the UN. The actual fate of his WMD stocks should be a pressing question for counter-terrorism officals, but it should be a mere footnote in the political debates we are holding.
If you REALLY want to convince me of your views, please (re)read the text of 1441, with all of it’s “Recognizing”, “Recalling”, “Recalling further”, “Deploring”, “Deploring further” and “Deploring also”‘s. Read that, and try your hardest to convince me that when Bush makes the same assertions that the UN does, he’s lying.
I hope that you will return and address the questions raised by the text of 1441. But I do not expect that you will.
Shaun’s talk of “mouldy cliches” is pretty ironic, actually, given the variously-decayed talking points that form what passes for the “response” to Andrew here. I’ll get into this in more detail tomorrow, but in the meantime, I’ll second the kudos “Commenter” gives Andrew.
I’m still amazed how *few* people on the Left are against the Afghan invasion now, and how *many* were round about October-November 2001. I was awfully leery myself going into it.
I’m also flabbergasted to hear so many people (like Andrew in Part I) say the U.S. (or NATO) should have committed much larger numbers of troops to Afghanistan, in effect occupying a country even more hostile to outsiders than Iraq, while simultaneously condemning essentially the same approach in Iraq, where outside intervention seems to have been welcome–at least initially–among far larger segments of a much more cosmopolitan population. The only way I can make sense of it is to assume they believe the only legitimate goal of the “Police Action on Terror” is to capture Osama and the top leadership of al-Qaida in Central Asia, on the apparent assumption that the Taliban are its only significant allies (as Andrew sets out in his first point in Part I). Al-Qaida has allied tentacles that stretch much farther afield than that (from West Africa to Southeast Asia, from Europe to the Americas), and have since well before 9/11.
Excellent posts Andrew. Cogent, honest and devastating. The only thing you left out (not essential, but interesting) is a link to the authorization to use force:
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/1010res.htm
whose linkage of 9/11, Saddam & WMDs is very definition of Orwellian.
Regarding democratization, were I naive enough to believe we actually went to war for that, I would envision this. Democracy in the Arab world will only bring about Islamic governments. I can imagine a democratic and Islamic Iraq, perhaps even one with an orderly transfer of power. It would be the leader of the Arab world. It would also hate America, and lead the fight to uproot Israel.
Be careful what you wish for.
Doctor Slack, I look forward to your more detailed response.
Please keep in mind *Sturgeon’s Law* when you compose your response. [Derived from a quote by science fiction author Theodore Sturgeon, who once said, “Sure, 90% of science fiction is crud. That’s because 90% of everything is crud.” ]
Cruddy arguments by conservatives may make you feel superior, but they are irrelvant to our goal (I presume) of asymptotically approaching the Platonic truth of the moral and pragmatic justification, or lack thereof, for the invasion of Iraq.
Cheers,
Shaun
Re: Be careful what you wish for
“Democracy in the Arab world will only bring about Islamic governments.” Really? From whence do you derive your prescience?
Maybe this is a low probability event, but just think how galling this scenario would be. In Iraq you have an oppressed, non-white people who were the victims of British colonialism back in the day (bloody bastards!) are were invaded by a stupid redneck plastic turkey serving hick who, despite, the opposition of the entire world, and despite his own stupidity, deceived John Kerry of the Senate Intelligence committee, and successfully invaded Iraq.
After the invasion he callously restored electricity, and forced democracy on the devout people of Iraq. And, in the crowning achievement of his bloody minded Machievellian power grab, he forced the Iraqis to govern themselves less than a year after the invasion.
Now, after this unbroken chain of perfidy, imagine, just for a moment, that Iraqis discovered that they like McDonald’s burgers, freedom, and making money. And could, actually, like, you know, think for themselves. (Rather than be told what do and think by Imams and UN Special Envoys)
How tragic would that would be?!?!?
Here on Guam many of the elderly adults I’ve talked to here, whom has a class lived thru the Great Depression, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War, and including a number whom have voted local DEMOCRAT, are unequivocally FOR BUSH, and canot understand or comprehend why any American would be against BUsh and going after the terrorists “over there” instead of “over here”. Those handful of local young-mature adults whom are NOT for BUSH WANT ANYONE ELSE AND DEMOCRAT BESIDES KERRY’ ELSE WILL SUPPORT BUSH! Bush’s problem is that the Left is the RESISTING AND AGAINST HIM ANYWAY NO MATTER WHAT HE DOES – the FAILED LEFT, now also the ANGRY LEFT, is so delusional they are willing to believe that eight years of POTUS BILL CLINTON’s DEMOCRAT-CRITICIZED “Republican” economy, an economy that DemLib Champion and Reagan antithesis BILL CLINTON HIMSELF NOW DISAVOWS, VALIDATES AND JUSTIFIES THE SAME DEMOCRAT PARTY AND LEFTIST IDEOLOGY!? Rather than working to achieve a legitimate and lawful Constitutional amendment whereby future American Presidents are elected via the POPULAR VOTE ONLY, the DemLeftLibs are still, and probably deliberately and maliciously, focused on how Dubya [lawfully/Constitutionally]won Florida 2000! Given domestic and global anti-Americanism, FLORIDA 2000=BAD-CORRUPT AMERICA and GOP-RIGHT. The Clintons, Russia-China, and the Left all believe WORLD SOCIALISM is INEVITABLE, to include INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST SOCIALISM, ala “PEACE, HARMONY, AND SOCIALISM” – it was POTUS Bill himself who said that the young people of today will face a world where the greatest threat to their well-being is no longer from any one country or countries! In typical Lefty “ends justifies the means” alteriorism, Communist Bill was CORRECT BUT DEVIOUSLY TWO- FACED – like a good self-proclaimed RIGHT-LEANING CENTRIST and DEMOCRAT-CRITICIZED “REPUBLICAN” or quasi-Republican Bill was warning us about INTERNAL ABUSIVE GOVERNMENT, but like a good Leftist, Communist, and Leftist Alteriorist HE WAS WORKING TO ACHIEVE THAT WHICH HE WAS WARNING OR WORKING AGAINST – BILL WAS INDIRECTLY CONFIRMING THAT NOT ONLY WAS LEFTISM-SOCIALISM AND LEFTIST ABSOLUTISM A FAILURE, BUT THAT ITS ONLY REAL HOPE OF VALIDATION AND PRECLUSION FROM DESTRUCTION WAS VIA ITS LEFTOVER PRECEPT OF GOVERNMENT- AND STATE-POLITICAL AND BUREAUCRATIC CENTRALISM AS EVOLVED/DERIVED FROM RIGHTISM AND CAPITALISM. IOW, rather than achieve Socialism and Left-based absolutist governance NOW, in direct and parallel BILATERAL COMPETITION with victorious RIGHTISM-CAPITALISM, and instead of waiting for Rightism and Capitalism to naturally evolve into Socialism, and later again into final COMMUNISM, THE FAILED LEFT IS SIMPLY REGRESSING OR DEVOLVING BACK INTO THE RIGHTIST-CAPITALIST DIMENSION/WORLD SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM WILL EVOLUTIONARY STEM FROM, with INTENT TO EXPANSIVELY “PUSH” OR DRIVE SUCCESSFUL RIGHTISM-CAPITALISM TOWARDS SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM, ala UNITARIANISM/UNIFIED SOCIALISM/UNITARY SOCIALISM-CENTRALISM, as PC-disguised under GLOBALISM/INTERNATIONALISM, RIGHTISM-BASED FEDERALISM, and GLOBAL
“INTEGRATED” CONFEDERATISM! Bill Clinton now also admits that his ultimate concept of “global integrated confederatism” CANNOT WORK WITHOUT “SOME KIND OF OVERARCHING OR OVERREACHING LEVELS OF [GLOBAL] AUTHORITY” CAPABLE OF DECISIVELY ENFORCING GLOBAL DECISIONS AS WELL AS [REGULATORY]”LEVERAGING” THE IMBALANCES BETWEEN NATIONS, with STILL “the United States” weirdly and mysteriously “NO LONGER THE BIG BOY ON THE BLOCK”!? If ex-POTUS Bill is going to proclaim his being “PROUD” of being critically labeled a “Republican” or quasi-Republican BY ELEMENTS WITHIN HIS OWN DEMOCRAT PARTY, how can he NOT be a “FASCIST” or “EXTREMIST” like all the rest of the Republican Party and American Right, and why should FAITH-BASED RADICAL ISLAMISTS, whom by definition and by vow are HARDLINE ISLAMIC THEOCRATS AND SELF-PROCLAIMED MILITANTLY ANTI-WESTERN AND MILITANTLY
ANTI-JUDEOCHRISTIAN/NON-ISLAM, PROFESS TACIT SUPPORT FOR A SPANISH [SECULAR] SOCIALIST PARTY THAT IS COMPOSED OF NON-FAITH BASED, SECULARISTS-SOCIALISTS WHOM ARE MOSTLY OR ORIGINALLY FROM JUDEOCHRISTIAN, NON-ISLAMIC STOCKS – I thus believe there’s more to 9-11 than what the Left, the Clintons, and even Osama is telling us!
Dan Darling: This is it, except you might also peruse a long comment on Drain-the-swamp towards the end of the Part I thread.
Brian: Is there anything the Administration is doing you don’t approve of? I threw in the comment about gay linguists precisely because I thought most of the pro-war commenters would find it uncontroversial. After all, we’ve sent in Jewish and Christian soldiers, women soldiers, and even women soldiers not wearing the hijab, all of which are just as culturally discordant as gay soldiers. Projection?
You might also note that Jordan has a free trade agreement with the USA, unique in the Arab Middle East, so we must already think they’re doing something for us. (You know, Israel issued commemmorative memorial stamps on the death of King Hussein.)
Dave Schuler: Are there further arguments against the war you think I should incorporate?
Mark: Please supply an alternative to my theory that half of America believes there were Iraqi hijackers on 9/11, other than misleading statements by the Administration as echoed by the media. The phenomenon is incontrovertible, but so far my explanation that you reject is competing with the null set. That would be a good start towards stopping to talk past each other.
Andrew, people hold mistaken or unjustified beliefs for all sorts of reasons. I’m not sure I can provide you with an adequate causal explanation for the beliefs of US citizens on much of anything, let alone a discrete view about AQ. As far as I know, the official US position is that no solid, direct link between AQ and Iraq was found. Even Clarke – damaged credibility and all – only maintained that he was pressured to find a link, and believed the administration was disappointed when no link was found, not that he witnessed Bush officials falsifying evidence. Neither the FBI nor the CIA could find a link, so the administration couldn’t credibly argue that one existed.
Even if you could establish that the Bush administration created the impression in the minds of some citizens that Saddam participated in 9/11, what use can you make of it?
If it is part of your more general view that Bush lied about information upon which he based his argument(s) for war, that would only destroy the alleged “linked Iraq/AQ” pro-war argument. You still have to refute the democratization argument, the humanitarian argument, and the strategic/deterrent argument (a-d, above).
So far, I haven’t seen substantive counter-arguments against these pro-war positions.
Mark;
Define subtantive. I provided you with a cost/benefit breakdown for spending less than 10% of the current Iraq commitment in other theatres. If you really want to run with the humanitarian case you to address why Iraq is so much more compelling than the alternatives.
Of which there are many.
The democratization argument isn’t an argument, it is an assertion in two parts
1) that Iraq can be turned into a functioning, stable democracy and that
2) this can be used to leverage the creation of less dysfunctional governments throughout the Middle East.
We have no idea how 1 will turn out, but to assert that invading another country in one of the most volatile places on the planet was the best of all possible means of addressing 2 is, frankly, remarkable.
I think that the onus here, Mark, is on you to show why invasion was preferable to anything else, when it comes to the improvement of the standards of government in the ME.
The strategic/deterrent argument is a total non-starter. Finding troops to deal with Haiti was a stretch, and the US military is likely to be dealing with Iraq fatigue for some time to come.
KL,
I’ve explained why and how the democratization of Iraq can and should lead to less dysfunctional ME regimes, and how this can and should reduce terrorism. I’m not going to repeat myself. Your belief that my explanation consisted of 2 assertions is incorrect. Either engage with the democratization argument or concede it.
If you seek to refute it, I would expect you to provide your own alternative explanation and proposal for terrorism.
Obviously we’re not certain how attempts to democratize the ME will turn out. Is it your view that one must be certain of results to undertake a political course of action? This would be a fairly remarkable view, and would require significant justification.
“The strategic/deterrent argument is a total non-starter.”
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Are you suggesting that the US, because of overstretch, cannot deter other rogue regimes? If so, please show how and why.
“I think that the onus here, Mark, is on you to show why invasion was preferable to anything else…”
I thought I’d done this. The democratization of Afghanistan alone would be insufficient for the project of democratizing Iraq and/or the rest of the M.E. (explained, above). Hoping Saddam would be forced out by sanctions is unrealisitc (see toxic chemicals, above). Hoping Saddam would be deposed from within is also unrealistic (see 1991). Simply hunting down AQ (or any other terrorist group) would not change the underlying conditions which give rise to terrorism, and thus is only a temporary solution (see explanation of terrorism, above).
The humanitarian argument doesn’t fail simply becuase of the existence of other immoral regimes. Just because we can’t immediately rid the world of the North Korean government doesn’t mean our project to stop genocide in Kosovo and Bosnia was wrong. Is it your position that an act is moral if and only if there is no other equal or greater opportunity cost that one ignores? If so, please justify your view.
I have, at various times, implored, challenged, pleaded with, begged and goaded the anti-war left to provide a a justification and explanation for indefinitely condemning Iraqis to slavery, torture, rape and genocide. Please tell me there is more to your position than a simple reference to other immoral regimes.
Because at this point, I believe that the anti-war left does not actually have an adequate justification for its (im)moral position.
Wow!!! Really great debate here — great writers, thought-provoking prose. This is what I wish I could read in all comment threads.
Commenter II- That excellance is due wholly to WoC purging the undesireables from the mix, ruthlessly. For some reason, here Ideas are Important, unlike elsewhere.
I told myself I was not going to get back into this argument, but there are two assumptions of Mark’s that I think are just wrong.
First: “Obviously we’re not certain how attempts to democratize the ME will turn out. Is it your view that one must be certain of results to undertake a political course of action?” — No one in their right mind would claim to be CERTAIN whether or not our invasion of Iraq will promote or impede the development of democracy in that country. In the absence of certainty, we need to exercise our best judgment. In Mark’s judgment, the invasion will produce a democracy. In the judgment of most people I know who oppose the war, that is one possible result, but not the most likely; and other scenarios that seem to us as likely, like civil war, are absolutely disastrous. We therefore reject the assumption that our objections to the war are objections to the democratization of Iraq, and also the assumption that if we can’t be certain that attempts to democratize Iraq will fail, we cannot object to the assumption that it will succeed.
Second, about opportunity costs: Mark claims to have argued that various alternatives to invading Iraq would not have worked. But his repeated claims that opponents to the Iraq war must be in favor of the continued oppression of the Iraqi people, if valid, would apply equally to EVERY unjust regime that we do not topple. Is Mark in favor of the ethnic cleansing currently taking place on the southern Sudan? The economic destruction and political oppression being visited on the people of Zimbabwe by Robert Mugabe? The oppression of the peoples of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan? The torture of Kurds in Turkey? The oppression of the peoples in Western China (not to mention the rest of that country)? I assume not. Does he oppose taking action in all of those countries, plus the many others I could have mentioned? Probably not. Is his position contradictory, or even immoral (his word)? You decide.
In any case, the objection to his claim is that even leaving aside questions of international law, the idea that we are justified in invading Iraq because it will produce wonderful results relies on the assumption that there was no alternative use of our resources that would have produced better results. To show that this assumption is false, it is not enough to pick one or two alternatives and show that they would not have been preferable.
“2) this can be used to leverage the creation of less dysfunctional governments throughout the Middle East.”
Depending on how you define “functional government”, this motive can support the whole Iraqi intervention by itself, on both strategic and political grounds. The de minimus goal of the Coalition is not liberal democracy in any Lockean sense, replete with republican checks and balances or Parliamentary procedures by which minorities are protected. Rather, the status quo in the MidE prior to 2003 was protected by a constellation of dysfunctional governments given legitimacy as sovereign states within the UN. The fact that Iraq, and for that matter Yemen and Syria, could sponsor and shield attacks on US forces in that area and on the adjacent seas, showed that internal reform was insufficient. For that matter, it is also insufficient to consider only Iraq, so lines like “what about all the other repressive regimes” are trivial to dispose with, as all these other regimes will either get on the right side of reform, or will be upended into the dustbin of history, most likely by their own people. The issue, pre 2003, was a logjam of degenerate “regional stability”.
Within the context of the UN, such governmental reforms are not matters for consideration, despite the fact that the lack of reform had created the situation in which war was endemic to that region, much as it was endemic in 1939 due to the political instabilities of the Japanese, Italian, and German nations. Tactically, allowing the UN debate to be dominated by WMD details was a mistake, but within the context of the UN it was the US/UK’s sole option as the UN sponsors actively the maintenance of degenerate regimes and concerns itself solely with such bellicose matters as treaty violations. From this particular sequence of events leading up to March 2003’s invasion, we should think seriously about reliance on the UN’s narrow focus as a source for international legitimacy.
Assuming that there is such a thing as “international legitimacy”.
Another good example of dysfunctional government leading to international conflict was the Yugoslav-Serbian instability. Notably, the UN was incompetent in that arena also, ceding all responsibilities to NATO whenever it became onerous or difficult (after Sbrenica’s massacre in which Kofi Annan’s “peacekeepers” watched the town get sacked, or after the PRC vetoed extension of the Macedonian surveillance mission). Whatever good has accrued to that region since has been due to NATO actions which haven’t a shred of international law to stand on, other than the naked fact that they largely worked. So duplication of this logical construct of imposing political reform outside of UN auspices is hardly a novelty.
I haven’t seen much mention of a dynamic among war opponents that I think needs looking at….
And that is that there is a solid alliance between people who categorically think that crossing the Kuwait border was a world-shaking outrage, and those who are in favor or removing Saddam, but think that Bush lied, rushed to war, antagonized allies unnecessarily, and generally, as Kerry would say, “f*cked it up so bad”.
Well, I can make either argument if I had too even though I disagree with them. They are valid, if not “right” in my eyes.
But the point is…. they are virtually diametrically opposed to each other. One OK’s the invasion if done “tactfully”, the other thinks the invasion to be a world-shattering outrage. (Remember that Gulf War I had total UN sanction, and was opposed by 48% of Congress, and millions of “activist” types).
Further to the point, is it not telling that opponents to the war do not even see the glaring contradictions within their own ranks? And the questions this may bring about as to just what it is they stand FOR, as opposed to against?
Andrew X, that doesn’t seem any stranger to me than (say) gay marriage opponents who accept civil unions and gay marriage opponents who want recriminilization of homosexual sex acts working together in the anti-gay-marriage camp.
What sort of bizarre standard of intellectual uniformity must we live up to here? We subsume our differences in an attempt to fix up the damage from a policy we jointly condemn, and to replace the Administration that pursued it with one that has better judgment, even if it’s not exactly our judgment.
hilzoy,
Ok, we’re starting to clarify our positions. I’m glad you concede that I don’t have to prove that democratization is certain. Both the anti-war left and war proponents had to evaluate alternatives. I simply considered the democratization argument (together with other arguments) to be better alternatives than those offered by the anti-war left.
“In Mark’s judgment, the invasion will produce a democracy. In the judgment of most people I know who oppose the war, that is one possible result, but not the most likely; and other scenarios that seem to us as likely, like civil war, are absolutely disastrous.”
This is a little better. You seem to allow that the democratization of the ME would be a good thing, but that there are better alternatives (based on your belief about the likely outcomes). I suppose we’ll have to leave it here, because we have different views of those likely outcomes. I haven’t seen anti-war leftists actually explain and justify their views on likely outcomes of democratization. I’d be curious to see them.
“Mark claims to have argued that various alternatives to invading Iraq would not have worked.” Well, the alternatives to democratization were less attractive (or even grotesque; see below). This includes, of course, condemning Iraqis to slavery, torture and genocide.
I don’t think I tried to force you into defending a position that democratization was a certain loser. But you certainly have to maintain that it will likely result in more suffering for Iraqis and no less global terrorism than alternatives. I think this is a weak position to take, not least because the war was certain to end Saddam’s state-sponsored slavery, genocide, torture and rape, but opposition to the war depended upon uncertain events (discounted, as you’ve noted, above).
“[H]is repeated claims that opponents to the Iraq war must be in favor of the continued oppression of the Iraqi people, if valid, would apply equally to EVERY unjust regime that we do not topple.”
This is confused. Anti-war lefists did not have to be in favour of the suffering of the Iraqi people for me to maintain that they improperly and immorally discounted it. They gave little if any weight to it in their calculations about alternatives. The certainty of ending Iraqi enslavement was set against the possibility of worse outcomes, and the latter was given more weight (if I understand your reasoning). I think this was callous and wrong, and subsequent testimony from Iraqis inside Iraq – who overwhelmingly favoured liberation – bear that out. Put yourself in their situation, and ask if you would rather have Saddam, or a chance for freedom with a risk of death. Miserable slaves or imperilled, tentatively free people? Perhaps this is just a cultural preference. Perhaps the French & Germans and Coalition members would give different answers. I think you know what mine would be.
Re: inability to topple bad regimes.
Humanitarian arguments must be considered against other supplementing and sometimes competing arguments. The fact that we do not topple other immoral regimes does not mean we should not topple the ones we can.
Thanks for your response.
Mark
Democratization of the Middle East is a good thing, OK? I’ve seen some people dispute that, usually along the Algeria model, but by and large I think that this point is accepted. And you’ve explained how (not that I think this point needed to be explained) democratization would reduce Middle East sourced terrorism. But, contrary to your assertions, you haven’t explained how Iraq is the key to democratization.
My point, and I’ll try again to make this clear, is that if your goal is to bring democracy to the Middle East, why and how does invading Iraq best achieve this goal?
Not; how does invading Iraq best remove Saddam. That’s not the question. Not, is hunting down alQ going to be insufficient, that’s not the issue either. Though you helpfully mentioned them while ducking the real issue.
It’s a simple enough question.
What would lead a rational thinker to conclude that, of the alternatives available, an invasion of Iraq is the best means to the end? Where the end is the democratization of the Middle East.
Here are some alternatives for you. What makes Iraq better? Why is it the best, the optimum?
For instance, was everything done to support the formation of democracy in Iran? Now there’s an alternative…a country which was already starting to set aside its immediate past.
And Egypt; has a truce with Israel, very influential country in the region; was everything done to support the development of that country?
And Kuwait.
And I didn’t suggest that the humanitarian argument fails because of the existence of other regimes. I am stating that it fails because the opportunity cost of the war in Iraq is so enormous.
These aren’t matters of fine degree Mark. There are many pressing concerns in the world, which, if addressed, would help orders of magnitude more people, with more certainty, for an order of magnitude less money than has been spent to date in Iraq.
You think that saving 10 000 people a year is worth the deaths of 10 000 civilians, 20 000 Iraqi soldiers, 600 coalition dead, 12 000 US medical evacuations and the $150 billion dollars spent to date. Oh, and the $500 million dollars given to Uzbekistan to help boil people to death.
I must, respectfully, disagree.
As far as deterrence goes Mark, having 100 000 soldiers on their doorstep is apparently not enough for the Iranian clergy to step a little more lightly. As an example.
Andrew J, your gay marriage anology is well-teken, but I would say, if I may use military analogy, that the two wings of ‘Invasion OK, but mis-handled’ vs. ‘Invasion is basically a war crime’ may stand together, but I think they do so with a weak center. The ‘center’ of the two gay marriage camps you mention is “Marriage is something special and unique that must be protected”. They diverge from there.
Where is the center of those two anti-war camps? “Bush sucks”?
One thing many of us who may be conservative but not rabid are saying, crying even, is, for God’s sake Democrats, tell us what you are FOR in this issue. What is your strategy for dealing with totalitarian monsters and ideologies, and the present and future dangers they represent (dangers that the general existence of WMD take to a whole new level)? It is on this issue that a great many Americans hold a rather jaundiced view of the Democratic Party, with good reason.
I really do think that ‘center’ of the two anti-war camps we are discussing is in fact, “Bush sucks”. I can’t see any other.
So, tactically, that is the weak point between those two phalanxes that your opponents (i.e. me, 😉 will go after. And I suppose in November we will find out if “Bush sucks” is held by voters to be a confidence-inspring national security strategy for the United States in these very dangerous times. Or if Republican armies will hit that center head on and roll over it.
KL,
I think I mentioned earlier that it wasn’t inconsistent of me to maintain that we can use hard power in Iraq to foster democratization and soft power elsewhere.
The choice of Iraq and not elsewhere can be defended a number of ways (see my other arguments above). Of course, there was the reasonable belief that Iraq was likely to be no worse off after the Coalition closed the killing fields, rape rooms and torture chambers (in fact, it was likely to be better). Iraq was arguably the worst offender in this regard than Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Also, I think these latter nations are more amenable to soft power than Iraq.
I’d like Syria’s little fascist regime and the faux religious thieves in Iran to crumble as well. Iranian mullahs have almost no popular support, so there is reason to believe that the Iranian people will throw off their chains by themselves (especially with a tentative democracy next door). I agree with you that the West could do more to help them. Syrians are thoroughly under the fascist boot, but their corrupt rulers are not so brutal (yet) that their population would overwhelmingly welcome foreign liberation (which I agree is both humiliating and regrettable), unlike the Iraqis. Even moreso Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait. Invading Saudi Arabia (cesspool of terrorism and hatred of the West) would provoke a spike in oil prices, probably leading to a global recession. Western self-interest most definitely played a part here; no avoiding that. (But consider, also, the self-interest of the UN, France, Germany and Russia in trading Iraqi blood for petro-dollars, however, before you come down on one side or the other.)
There is another construction of this anti-war argument, though, that is interesting. It is the suggestion that other regimes existed that were just as bad or worse than Iraq – all the conditions obtained in other regimes that met the criteria for invasion – and yet the US chose Iraq. Therefore, the US acted wrongly and inconsistently.
This, I would argue, is just a form of an ad hominem tu quoque. The argument shows that the US is hypocritical; it does not demonstrate the invalidity of the pro-war argument. It aims to attack the character of the party, rather than the argument itself. It is no response, for example, to say to someone who suggests “smoking is bad because it causes cancer” that “you smoke”.
So, even if I concede that there were other regimes which met the conditions for liberation/democratization (which I do not), it doesn’t help your proof re: the (im)moral nature of the Iraq war (although it does show that the US and its Coalition partners are hypocritical).
Would some of the anit-war folks please expound further on the opportunity costs issue? Obviously, $200 Billion is not chump change. so, given that money how would you have spend it to further the WoT? I know that some possible options have already be put forward, but there doesn’t some to be much there, there. So here’s your chance to set government policy, at least if we had a way back machine.
Please limit the discussion to the WoT. No world hunger, or dometic hunger, or any other issues please. This is about the WoT only.
These are some of the categories you may like to consider:
1. Homeland ( I HATE that term) security.
2. Efforts toward the short term reduction in terrorism.
3. Efforts toward the long term reduction in terrorism.
If you are feeling really ambitious, please contrast your plan with the Bush plan in each category, and explain way your’s has more bang for the buck. Come on. Don’t be shy.
Mark: my point was basically the one KL just made.
Lurker: I repost something I wrote towards the bottom of the last thread:
“And to the question ‘what was I for’?
In Iraq: intrusive inspections of the sort Blix and el Baradei were actually carrying out, along with targeted (‘smart’) sanctions.
About hearts and minds in the middle east: two things. First, really working on the Israeli/Palestinian problem, and doing whatever we could to solve it, crucially including putting serious pressure on the neighboring states to work towards a solution. Second, doing Afghanistan right.
About the war on terror proper: first, trying to find bin Laden. Whatever one’s views about his present importance to the war on terror, he is responsible for 9/11 and needs to be found for that reason alone. Second, putting a lot more resources into tracking and disrupting terror cells and the financial networks behind them. (Note: today’s New York Times reports the following: “The Bush administration has scuttled a plan to increase by 50 percent the number of criminal financial investigators working to disrupt the finances of Al Qaeda, Hamas and other terrorist organizations to save $12 million, a Congressional hearing was told on Tuesday.” http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/31/business/31irs.html ) Third, spend a lot more money on homeland security. Fourth, initiate a really serious program designed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, including raising automobile fuel standards and other energy efficiency requirements, creating incentives for individuals and corporations who move to more energy-efficient technology, and funding research into new technologies.
The lovely thing about arguing for these points in the present context is that while under normal circumstances one might wonder how I’d pay for all these things, they’d be a lot cheaper than our present open-ended commitment to Iraq, and they leave fewer dead bodies behind as well.”
I would add: it would also be a really, really good thing to help fund non-sectarian education in Pakistan, and to try to secure loose WMDs in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere. And to explain why I put ‘doing Afghanistan right’ in the ‘hearts and minds’ category: I think that we had a once-in-a-generation opportunity in Afghanistan. We could have really provided security for the Afghan people, broken the power of the warlords, and provided a real basis for the rule of law not just in greater Kabul, but in the whole country. We could also have done much more reconstruction work than we did. Had we done so, and stayed for as long as needed to make sure it worked but no longer, we would have done an enormously good thing which would have been recognized as such by the surrounding nations. Moreover, I think that democratization would have been much more likely to work in Afghanistan than in Iraq, and would have required much less in the way of resources. It would also have made breaking al Qaeda much easier (no special forces suddenly pulled out to Iraq, etc.) To have done this right would have been an act of real generosity whose legitimacy was not in question; and I think that this act, in a muslim nation, would have helped attitudes towards the US in the Middle East more than any number of public relations consultants and Arabic language radio stations. One of the main reasons I did not believe that Bush would do Iraq right was that he so completely failed to do Afghanistan right, and Afghanistan was, for a number of reasons, much easier.
hilzoy- you brought up “try to secure loose WMDs in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere..”, but this is a pseudo problem in many ways. Consider Pakistan. Do you think they want outside control of their stockpiles? Certainly not. Now consider the former Soviet states. If they wished to get rid of the nukes, they have done so. Same for chemical stockpiles. But we are left with the impression that stockpiles still remain. Perhaps this is due to the fact that some elements of these regimes want them retained, despite their limited usefulness and degenerating condition? It is rather like Saddam H. pretending to have WMDs when apparently he didn’t, or at least didn’t have them in any useful form. I used to think of counter proliferation as you imply here, until I read of the shake down techniques used by these countries to neuter the stockpile reduction programs.
So your good ideas are precisely that, and may not be practical ideas. Afghanistan and Pakistan have closed tribal societies in the areas in which jihadis are being recruited. You are correct in saying that liberalized education in those areas will signify that severe structural problems are being fixed in the future. But perhaps that type of progress will be an ‘effect’ rather than a ’cause’ which we might use as practical policies. A US analog would be providing better education to US blacks in the mid 20th century. Better education means nothing if the Southern power elites don’t want blacks to be a part of civil society and treat them like second class citizens. So in these foreign cases, we have to look at the roots of the issues, such as a lack of a constitution and legal code, and work from there so that these populations will want to implement better education (or whatever reforms you might specify), as they are not clearly in favor of your ideas at present. Our generousity has little to do with this situation, as was indicated by the invitation to Eastern Europe to share in the Marshall Plan in 1946 onwards. Of course, these Soviet dominated regimes didn’t really desire economic liberalization, so they didn’t get it.
Lurker-
One issue about costs/benefits to the WoT is that the cheapest short term way to deal with Iraq would have been for the US to end sanctions and cut a lucrative deal with Saddam for a big % of his oil. Compared to buying Iraqi oil at market prices today, and paying to reconstruct the oil infrastructure to boot, we have really chosen the least logical path if you consider only dollars and cents in the short term.
Of course, how can you estimate the value for the US of a reformed Persian Gulf economy? That is the long term benefit which these current investments in blood and gold are supporting. Associated with this hope for regional reform is the need for eliminating state sponsored terrorism as was practised by Iraq and is still being supported by the Syrians, Iran, and the PA today. To put a dollar value on preventing another 9/11 attack would be on the order of $30billion, but that is strongly related to the method of attack and its actual success. Obviously, the Madrid bombings aren’t going to cost the Spanish that much, but then future attacks might be worse.
hilzoy,
Thanks for replying. I was hoping to get this thing going in a more positive direction, so hopefully others will chip in their ideas. These threads, I must admit, were getting me rather depressed. Very few, it seems, were interested in finding any common ground. Perhaps it has something to do with the nature of the forum, the Movable Type commenting facility. There’s no threading, and I bet I’m not the only one that feels overwhelmed sometimes trying to keep the arguments straight in my head.
I’ll respond to some of your point in a follow up comment, but might I make a suggestion to the WoC team members first? How about a topic limited to positive ideas for pursuing the WoT that could have benefited with funds tied up in the current Bush plans? These are those pesky opportunity costs. All suggestions would be welcome, even those currently being implemented by Bush.
After a suitable period of time close that topic for comments, and then periodically start a new topic whose subject would be another of the suggestions. These suggestions could then be dealt with regularly, perhaps once a week, with the comments being limited to discussing the merits of that particular suggestion.
The goal of this process would be the establishment of common ground, where there is any, while otherwise exposing the true areas of disagreement. We may never agree on the priorities, but hopefully the added focus would allow the exploration of each idea in detail.
Now that I’ve typed all this in I’m wavering over the Post button. Do I really want to throw this out there, just asking for the dark clouds to gather once again? OK. I reckon I’ll do it. Maybe, if we’re really Power Ball sized lucky, the lightning may provide a few strikes of enlightenment.
What do you think? Pipe dream? Visionary? Boring? Stupid? What?
hilzoy,
Here are my thoughts to your comments……
In Iraq: intrusive inspections of the sort Blix and el Baradei were actually carrying out, along with targeted (‘smart’) sanctions.
This is a short-term solution at best. The only reason that the sanctions regime, and the inspections where moving forward after having been stalled for years, was due to the sole fact of 150,000 US troops next door. As far as opportunity costs go, what would this have saved? The combat bonus pay?
If it is your suggestion that the troops didn’t need to stay, please remember that France, Germany, and Russia were all actively undermining the sanctions well before the war, and it turns out, they along with the UN were complicit in corrupting the food for oil program. So, while the ‘dying Iraqi babies’ were being used to drum up more anti-Americanism, our so-called allies were undermining us at every step.
To wrap this up, the likelihood seems low for the continuation of effective sanctions and inspections beyond 1 or 2 years. Like at the historical record! And don’t forget, all the while we’re the ones taking the blame for killing those ‘Iraqi Babies’. Then after all this, then what? Send the troops back? Or turn Saddam loose? Considering how the sanctions were continuously being undermined, these seem like the two must likely outcomes. So, at best this solution is only a delaying tactic. The problem only is put off for another day.
About hearts and minds in the middle east: two things. First, really working on the Israeli/Palestinian problem, and doing whatever we could to solve it, crucially including putting serious pressure on the neighboring states to work towards a solution. Second, doing Afghanistan right.
WRT to Israel: Do you remember the waning days of the Clinton presidency? Do you remember how Clinton invested the prestige of his office into a comprehensive settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians? Do you remember how Clinton convinced Barak to give the Palestinians 95% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip lands they with offers to negotiate trades for the other 5%? Do you remember how Jerusalem was offered as a joint Capital? Do you member the joint commissions that were going to oversee the various common cultural sites, like the Temple Mount? Do you remember what Arafat did with this offer on the table? That’s right Intifada 2. Now, what specifically was Bush supposed to do differently this time?
WRT to Afghanistan: I’ll agree that Afghanistan is being shortchanged somewhat. But not by much. For our purposes, we have exactly what we want in Afghanistan. We’re accepted there because we are playing by their own War Lord rules. The country in general is denied to terrorists as a training and staging area. Sure there are locally eruptions here and there, but they routed pretty quickly. And I’m not so sure that there’s much wrong with the Kabul out approach to democratization there. If Kabul begins to prosper, and it is, then it will pull commerce in from the countryside, and push liberalizing culture outward. So, maybe some more infrastructure assistance in the larger cities, finish the long delayed highway construction programs, and maybe give them a free trade agreement (no opium!) and that should about cover it.
About the war on terror proper: first, trying to find bin Laden
Until recently, there largest impediment to capturing Bin Laden was the lack a Pakistani assistance in the border areas. Assuming of course that he’s still alive and in the area. I don’t know how I can judge whether extra agents would help this or not, or whether more people would help the tracking of terrorist funds. I’m not privy to the secret stuff.
it would also be a really, really good thing to help fund non-sectarian education in Pakistan
Do you really think so. Do you think the folks now getting the madrassa education would be amenable to a liberal, er, I mean a Great Satan education? It would seem that the only ones that would take a liberal education from us, are not the ones out to get us. The America Haters would not want an education from us. Now, I agree that an education is it’s on reward, but I’m not sure how this helps us in the War on Terror.
and to try to secure loose WMDs in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere
Hopefully, we’re taking care of this. I haven’t read anything about it in over a year.
To have done this right would have been an act of real generosity whose legitimacy was not in question
I’m sorry… I have to ask. Why is it that the US can only act on the international stage without criticism from the left when we don’t have any obvious interest. In fact, if our interests coincide with those of some oppressed people, like the Iraqis, then any possible intervention is tainted? Would our help in Bosnia and Kosovo have been welcome if they had oil fields? Why can’t we act in our own interests?
and I think that this act, in a muslim nation, would have helped attitudes towards the US in the Middle East
Do you mean like Kosovo and Bosnia? That sure bought us a lot of goodwill didn’t it?
completely failed to do Afghanistan right
I don’t think we’ve failed in Afghanistan, let alone completely failed. What have you consider to get to the ‘completely failed’ conclusion?
Tom,
This has been the strongest rebuttal to the whole “No blood for oil” argument. It would have been much, much cheaper to just pay off Saddam and buy his oil like our erstwhile allies.
And what we really need to figure out is the net present value of all future terrorists attacks for all the various scenarios. What would be the impact of a nuclear explosion in Manhattan? Prevent one of these and we’re really saving money.
I’ve heard that the 9-11 WTC attack cost the US economy at least $100 billion dollars. If we prevent just one more, then the Iraq war is half paid for. Prevent two and we break even.
I find AJK’s arguments too simplistically motivated by his admitted anti-Bush animus. As others have pointed out, GW II was merely a legal and “lawful” continuation of GWI, which was suspended by a cease-fire of certain well-defined terms—all of which were violated by Saddam repeatedly.
No further “casus belli” was indeed required, though the Bush administration attempted valiantly to provide same for the benefit of weak-willed and weak-minded Liberal/Left, as well as the perfidious French, the corrupt Russians and the clueless Germans! Some “allies”! With allies like that…..well, you know the rest!
As for WMD’s, they have already been found and in huge quantities, the MSM and anti-war left simply choose to believe otherwise. The Bush folks appear to have elected not to fight that battle in view of the overwhelming evidence of the evil of the Saddam regime and the idiocy of the Left in supporting, in retrospect, its continued existence.
The Left’s silly insistence that the US offended its allies, is an admission that it cannot fathom the truism that “Nations do not have friends, they have only interests”. Besides, what could these “allies” have realistically contributed to the effort? The Charles DeGaulle Carrier Battle Group?
Andrew, come back and post, when you grow up1
Who should we believe—Duke, or David Kay, hand-picked to investigate WMD by the Bush Administration (and, by FEC records, himself a Republican contributor)?
Kay says: no WMD. He even seems increasingly ticked at the failure of his erstwhile friends to care about this, or to stop trying to fudge.
Duke, after his careful perusal of LGF and Free Republic, rebuts thus:
Duke, come back and post when you sober up!
Andrew J.L.- Duke’s post was weird in its lack of precision, both concerning your initials, punctuation, and its facts. His point about WMDs being found was correct post GW#1, but not this time around. I can say that both from reading the news and from reading intel digests. So its not just a media thing concerning WMDs, even if the exact significance of our not finding them after March 2003 is open to discussion. In that latter context, the rest of his post makes some valid points, undermined by his lack of factual precision.
Your response, however, is deficient in dragging in Kays’s position as a GOP supporter. Kays’s conclusions are valid, or invalid, without respect to whether he is such a party partisan or not. Here you fall into the ad hominem (circumstantial) fallacy mode.
hilzoy,
I think Lurker has done a good job of pointing out some of the major problems with your alternative approach to terrorism, so I’ll not to be repetitive.
First Point:
I suppose it’s implicit that your alternative approach is more morally justified than the Iraq war/democratization approach.
However, under your plan, there is little if any proposal for (or even acknowledgement of) the continued genocide, torture and rape in Saddam’s Iraq.
I suppose you can counter that the Palestinian situation is a human rights issue, and that it is equally, if not more deserving, of our moral attention. So the net moral gain is positive.
Yet I’m curious as to why you give preference to the Palestinian cause and not the Iraqi cause? Although the Palestinians are an oppressed people, surely they weren’t suffering the same level of genocide and torture experienced by the Iraqis under Saddam. In my view, the extensive mass graves, state-sponsored rape and torture, extermination campaigns, pointless million-death wars, and naked enslavement of an entire people certainly argues for Iraqis as the most oppressed of the region.
You might counter that resolving the Palestinian issue will lead to greater M.E. democratization, thus lending greater urgency to the promotion of justice for the Palestinians.
However, in my view, the assumption that the lack of a resolution for Palestinians causes Arab political dysfunction is incorrect. I would argue that the lack of a Palestinian resolution is actually an effect of Arab political dysfunction. Arab political dysfunction, like most systems of slavery, requires submissive slaves. One method of keeping slaves passive (so brilliantly demonstrated by Orwell) is to promote the idea that there is a greater threat beside the masters (Oceana is at war with Eurasia; Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia, etc).
This, in my view, is why various leaders of Arab tyrannies always respond to demands for political reform with the retort of Israeli aggession against Palestinian Arabs. Syria has been in a state of emergency for something like 50 years, in preparation for an Israeli attack. But of course the issue of Israel/Palestine has no intellectual relation to the lack of voting rights or government censorship in Saudi Arabia or Syria.
Thus, democratization in Arab nations, it is hoped, might lead to a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
So, in sum, I don’t see how you can claim a net moral gain here. I think, also, that it reinforces my claim that the anti-war left took a morally dubious position.
Second Point:
To address the underlying conditions that give rise to terrorism, you seem to suggest (a) increased liberal education in Pakistan and (b) increased US resources for Afghanistan to quicken democratization.
It’s not clear that your “education” approach to democratization is any more certain than Iraqi political reform. In fact, I would argue that is is less robust and less direct an approach. It would take at least a generation before present Pakistani schoolchildren are able to intellectually engage with political dysfunction, and longer still until their new liberal ideas are accepted and implemented. Laudable a goal as this is, it is both less direct (requiring two steps to create political reform) and slower than Iraqi democratizaton.
And, of course, Pakistan is farther away from, and less culturally related to, the terrorist training grounds of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt, such that the effect of a Pakistani liberal democracy would not be as powerful as Iraqi liberal democracy.
This last comment applies as well to Afghanistan reform. Although I agree that the US could do more to assist with Afghan stabilization, I fail to see why other European “allies” cannot put up additional resources for it. (The days of free-riding on US defence bus should come to an end.) Perhaps they can kick in some of the money they stole from Iraqis.
Mark- Pakistan isn’t so far removed from terrorism as you put matters. For India, Pakistani jihadis are The Source of Terrorists. And then there was the Pak ISI/Taliban/AQ linkage, so even if the actual perps in 9/11 and 3/11 were not Pakistanis, then some of their infrastructure certainly was, at least in the past. Whether Musharraf can alter this today is open to question. One thing is for sure, in 1998 Musharraf started the Kargil Incident, which was a virtual war, on the instigation of the Kashmir irredentists, so the influence of overt terrorist organs in Pakistani society is certainly strong and it has the baleful side effects of keeping women under birkas and strangling economic reform.
But here is where democratization is often problematic at first: Pakistan is organized for democratic reasons as a Muslim state under Shari’ia. To us that appears an oxymoron having democratic and Shari’ia in the same sentence. But to them it isn’t. In Pakistan it is the governmental elites which most fervently support economic liberalization. But these elites are the ones who have oft held the power behind the serial coup leaders of the past. So democracy, by itself, and without liberalization of the society, will lead in strange directions. This is why Bremer is willing to strong arm Mullah Sistani in Iraq in order to pre event exclusive Shiite control over a future Iraq. And it will be this template stemming from Iraq which might show the Libyas and Pakistans what is possible and desireable.
“After all, we’ve sent in Jewish and Christian soldiers, women soldiers, and even women soldiers not wearing the hijab, all of which are just as culturally discordant as gay soldiers. Projection?”
Sounds like your the one projecting. I merely pointed out that Arabs routinely stone gays, far more so then women and Christians. I suspect that the Arab hatred of a gay Arab working with the US is far greater then that of a simple colaborator. In addition, gay arabs are likely to have family in the ME that can be leaned on by jihadis. Do you honestly think they wouldn’t try that?
I suspect your reaction has more to do with your bias then mine. You obviously missed A.L.s thread on the arrogence of the leftists, and the resulting harm it does to your cause.