UPDATE: Citizen Smash went to the antiwar demonstrations in San Diego, and filed quite a report. He even interviewed one of the speakers. Go check him out, view this picture, and then read the site linked below…
Here’s some interesting reading from an antiwar Brit who’s disgusted with the antiwar movement and wants it fixed. (Hat Tip to the always excellent Harry’s Place). Essays include, in order:
# A Personal Journey Through the Stop the War Coalition
# Unholy Alliances: The Stop the War Coalition, the Extreme Left and Islamic Fundamentalism
# Sinning by Omission: The Stop the War Coalition and Palestine
# Playing Pontius Pilate: Why Shouting “End the Occupation” Isn’t Helpful
# Stop the War Coalition Rehab: A 7-Step Programme
# Further Online Reading
I’ve read lots of very similar things about our domestic antiwar movement – and seen them myself in some of the older “New Left” era.
In case people wonder why I – a pro-war liberal – would want to see a healthier antiwar movement, the answer’s simple. I don’t think I have a monopoly on truth, and constructive, intelligent dialog is needed to help us all constantly review and check our perceptions of events and the world. I think we need a real debate – because when we have one, we’ll begin to be able to build a common framework from which we can act as a nation and a culture.
We’re a long way from there today.
So what’s your point?
I am anti-Iraq war but pro-war on terrorism.
There are people all over the spectrum on this issue. For every poorly articulated anti-Iraq war argument there is an equally bad pro-war one.
But you seem to be placing the blame for the supposed absence of an “intelligent dialog” on the Iraq war (that’s the war I presume you’re referring to, not the “war on terror”) entirely at the feet of anti-war groups. Perhaps you disagree with some of their motives or methods, and that’s fine because I probably do also.
From my perspective the problem with having an honest debate on the subject is coming from the pro-war side, specifically the insistence that there is a connection between Iraq and global terrorism.
Having a “debate” vs. a “movement” are two different issues. One does not necessary depend on the other to be effective. People involved in movements are not always interested in debates, and people (like me) who wish to debate their positions are not always interested in “movements”.
Check this out: The left claims that the Socialists won in Spain, when the PP was ahead in the polls, because Aznar tried to cover up evidence that Al Queda was behind the bombing. But Aznar did not mislead, and the Socialists spun their way to a victory by falsely claiming he did.
Zapatero is going to have a very shaky presidency. I wonder if PP are going to press for a recall.
VT,
This is why the anti-war crowd is responsible for offering some sort of intelligent dialogue.
http://users.lmi.net/zombie/sf_rally_march_20_2004/
When this stops becoming the mainstream voice of the anti-war crowd you’ll probably see a lot more people who supported the war willing to discuss it.
VT,
This is why the anti-war crowd is responsible for offering some sort of intelligent dialogue.
http://users.lmi.net/zombie/sf_rally_march_20_2004/
When this stops becoming the mainstream voice of the anti-war crowd you’ll probably see a lot more people who supported the war willing to discuss it.
The problem is very simple: there is ONE place in world where people have the right to tell that ethy are against the war. That place is Iraq. It is to teh Iraquies to decide if the deaths and sufferings of the war were bigger or lesser than the deaths and sufferings under Saddam. If the Iraquis think they have been bigger and demonstrate against it then the demonstrations elsewhere are legitimate.
But since the Iraquis aren’t demonstrating it converts the demonstrators elsewhere in a band of well-fed first world petit bourgeois asking other people to live in misery, to see their child die from illness while Saddam and the UN pocketted the money for medicines and to live in fear of being fed into plastic shredders.
Dear A. L.:
The antiwar Brit’s posts are simply brilliant. I would add one more step to his 7 point plan: abandon radicalism. Surely the patron saint of radicalism is Voltaire who said (I paraphrase): “the perfect is the enemy of the good” i.e. don’t accept anything but a perfect solution.
In the real world we don’t have perfect solutions offered to us–we have to accept one of the alternatives we have.
I’m pro-WoT and skeptical on the war in Iraq. A flurry of correspondence with Steven Den Beste over at USS Clueless let me to accept, for the time being, the war on Iraq as being arguably the best of the available alternatives for prosecuting the War on Terror.
Dave- The patron saints for the radicals were those British Labourites who severed their links with the Fabian Socialists and Liberals to establish formally the welfare state. Overturning the existing power paradigm of the turn of the last century was Radical.
But the problem with any victory of any movement is what is the reprise for said victory. What next?
Well, in the UK, the Next Thing was Maggie T. and then the Blairite version of Labor who essentially coopted the Liberal stance on virtually all issues. Blair would have made Lloyd George very proud indeed. But the Radicals now have their goals: press on for the overturning of Tory opposition and Blairite accommodationism. The War In Iraq is just one motif in this Cause Celebre. A similar analysis can be made of the French and German Radicals response to Gaullist and Kohl/CD nationalism and how their new desire is to dispose of the nation state and turn over its sovereign powers to the radicalized, and unaccountable, EU.
Vesicle Trafficker:
I’d be more convinced of your reasonableness if your email wasn’t “BushLieMachine@yahoo.com”, but maybe that’s just me.
Why discuss anything? Talk is cheap!
There is no law . . . Doctrine of Necessity:
“Necessity knows no law”.
International War CANCELS all law(s). . .
Who cares who started what – WAR is!
No constitution in America since AT LEAST 1863: Lincoln’s imposed Proclamation 100 – The Lieber Code.
Reconstruction Acts 1870’s: turned the slaves over to their “federal master” (citizens of the US as opposed to the individual States).
Cancellation of the 9th, 10th Amendments!
1933 FDR’s Executive Odors – abrogated the gold clause, FORCED the use of private credit (federal reserve notes) . . .
Violation of rules, regulations, statutes, codes and administrative procedures: for example: 12USC411 requires the fed to redeem their “notes” (IOU’s) for lawful money – ever try it?
Can’t do it. All they’ll give you is more “notes”.
Saddaam was paying premium dollars to families of suicide bombers in Israel. Does financial support of terrorism in Israel not count as a connection to”Global Terrorism”. Discuss.
You’re suggesting Hamas or Hezbollah are a direct threat to America? Bush has stretched the definition of “terrorist” beyond credulity to justify his attack on Iraq. When Bush came into office, he had a clear threat from specific terrorist groups, not every terrorist on the planet.
To answer your second question, Bush has already decided to only target specific terror organizations. That is and has been US policy for a long time since surely we can’t oppose ALL terrorist organizations. The question therefore becomes which ones deserve our greatest attention? Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror since Saddam’s links to terrorists that threaten us the most are non-existent. And curiously, very little attention has been given to domestic terrorists. Where is the government’s response to the Anthrax and Ricin attacks? Very selective application of the term indeed.
Bush is not interested in a “credible threat of force”, he’s interested in using force in a punitive, not preventative, manner. And this only will serve to escalate the war, not win it.
Just look at Isreal’s killing of Hamas’ leader today as an example. Hamas will retaliate, and Isreal cannot stop them from doing so. Many Isreali civilians will die. It will go on endlessly. Bush has decided to take a similar road, to the delight of Bin Laden who is playing Bush for a fool.
Do you not think terrorists will attack the US again? Because if you do then what has Bush accomplished by attacking Iraq? How has that made us safer?
And I’d be more convinced of your reasonableness if you didn’t think you could dismiss my arguments because of my email address.
Vesicle Trafficker,
You’re not serious about Hamas and Hezbollah not being direct threats to America, are you? I think the families of about 250 marines and the victims of Khobar towers would beg to differ. As would the families of the Americans killed by Palestinian terrorists late last year. And yes, of course terrorists will attack us again. But we have begun a long process of a) scaring people in the Middle East into giving up support for terrorists–you think Khaddafy had a religious conversion?–and b) showing people in the Middle East (who can smell weakness and fear) that you f**k with Uncle Sam, you pay the price. Does that make us safer right now? Probably. Does it make us safer in the long run? Undoubtedly. Are we going to stop defending ourselves because we’re afraid to provoke people who want nothing more than to destroy us anyway? That’s just silly.
Fred;
If Palestinian terrorist organizations are a direct threat to Americans (and I meant on American soil but I’ll accept your point), then why don’t we go after them directly? Have Hamas and Hezbollah been hurt because we ousted Saddam, one of their “sponsors”? There’s no evidence that this is or ever will be an effective way to deal with any terrorist organization, including Libya who was negotiating for disarmament long before the Iraq war.
Also, there are a lot of governments “sponsoring” terrorists by giving them money and safe harbor. Topping that list would be Saudi Arabia and perhaps even Pakistan. Iraq doesn’t even qualify as the most direct threat by that definition. If this is Bush’s argument then his own inconsistencies in implementing this “doctrine” raise serious doubts about whether he really believes this himself or if it is just another post-facto excuse.
But this I really like:
b) showing people in the Middle East (who can smell weakness and fear) that you f**k with Uncle Sam, you pay the price.
This is naive at best and dangerous at worst. You think Bush’s very public tough talk against terrorism plays like that in other countries? He’s playing to American audiences, not foreign terrorists who are more likely to view his actions as provocations, not threats. Even if it does succeed in “scaring” leaders, do you think the terrorist foot-soldiers care, or that this will impead their ability to do terrorism? How much “sponsorship” do you think it took to do 9/11? These folks are armed with hatred as their primary weapon, and there’s plenty of that to go around, as well as plenty of places to hide from Bush and the marines.
Are we going to stop defending ourselves because we’re afraid to provoke people who want nothing more than to destroy us anyway? That’s just silly
The real question is when are we going to start defending ourselves against the people who want to destroy us? Since Iraq had neither the means nor the motives to do so, why are we there? And why were we led to believe they had both?
Vesicle:
You may have missed it, but I set out my own arguments contra the “Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11” in *a previous post* about the Iraq’d website.
Rather than repeat all the arguments I made there, can I just refer you?
A.L.
VT,
This is the latest from the “non-threatening to US interests” Hamas:
“The Zionists did not commit their action without the approval of the American terror government and they will have to accept responsibility for this crime. All Muslims worldwide will be proud to avenge this crime”, the Hamas said in a statement Monday following the death of Ahmed Yassin, leader of the Hamas terror organization.
Vesicle:
In your original comment you stated that there was no linkage between “global terror” and Iraq. I’m willing to concede that Al Qaeda had no training camps in Iraq; so what? That wasn’t your original premise. You said that Iraq wasn’t contributing to global terror. I said that they demonstrably were.
We are talking about global terror. I don’t believe today’s name for a group has a high predictive value for tomorrow’s terrorist targets. So yes, I consider Hamas and Hezbollah a direct threat to me. After all, I support the continued existence of the state of Israel.
Bush followed exactly the same policy toward Al Qaeda as followed by Clinton. Turns out it was a bad policy.
Told you that while you helped him clear brush on the Crawford ranch, did he?
Snide remarks aside, remember the famous quote from bin Laden about “strong horse” versus “weak horse”? Afghanistan may have made someone like Khadafi a little uncomfortable, but he could always take comfort that technically, Iraq was at war with the UN, and Saddaam was still in control and building palaces. “The US has gotten its rocks off” he might think, “now they’ll go back to sleep.”
Credibility is defined by action. I want the United States to strike fear in the hearts of the governments who fund the guys who strap the bombs on the idiots. Focusing on frightening the idiot is a loser’s game. Focusing on frightening the bombmaker is a holding tactic, because somebody will always do the job if the pay is right.
I expect you’ll ask “Why should we want anyone to be frightened of us? Fear leads to hate.” And I’ll answer that the government of Afghanistan (such as it was) wasn’t afraid of us. That let all those guys with the money set up shop and train their useful idiots. And Hussein wasn’t afraid of us, and that let him run his bluff for 10+ years, scamming the UN. Fear has its uses.
Yes, I think terrorists will hit the United States again. I think it’s inevitable. It will happen more than once. All I’m looking for are policies that will make me safer, not perfectly safe. “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”
I especially think following the Spanish Solution would increase the frequency of attacks. Rewarding the terrorist by cutting and running from Iraq strikes me as a Bad Move. Arguably that would address concerns of some of the idiots who allow themselves to be strapped into the Boom Suit. Otherwise I don’t see it doing much good. And Hamas (and corollary organizations) will just find other cannon fodder to do the job.
As to your concern that we’re not paying enough attention to the possibility of domestic terrorism, does that mean you’re in favor of extension of the Patriot Act? Or do you want to strengthen it first?
Your email address (“BushLieMachine@yahoo.com”) is your business. But if you wear a clown suit to the forum, expect it to have an effect on the perception of your message.
VT,
I don’t have much to add to what others have said in response to your response to my post. I will say one thing, however. I frankly don’t care what the Euroweenies think about Bush’s rhetoric. And as for the terrorists seeing it as a provocation, as one commentor noted above, you can’t scare the suicidal loonies, but you can scare the people who support them. And we have (once again, I mention Khaddafy). And terrorists cannot operate as efficiently without state support. There’s a reason we haven’t seen another 9/11. Bali and Madrid were much smaller scale and much softer targets, a sign of weakness, not strength on the part of the loonies.
Actually, I guess I’ll say one more related thing. Yes other countries support terrorism. Why didn’t we go after them? Because one size doesn’t fit all. It makes sense to me to start with the easiest target to take out, i.e. Iraq and see if that scares the others into line. If it does (and to a large degree it has) you don’t have to go after the more difficult targets. If not, you’ve got to be prepared to move on them and they’ve got to believe you will. I think we’ve accomplished that as well.
Mark;
This is what I wrote:
“From my perspective the problem with having an honest debate on the subject is coming from the pro-war side, specifically the insistence that there is a connection between Iraq and global terrorism.
That you have regurgitated as:
“You said that Iraq wasn’t contributing to global terror. I said that they demonstrably were. ”
You seem intent on proving my original point, which I have italicized so you won’t miss it this time.
I am continually reminded of the correlation between those who advocate the “chest banging” tough-guy approach to the “war on global terrorism” and a dismissive or belittling attitude towards those who don’t agree with them. I guess its part and parcel of the same world-view. I expect you will react angrily to this.
How can you be so sure that this approach will work? Or perhaps it doesn’t matter whether it does because this is a more “honorable” approach, or one that satisfies the anger that terrorism provokes? And what evidence would be necessary to convince you that it is the wrong approach?
Trent;
If Hamas is our enemy, then why don’t we go directly after them? We know where they are. Have they been weakened now that Saddam is gone? His “sponsorship” of their activities was peripheral to their operations, so I don’t see how it has helped.
Armed Liberal;
I will read your post later when I have more time to do so, thanks for pointing it out to me. And I apologize if I am taking the thread too far OT.
There’s just too much certainty on the Pro-Iraq war side to permit an honest debate on the subject. To be considered open-minded, one must be prepared to concede that their opinions could be changed.
VT:
I’m not sure our current approach is going to work, but I think it beats the earlier status quo. Before, all we were willing to do was bang our chests and make threats, and eventually our enemies decided that’s all we had. For what it’s worth, I blame Reagan as much as I blame either Carter or Clinton, and Bush 41 pissed me off to no end by not finishing what he started. It’s why I still don’t trust Powell.
Actually, I am seeing evidence that our current approach is working; Libya is coming in from the cold, Pakistan is ‘fessing up to crimes committed and helping against the warlords; those being the strongest positive signs. Then there’s the “negative” evidence (which is always harder to trust): no major terror attacks on American soil since 9/11. (I am knocking on wood right now.) Madrid and Bali have happened; but making the case that they wouldn’t have happened if the U.S. had just stayed home is hard to do.
I also don’t discount the humanitarian achievement in Iraq, or the progress in Afghanistan. Even if you don’t buy the idea that humanitarian goals might be being important to this Administration, you should at least acknowledge positive side effects.
I’ll take personal comments and observations offline in the future. I’ve been thinking about it, and while I think I still had a point, it wasn’t one I needed to share with the whole world. So I apologize.
“I’m not sure our current approach is going to work, but I think it beats the earlier status quo. Before, all we were willing to do was bang our chests and make threats, and eventually our enemies decided that’s all we had.”
This line of reasoning reveals a lot about the way you and other Pro-Iraq war people think.
In this view, terrorism is provoked by “weakness”. 9/11 therefore will be interpreted as a failure not in intelligence or prevention (both of which can occur effectively without the need to bang chests) but of some perceived projection of “weakness” that inspired our enemies to act. However, what evidence can you offer to substantiate your presumption about terrorist thinking?
But this brings us to another point. 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch. If Richard Clarke is to be believed, Bush did worse than maintain the Clinton-era status quo, he worsened it. Perhaps that sent the necessary “go” signal to the 9/11 hijackers? If you are a supporter of a strong response to terrorism and this interpretation of events is even partly accurate, Bush should be held accountable for his actions. Sadly, he has shown no inclination to admit his role in this.
And if I were a terrorist right now, I’d be laughing at Bush for attacking Iraq. Toughness against Saddam has no bearing on Al Qaeda.
I supported our invasion of Afghanistan and the ouster of the Taliban, BTW, so I am by no means a peacenik. My brother works a block from the WTC and he ran for his life on that horrible day. This strikes close to home for me. I am as angry as the next person, perhaps even more so, about the lack of respect for life that terrorists show. I want to see the world rid of these maniacs. But I simply cannot see how acting tough and striking at a peripheral foe does anything but make the situation worse.
What should Bush have done if he were really serious about protecting us from terrorism? How about increased port and rail security? How about buying rogue nukes? How about fully funding the Homeland Security Dept. (which he initially opposed, BTW, after 9/11)? How about anti-missle systems on commercial airliners? How about providing enough support to Afghanistan to make sure it doesn’t slip back into Taliban/terorist hands? The 150 billion and counting spent on Iraq could have gone a long way towards achieving what many reasonable people regard as a more direct response to protecting America from terrorists. That he chose to divert our resources to what can at best be only loosely connected to defending America from the terrorists who threaten us here at home is negligent and irresponsible leadership.
And for every “positive” side effect there is also a potential “negative” one as well. After we leave Iraq in the hands of the Iraqis, there is the very real chance it will slip into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists…the majority of people there do not want a secular government. This will then potentially be fertile ground for breeding future terrorists. It seems Bin Laden has woven a clever plan to infiltrate Iraq, hasn’t he? Can Bush guarantee this will not be the outcome?
From http://www.emergency.com/bladen98.htm (scroll down, or read it all, sometimes it pays to see that we should have seen this coming):
This was broadcast on American television back in 1998. (Dateline June 11, 1998)
I don’t think their perception of weakness on our part “inspired our enemies to act” (or “provoked” them, or “led” them, or “forced” them) but I think it may have affected their thinking. But I’m just quoting Bin Laden, what do I know?
Mark;
This is what constitutes the basis for your belief, and our national policy? A quote from a terrorist? You agree with him? Do you think perhaps Bin Laden was attempting to prick at the pride of American leadership?
And what about the rest of the quote, where he predicts a “black day” for America? Perhaps Bush would have done better to heed those words instead of reacting reflexively to the affront to American military pride. Many people died because apparently it is more important to act tough than to act intelligently.
I have a suggestion — can we separate the labels “anti-war” and “pacifist”? Anti-war has come to include both people who were against the Iraq War specifically and people who are against all wars. The motivations, the reasoning — the movements aren’t the same. This would clear up the debate.
Toning down the cynicism, reflexive assumptions and general rancor would probably help healthy debate immensely as well.
Sugar Plum Fairy, I agree that reflexive assumptions need to be toned down. Cynicism and rancor are end products, however, not root causes.
VT:
And when I present my evidence, your first reply is “well, that’s a single quote” followed by the contradictory “and why didn’t Bush listen to the threats that followed?Capped with the obligatory insult to Bush’s (low) intelligence and (high) beligerance.
I’m not going to spend hours tracking down multiple quotes from terrorists supporting my thesis. I tried to find the most egreqious and least easily ignored. I’m not going to hunt down similar blustering quotes from Hussein in the same vein; I read the news, and I presume everyone else on this site did as well. I’m also not going to go into a lenthy screed on the false dichotomy between “tough” and “intelligent”. Why? Because the conditions for success in this micro-debate keep moving.
SPF, in my humble opinion healthy debate can be heated as long as it is intelligent, rational, and internally consistent. I read comments on this site because the debate here generally meets those conditions.
I’ll try to leave the heavier sarcasm for my own site, though. Thinking about it, “screeding” isn’t really part of the stylebook here.
“The real question is when are we going to start defending ourselves against the people who want to destroy us? Since Iraq had neither the means nor the motives to do so, why are we there? And why were we led to believe they had both?”
While it can be argued now, after the fall of Saddam, that Iraq did not have the means to attack the US directly (although who thought that a private organization had that capability 9/10), it is pure sophistry to suggest that the Iraqis, in particular Saddam Hussein, lacked the motive to do so. Let’s see: Gulf War I, 12 of sanctions, 12 years of no-fly zones, 12 years of intense political pressure, all seem pretty good motives to me.
Baathist Iraq was part of a loosely connected, pan-Arab network of states, terrorist organizations, political movements who have been conducting military and political operations against Western interests for decades. You have no knowledge as to what information, resources, or plans that they may be sharing. The Arab world is highly insular, ethnocentric, xenophobic and very difficult to penetrate. It strikes me as foolish, and perhaps dangerous, to pontificate about Arab capabilities, motives and intentions in light of this ignorance, especially with the aim of minimizing the threat to the West.