I invited smart anti-war commenter Chris to mirror what I’d done by compiling what he saw as the best arguments for the war. Here (unedited) is what he sent me, which I’d like to subject to the same process as my own list of antiwar points. Please comment on this post and refine this list; I’ll republish the consensus take (or better, if I can convince Chris to do that much work, ask him to do it).
– A.L.
By way of providing symmetry to Armed Liberal’s post of 12/01/05, he’s asked me to sum up the pro-war arguments as best I can.
However, I should preface this list by pointing out two things. First, in the interests of brevity, I’ve tried to keep the bullet points relatively short, and the arguments limited to what I think are reasonable points that have consistently been made by the hawkish side. This means, for example, that I haven’t included some of the “shifting the political balance to the Shiites” arguments that Jim Peterson has been making over the past couple of days – although this omission should not be taken as an indication that these arguments aren’t interesting or valid.
Second, I should point out that, just as AL’s anti-Iraq war list tended to confuse the issues of “should we be in Iraq” and “how do we win in Iraq”, this list may also confuse certain issues. For example, many people can and have made the argument that while the Iraq war itself was a just and necessary action, the Bush administration’s prosecution of the war has left much to be desired. However, for the purposes of this list, I’ve tried to compile arguments that, by and large, do not make a large distinction between Bush’s leadership and the overall Iraq strategy.
That said…
1. The attacks on September 11 proved that modern technology can act as a tremendous force multiplier, such that even a very small number of relatively unsophisticated enemies can do extraordinary damage to a modern society. By far, the most dangerous such force multipliers are Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), which can cause catastrophic destruction without relying on large organized support structures, such as nation-states and conventional armies. Once in the hands of terrorists, WMDs would be almost impossible to keep out of a large, open, trade-oriented country such as the United States. Therefore, WMDs must be stopped at their source: namely, nation-states which have the capacity to produce WMDs, and a possible motive for selling/giving said WMDs to terrorists. The nation-states at the top of such a list would be Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, with others such as Libya and Pakistan existing in the second tier. Out of that list, Iraq was the logical best choice to take on because of the following reasons:
1a. We had been in a state of hostilities with Iraq since the end of the Gulf War.
1b. We knew that Saddam continued to hold an animus against the US and its leaders (e.g. the assassination attempt on George Bush Sr.).
1c. We knew that Iraq was not above using unconventional means of attack, as evidenced by his support for various terrorist groups.
1d. Strategically, Iraq was far easier to attack than North Korea and Iran: we believed we could attack on at least two fronts, we had experience fighting the Iraqi army, and the risk of severe blowback was far less than with, say, North Korea.
1e. The plentiful oil reserves of Iraq would both help pay for the invasion, and for the reconstruction of the country.
2. It has been the goal of the United States since WW2 to spread democracy and free markets throughout the world. Our experience thus far has shown that societies which embrace these ideals tend to prosper. However, because of an unfortunate mix of historical accident, dependence on foreign oil, realpolitk and outright cultural prejudice, the US has not only failed to promote western values in the Middle East, but has frequently supported regimes that have, in turn, actively suppressed democratic reforms. From a generational standpoint, our battle with Al Qaeda will only be won when their culture of intolerance (radical Islam) has been supplanted by a culture of tolerance (Western democracy). Again, Iraq was the logical best choice to “flip” over to western values because:
2a. Iraq is centrally located in the Arab world. A democratic, vibrant Iraq would be a far more visible example to the rest of the Middle East than, say, Afghanistan, which is relatively isolated and ethnically dissimilar from much of the rest of the Middle East.
2b. Iraq, although visibly crumbling under Saddam’s rule, still had a good deal of experience with modern technology and other trappings of modern culture. Again, compared to Afghanistan, Iraq would have much less of a distance to travel to be a true economic, cultural, and technological peer of the US and other developed countries.
2c. Iraq has a good deal of historical significance to the Muslim world: a Baghdad once more restored to its rightful place as a center of commerce and learning would be a huge blow to the insular ideals of radical Islam.
2d. A “flipped” Iraq would serve two strategic purposes: it would encourage our ideological allies (i.e. reformers) that positive change is possible, and it would frighten our enemies – neighboring countries would be discouraged from acting out, lest what happened to Saddam happen to them.
3. Simply put, the best defense is a good offense. Anti-US sentiment exists in the Middle East and will not simply go away: far better to focus it towards military forces capable of defending themselves, at a time and place of our choosing, rather than sitting back and waiting for the attacks to come to us.
4. The humanitarian case was extremely straightforward: Saddam was a tyrant who was harming his people, and the US-led sanctions were further penalizing the innocent victims in Iraq. Freeing Iraq in 2003 would both do a great deal of good, and make up for our failure to properly liberate the country in 1991.
5. Criticism of the war as “unjust” is misguided: Iraq was unquestionably guilty of several offences (firing on US fighter jets, attempted assassination of political leaders, a history of aggression against its neighbors, funding Palestinian terrorists), any one of which legitimately qualified as a casus belli. The presence of WMDs is beside the point: Saddam was unquestionably evil, and Iraq is better off without him. To complain that the war was justified to the American people on the basis of WMDs and not on other reasons is like complaining that Al Capone was jailed on tax evasion charges rather than murder, etc. Either way the formal reason is less important than the fact that the bad guy is gone.
6. Criticism of the war as poorly fought is likewise misguided. Comparing the traditional aims of virtually every war ever fought (“Kill ’em all until they can’t possibly fight back, then dictate terms of surrender”) vs. the goals of the US in Iraq (“Disable the command and control structure while taking great care not to harm civilians, destroy important infrastructure, or look particularly bad to the world media”) indicates that by any reasonable standard, the Iraq war was a smashing success.
7. Current political, military, and logistical difficulties in Iraq are laughably light compared to what the US has had to deal with historically (say, in WW2). By far the greatest threat to the rebuilding enterprise is not internal or foreign insurgents or hostile governments (Iran and Syria), but a loss of political will here in the US. That being the case, the anti-war left and mainstream media have not been helpful in the slightest.
8. The Iraq war has freed the United States from outdated organizations that had essentially become antagonistic to US interests, such as the United Nations. By invading Iraq with the help of truly loyal allies, we have reaffirmed our national sovereignty and our right of self-defense. We have likewise reminded the world that nations are powerful because of their current vitality, and not because of the diplomatic respect historically accorded to them (i.e. France).
9. The attacks of 9/11 represented not merely a few malcontents, but were instead a harbinger of a far greater clash of civilizations that could eventually build to a conflict on the scale of WW2 or the Cold War. That being the case, if a successfully fought war in Iraq can forestall or entirely prevent such a conflagration, then the Iraq war should be embraced as the lesser of two evils by far, even taking the war’s occasionally inept prosecution into account.
Beyond that, I think the arguments tend to get fairly marginal. I hope the pro-war folks find this a relatively accurate expression of their beliefs, and I welcome comments and corrections.
Well, we have managed to sink to new lows in how we treat our best and bravest.
http://www.10news.com/news/5504608/detail.html
Merry Christmas- here is your FedEx.
8. isn’t a reason for the war, or even an intended consequence.
The true nature of the UN as corrupt and one of the world’s great enablers of bigotry and terrorism (about one tier below Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Iraq and Pakistan) simply tends to be thrown into sharper relief by any crisis that revolves around these aspects. Like the increased attention being paid to the true nature of the Saudi regime, if this has a “cause” it lies in 9/11 itself, not Iraq.
RE: WMD
The issue re: WMDs is certainty. We are now 100% certain that Iraq does not have them and will not develop them. With the consequences so high, the past behaviour so reckless on many occassions, clear intent, and long-term instability within the ruling clique (zero succession planning), nothing less than 100% certainty would do. Especially since the CIA, IAEA et. al. had screwed up estimates before – in the other direction, massively underestimating the progress of the WMD program in 1991.
It’s not an OJ trial – it’s up to Saddam to convince us. Barring a process like Brazil’s or South Africa’s, which granted that level of certainty in a peaceful way, ending Saddam’s regime was the only way to get certainty. He chose. We ended his regime. We got certainty.
I would disagree with Joe that #8 is not an intended consequence. It isn’t one we would state out loud, but it certainly was an expected consequence if not directly intended.
Past that, I think it nicely covers the important points.
Cordially,
Uncle J
Hey Max, has anybody told you that you’re an idiot? Because you are.
Would you prefer we put the soldier’s coffin in first class? Ship it UPS?
I’m just curious.
Well done!
I don’t think anyone will entirely agree with this list, but it’s a fine summary.
I would add one other reason for this war: to destroy our enemies, and protect our allies… and, more importantly, to be seen to do so.
Over the past few decades, our prospective enemies have come to believe, quite reasonably, that our response to any threat, or even to an actual attack, will be limited to a grand drive-by shooting: we’ll spray a few cruise missiles in the general direction of a symbolic enemy, then run away. Sure, we could push a button and make a city go away, but we’d never send troops to do the hard work of eradicating our enemies without the sort of indiscriminate extermination that would truly turn the world – and ourselves! – against us.
The current war, on both the Iraqi and Afghan fronts, shows otherwise.
On the other side, from the Bay of Pigs to the Shia uprising, we’ve acquired a reputation for fomenting rebellion by prospective allies, and then not delivering promised support.
By standing by our allies, and protecting them until they’re ready to stand on their own, we not only gain powerful new allies for the future, but embolden those who would take a stand against common enemies elsewhere.
Chris proves the old adage about seeing the forest for the trees. How can one possibly state so clearly the arguments in favor of the war and still remain against it? I always suspected that the anti war folks were just poor souls who had never really had the true reasons for going to war explained to them.
Chris is worse because he can state the truth clearly, but still refuses to allow his mind to come to the logical and consistent conclusion that truth reveals. As such, he is completely morally and intellectually bankrpt.
ANOTHER MAJOR REASON: PUTIN SAID SADDAM WAS PLANNING AN ATTACK INSIDE THE US IN INTELLIGENCE INFO GIVEN BUSH.
Jeff,
Chris said he was stating what he thinks are reasonable points made by the hawkish side, not that he agrees with them all. Just because you can state the opposing viewpoint doesn’t mean you have to accept it, rather its a requirement for an intelligent discussion of the topic.
But that would be an interesting read. Chris did a good job of stating the pro-war arguments, can we convince him to go through them one by one and say which ones he agrees with, which ones he disagrees with and why?
Yikes! #8 is awful. While I am sure some folks take that position, I believe it is very poorly worded.
I think Chris did a great job, although he’s missed a couple of arguments. The three that easily come to mind are:
1) From “A Gathering Storm”, I believe the author makes the point that three conditions came together in the perfect storm:
– the containment strategy in dealing with Saddam was falling apart. Neighboring countries were beginning to refuse us use of their airspace to launch attacks (does anyone remember this besides me?) and there was serious discussion about throwing the U.S. out of the Middle East — the daily reports of “atrocities” by Al Jazeera was destroying our welcome.
– sanctions were not working (as we found out later, the UN was bought off). Saddam could sell all the oil he wanted (and did so) with the dollars keeping him propped up. The only people that suffered were the poor.
– at the very best, the U.S. and its allies would constantly be unsure of whether Saddam had WMD or was developing WMD. He seemed to game the system very well, and there was no trust, no matter what the organization, that he would not go nuclear or otherwise wreak havoc (anybody remember the failed assassination of old Bush?)
In this situation (the combination of factors), the US found itself without international recourse (the UN), without containment, without the general feeling that Saddam could stay in power (anybody remember the Congressional resolution that said this?) All of this after a massive terrorist attack on 9-11. The status quo was simply unworkable, and military action had to occur one way or the other — pull out or take Saddam out. The Saudis made this much clear to us in private discussions during this time.
2) Utilitarian morality (my personal favorite). Given the combination of factors both for and against the war, and assuming that facts believed in evidence may turn out to be false, or that the effort may be long and brutal, will less people suffer and die one way or the other? I believe CIA estimates had Saddam killing about 20,000 of his own people each year. Somebody can do the math, but Iraq is comes out easily ahead of the game in only a few years.
3) Radical change initiated from the outside is the only way oppressed people in the middle east will grow into peaceful societies. Not conquering, or occupation, or any of that. Simply changing governments and institutionalizing democracy — the great experiment. The collary to this argument is that the U.S. basically had no choice: either continue killing innocent people ruled by brutal dictators or give the common man the choice of whether he wanted to fight or not. This does not assume a “sunny day” outcome. Far from it. An Iraqi (or Iranian) democracy may very well rise up, install the mullahs again, and begin state-sponsored terrorism. In which case, the allies have the high ground: this would truly be a war among free peoples. Paraphrased: it is the least we can do.
Chris,
Excellent job. I would likewise add some version of Eric’s in Comment #5 and Daniel’s in #9.
AL, terrific decision to ask Chris to compile the arguments for war, he did a terrific job. I look forward to the debate you create/synthesize.
#3 can be extended somewhat.
The US has a long history of tit-for-tat sorts of military actions. Afghanistan, no matter how thoroughly fought or reassembled, can not be seen as anything other than a direct retaliation.
If we had stopped there, it would have barely influenced things. Zarqawi, for instance, had left Afghanistan. We would have (again) traded a rook for a pawn.
This way, we at _least_ traded for two pawns. And that pawn has nominally switched ‘sides’. And the opportunity still exists that that pawn may be promoted in importance. Perhaps.
As Joe Katzman notes above, parenthetically, there is a difference between reasons for taking a particular action, and the consequences, intended or otherwise, of doing so.
That said, perhaps the single biggest reason for going into Iraq, and the one most studiously overlooked by those who oppose the war, was to redeem the relevance of the UN Security Council by making good on the threats both explicit and implicit that lie behind all those tedious resolutions. No small irony, given that it is the left that subsribes to the “intenrationalist” approach to foregin policy, while those on the right tend to scoff at the likes of Kofi and Kerry. As any adolescent who has grown up with over-indulgent parents can attest, there is little point in a threat if the person making the threat is known to be unwilling to carry it out. Or if you prefer a more adult analogy, there’s little to be gained by brandishing a gun known to be unloaded.
Even before the full scope of the UN Oil-for-food scandal was made public, the United Nations itself had already reached the point of Gomorric corruption and international irrelevancy… especially under the inept leadership of Kofi Annan.
I’m not at all convinced that the UN is worth the effort at redemption, but apparently President Bush thinks otherwise. For that to happen, however, requires that at some point the rhetorical fluff must yield to some realistic, and perhaps even brutal substance. For that to happen, the threats that had been made, and ignored, over the last decade, needed to be themselves redeemed.
It’s not about the truth, it’s about who holds the White House. The antiwar position is a political tactic.
I’ll address #1, AKA “The Bush Doctrine”, to get started.
We have known that modern technology can act as a tremendous force multiplier since the Trinity A-bomb test in 1945. 9/11 may have provided the slap in the face that some Americans needed to be reminded of this, but to say this “proved” the point is inaccurate when stated in such a broad manner.
“Therefore, WMDs must be stopped at their source: namely, nation-states which have the capacity to produce WMDs, and a possible motive for selling/giving said WMDs to terrorists.”
How does this policy address threats from entities other than “nation-states” or that do not depend on them for their existence, e.g., Al Qaeda?
Arguably, what 9/11 did prove was that such “non-state” entities can be as dangerous as any other.
Because #1 places disproportionate emphasis on only a single source of terrorism, and because the destructiveness of terrorism in the post-9/11 modern technology world of ours does not solely depend on this source, then it fails to adequately address the fundamental issue of protecting American from terrorism, especially given the commitment of resources to this single tactic.
Furthermore, if one considers material and political support of terrorism to be a composite of both state and non-state sources, than I think one could also make the argument that focusing too heavily on the former (as the Iraq war predominantly does) has increased the likelihood that the latter source will grow, and resulted in at best a net zero sum in the fight against global terrorism. And in the worst extrapolation of this, the situation is made worse because the non-state sources are much harder, and therefore more dangerous, to identify and contain. Inherent in the structure of a group such as Al Qaeda is the ability to mutate to adapt to frontal assaults. And to paraphrase Nietsche, that which does not kill them will make them stronger.
I will recognize up front that statistical proof for either hypothesis is wanting for various reasons.
bq. Chris proves the old adage about seeing the forest for the trees. How can one possibly state so clearly the arguments in favor of the war and still remain against it? I always suspected that the anti war folks were just poor souls who had never really had the true reasons for going to war explained to them.
bq. Chris is worse because he can state the truth clearly, but still refuses to allow his mind to come to the logical and consistent conclusion that truth reveals. As such, he is completely morally and intellectually bankrpt.
Whoot! Moral and intellectual bankruptcy! I’ve reached the blogging big leagues at last! 😉
I’m not entirely sure how Armed Liberal wants to handle this – if he wants to get revised versions of each set of arguments put together before we start taking the other side’s arguments apart, or what. That being the case, I will hold off on my point-by-point deconstruction of the above arguments for a while.
I will go ahead and say, however, that my major beef with most of the above arguments is not that they’re factually or logically incorrect, by and large, but that there are facts and reasons that the arguments don’t really take into account. In other words, the arguments above aren’t wrong, but they are incomplete, and therefore arrive at suboptimal conclusions.
With all the respect and regard to your forces deployed there, which are doing an excellent job (December 15th elections are the proof), I think that focusing the debate on the motivation of decisions taken three years ago while Iran is building The Bomb is suicidal.
Very well summarized list. The only disagreement would be point 1e:
bq. 1e. The plentiful oil reserves of Iraq would both help pay for the invasion, and for the reconstruction of the country.
I don’t think it is fair to say the oil would be used to pay for the invasion. In fact, I believe the the GWB administration publicly said the opposite. One could make the argument that oil was part of the equation; it was in the US interest to change the Iraqi gov’t so that oil revenues where not going toward (palestinian and baathist) terrorists but instead to a new democratic gov’t. Also, a steady supply of oil from Iraqi would help stablize the world oil market in the long term.
Granted, these things were not discussed openly because the domestic political environment favored distancing the war justification from anything to do with oil. Nevertheless, these were important reasons for choicing Iraq as the battleground.
Cheers
–Fred
“Political Fred”:http://politicalfred.blogspot.com/
I hate to be cynical, but Chris’ last statement sounded a lot like “but I’m sure there is some sort of rhetorical monkey wrench I can throw in there.” Incompleteness arguments are easy to raise — the issue is, of course, whether the new information actually changes the world model or not. This is one reason these discussions will go on until the end of time — “but wait! Have we considered the speed of light and how it relates to satellite tv news coverage?”
In any case, the arguing should probably come later! (Is that possible?) Now that Chris has become morally and intellectually bankrupt, he is probably off signing autographs, writing for the Huffington post, and other sorts of famous-person things. Maybe he’ll get a gig with Chris Matthews.
A simple pro-war argument that I like to use is such: crazy people have always been with us. We cannot eliminate them. Nations which house and support crazy people can be eliminated. WMDs, air travel, the internet, and the end of the cold war drastically changed the balance of power in favor of the little guy. Therefore, unlike twenty years ago, it is imperative that the world stand up and require nations to control their crazy people. Saddam was a poster child for nations who don’t get along or act civilly. If the above principles are true, then Saddam must be brought to reason one way or another in order for progress to occur. (Here you can fill in your reasoning for the choice of military action in line with the above argument — had to kick somebody’s teeth in for the rest of them to pay attention, UNSEC binding resolutions have to mean something, seemed like a good thing at the time, etc. Many reasons follow from the above statements, which should be evaluated separately from the follow-on.)
1/3) This is not a rebuttal of those points per se, but food for thought on the WMD issue before we start our next invasion.
Robert Wright, a true academic in every sense of the word, pointed out in an article for slate a few years ago several propositions for the ‘long term’ war on terror, and pointed this out:
For the foreseeable future, smaller and smaller groups of intensely motivated people will have the ability to kill larger and larger numbers of people
It is a worthy point, that even through we are using a ‘defense by offense’ strategy against nations with potentially dangerous weapons, it may not stop smaller groups from using chemical or biological weapons that will be more dangerous in the near future.
The Tokyo gas attack and the Anthrax letters are good examples of small groups of people (allegedly) using biological/chemical weapons inside of a crowded metropolis. Luckily these were not highly contagious, or used effeciently. However the next attack could be.
For the near future, I’m still less worried about an traditional WMD than a ‘novel’ attack like those on 9/11. Either the bombing of a nuclear power plant or of a chemical depot plant; and there are many cases where plants near major cities have failed in security inspections.
Nails it from my perspective. Great first draft. Thank you!
The reason we went to Iraq was No. 2 as a means of taking care of No. 1. err, to take care of the institution of terrorism, as opposed to just Osama himself.
Antimedia,
Did you bother to read the story? Sorry if you dont agree that our soldiers remains should be treated with some dignity. Guess that would be un-Amercian of us. Personally I feel that we should treat them with respect; letters signed in hand by the SecDef, maybe an honor guard, maybe getting the President to a funeral, etc.
What is your feeling?
“Personally I feel that we should treat them with respect; letters signed in hand by the SecDef, maybe an honor guard, maybe getting the President to a funeral, etc”
Nothing in that article said those things werent happening. The _only_ substantive issue raised by the article is that the bodies were being flown in the cargo compartments of commercial flights. It says nothing about the honor guard that unless there has been a radical change in US policy spends every minute with the remains except for the necessary time actually in the air when the guard is about 2 feet above the casket in a pressurized cabin.
Now the question again, if transporting the remains via commerical airliner is unnacceptable, why is that the case and what is the proper alternative?
If the US neglects to depose heads of state who try to assassinate US presidents, then the US has become a poodle state, a de-fanged wimpish tail wagger. Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr. He did it to himself.
#8 I would agree is a pretty weak reason I think there is alot of more alternatives than going to war that would stick it to the UN alot better. And the France thing they have been rather irrelevant since WW2 exept to themselves.
Cris I think did a pretty good job of the reasons,short maybe one that we could never have used openly anyway
55) Three fold to empower the 20% western leaning Muslims and make the 60% fence sitting Muslims see the 20% radicals as enemies all at the same time to pick the battle field and force our enemy to come to it draining his resources while at the same time playing our strengths against his weaknesses. By that terrorist main weapon is terrorism agianst civilians not military combat, were our military combat is a honned science. by that in Iraq (muslim historical heartland that by virtue of Muslim pride must be defended at all cost) we forced our enemy into a military combat he had no chance in (open desert and urban warefare westernized pop great for air power heavy mech forces), so it was destine for that enemy to fall back to their strength Terrrorsim which suicide bombs on civilians while be it great for the media choas theme the simple fact is that every civilian victim is not a infedel but a muslim brother so all of those fence sitting muslims who had no problem with dead infedel women children are seeing the enemy we see and maybe not becoming believers in the west but definatley non-believers in the radicals and that is our ultimate goal to empower the 20% pro-western muslims and get the 60% fence sitters to join forces and contain and control their radicals like we do here in the west. Every terrrorist attack in Iraq makes the Radicals more enemies and US more potential allies. Not to mention all of those Jihadi’s we are bleeding over there where does people think they would be going if not Iraq????
this reason kinda goes with the #2
One thing I have never understood is how common people unbiased usually fully understand these reasons even thou Bush has made no effor tof pounding these into people’s heads like should have been done from the onset hopefully that will change, however the hardcore LLL’s just cannot grasp them or are either so self hating that they cant bear to support US defence short of land invasion of thier street and some not even then. It just simple goes to the Bush WMD Lied people are dying, for what? It always amazes me. I have alot of strong beleifs but none so locked that I cant if reasonable reasons be swayed.
Victor Davis Hanson did a Q&A following an airing on C-Span of a lecture on his current book about the Peloponnesian war. The man is spot on regarding his observations about this war. Here’s his page: http://www.victorhanson.com/
The rationale for attacking Iraq is in the text of “The Project for the New American Century” signed at the foot of it by 25 people and carried into policy by some of the same.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Good first draft. I’d like to add a point to #1 though, maybe replace 1.e (which is really more of a side effect rather than a driving cause or motivation for invasion):
1f. Invading Iraq and establishing bases there puts us in a better military position to threaten/invade/saber-rattle at both Iran and Syria. If an Iran or Syria invasion were to become necessary, Sadaam and a Baathist controlled Iraq would have been a major thorn in our sides; it is highly likely we would have been forced to take him out anyways in this case. The choice to strike Iraq first therefore becomes a purely strategic military move.
Of course, if the secret goal of the Bush Administration all along was to go after Iran/Syria anyways, then this might be the only justification that actually mattered. (And given Iran’s recent hijinks, wouldn’t that make Bush et al seem eerily prescient back in 2003 when they were pushing the Iraq invasion in what may end up to be a great flanking move?)
Here’s another one (paraphrased from something I read pre-war, I think associated with likud or the neocons):
the central doctrine of fascism was that a fascist state would easily win a war with states following other systems. Before WWII, even most non-fascists believed that, and had to use make arguments of taste, morality and so on to conclude that fascism was a bad thing.
the central doctrine of communism was that a communist state was economically superior to other systems. Before the Cold War, even most non-communists believed that, and had to use make arguments of taste, morality etc to conclude communism was a bad thing.
the central doctrine of terrorism is that the best way of achieving political change is for small groups or individuals to use direct violence against civilians or voters. Many university professors and journalists would essentially agree with that view, and so are reduced to the rather weak position of comdemning terrorism as merely morally, not intellectually, wrong.
One goal of the war in Iraq is to put that theory to the test of history. Terrorism with the goal of deposing saddam had been tried unsuccessfully, by the CIA, Iran and domestic groups, for about 20 years. Could other means succeed where it had failed?
Also, see Jonathon Hari’s aricle about phoning up someone at random in Iraq and asking ‘should we invade?’.
soru
“Personally I feel that we should treat them with respect; letters signed in hand by the SecDef, maybe an honor guard, maybe getting the President to a funeral, etc”
Nothing in that article said those things werent happening.
Nope – that was all me. You are going to have to look at other articles – I was answering Antimedia.
The only substantive issue raised by the article is that the bodies were being flown in the cargo compartments of commercial flights.
Yes, an I think that is wrong.
Alternatives? How about a military plane.
Except Andy the ability to destroy Al Qaeda is predicated on WAR with most of the Middle East and Muslim world: Saudi Arabia the financier of Al Qaeda, Iran and Pakistan the sponsors and harborers of Al Qaeda, and the rest of the Gulf States as facilitators of Al Qaeda operatives and operations.
In the Cold War world the two/three superpowers had a monopoly on nuclear force; no non-aligned nation could threaten to use nuclear weapons on one of the superpowers without pre-emptive force being used against it. Those that were not non-aligned were controlled. Castro wanted independent nukes to launch against the US and Kruschev naturally declined.
What happened was the utterly predictable political result of the end of the Cold War Andy. States such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq not to mention Iran had no more control exerted over them and no credible threat if they could pass on weapons to attack the US to enhance their shaky internal stability by giving pan-Islamic terror groups a reason not to attack their regimes.
Which brings us to the great unspoken argument for the Iraq War.
The post-Cold War system with Saddam, the Saudi Princes, the Mullahs of Iran, and the Generals of Pakistan were inherently unstable and posed a clear and present danger to the US because there was no political moderating force to press these nations NOT to attack the US through giving terror groups WMDs. Each of these regimes had great internal instability and the need to enhance their legitimacy through Jihad and sending Al Qaeda to attack elsewhere instead of overthrowing them. There was no perceived threat the US would simply destroy a regime that threatened to give Al Qaeda WMDs. The argument for the War was that making that threat real would deter the Saudi Princes, Mullahs of Iran, and Generals of Pakistan from playing that game by introducing too high a set of risks for them.
Al Qaeda on it’s own does not possess the resources to make Nuclear Weapons the most destructive and robust of WMDs. Nukes require state-level plutonium precision machining, electronically triggered explosive “lenses” to focus the implosion, and precise timing of said lenses. Plutonium undergoes something like 17 state changes after it’s been refined, and is extremely toxic/radioactive. A state if determined can make such weapons; to conceal this effort from a host state is just impossible. Al Qaeda to be effective requires STATE LEVEL SPONSORSHIP.
Example: Afghanistan provided a logistics and training base for the Muscle Hijackers of 9/11. Iraq provided logistical assistance through Saddam’s intelligence agents for a Kuala Lumpur meeting for 9/11 planning (matter of record in the 9/11 Commission Report). Saudi Arabia provided the financing for the operation. Iran and Iraq provided transit through their nations without passport stamps to allow the Muscle Hijackers to enter the US without questions.
At it’s most basic level the War in Iraq was a political operation designed to deter such State Sponsorship for terrorism.
Folks, apologies; I’m riding motorcycles at Laguna Seca and just got a break. Great comments so far, but remember that the goal is to come up with a ‘core’ set of rationales so we can bang them against the antiwar ones. So criticize, add, and comment away.
A.L.
I think that operation Iraqi Freedom was necessary.Even though the prewar intel wasnt given out to all of us like a public school book.There are some things that cant be revealed from the get go to protect our strategies.I didnt have a problem with us going into iraq.After-all we had never really left the vicinity since the last gulf war.We were spending tons of money every year just to enforce the no-fly zones that were established after the last gulf war.We had given Saddam Hussein plenty of warning to fly right and still he insisted on hostilities.Not to mention the bullying he had been pressing on his neighbors throughout the region.Also he had sent people to our country to cause problems and to disrupt our economic systems.I say he was getting out of control and he had to go.
Chris,
Good list- bravo.
PacRimJim,
Much of the left’s distaste of Bush emerged only after he began to drum up support for the Iraq invasion. Remember, after 9/11 Bush was exceedingly popular. Had personal animus toward POTUS been an _a priori_ justification for opposing war, why then did so many Americans support the war in Afghanistan?
Why is it so difficult for people to recognize that those with opposing views also act on principle (for the most part)?
First, Chris, a very nice summary. I have the following some complaints or disagreements:
1e) as other have noted seems a bit unfair. While I have heard individuals (e.g., where I work) make outrageous claims that Iraqi oil money should “pay for” the war, I don’t believe I ever heard that seriously proposed as part of the war effort.
I do recall hearing serious proposals that Iraqi oil money pay for the reconstruction, at least in part, but memory fades and I no longer recall if those serious proposals were by people placed highly enough to be taken, uh, seriously.
3) Sounds suspiciously like the so-called “Flypaper Doctrine” but I remember hearing that only after the invasion. (You may have heard it earlier, though.)
6) Doesn’t really sound like a justification for the war, but a defense of it after the fact. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the parameters of the list, though.
(Aside from that, I cannot consider the war in Iraq as “a crashing success.” I think it is far more successful than most people do, though still not won. In part, I think the standards of success for a war against Iraq are higher than those for a war against Germany and Japan in World War II, because the magnitude of the threat Iraq posed, even as we believed then, was lower. In part, it is because of the Administration’s very slow realization of the nature of the insurgency and stubborn refusal to treat it as such in the months after it became obvious to everyone else.)
8) As many other have pointed out, this may have been a result, but I do not believe for a moment that it was the Administration’s goal to break or damage the UN by going to war with Iraq.
I also have the following amplifications or modifications:
1) I agree very strongly with the broad thrust of this one. Something I still do not feel is quite properly assimilated, even by those in support of the war is that the technological force multiplication aspect of the 21st century will make non-state actors increasingly more dangerous as time goes by. And although offensive and defensive technologies offplay each other and the advantage ebbs and flows over the course of history, my sense is that the offensive decentralized technologies will have the advantage for a while.
This leads us to comment #14 (Andy) with whom I respectfully disagree. I believe that right now few or no non-state actors have access to the kinds of WMDs that could truly inflict grievous damage to a superstate such as the United States, the European Union, or Russia. If I am correct in that, then it follows that a component of combatting the growing terrorist threat is to make it more difficult for state/non-state collaboration (or theft!) to occur by reforming the worst states by force, if necessary.
But, that’s today only. The technology curve will continue to make vastly destructive potential easier and easier to realize as time goes by, and a strategy of trying to shoot down every bullet (metaphorically speaking) with a bullet of our own is a guaranteed recipe for failure. This, then, would make Iraq into a thrust of multiple purposes: The first purpose is defensive in nature, making it more difficult for non-state actors to procure WMDs from Iraq. All state-strengthening activities would be considered defensive under that notion.
The second purpose would be offensive in nature, on the broadest possible level in what is, essentiall, a conflict of cultures– a reformed Iraqi civil society in the heart of Islamic lands can (it is hoped!) act as the seed of rehabilitation for the larger culture in which it is embedded. Chris, your points 2) and 3) skirt this issue, but do not state it strongly enough for my tastes.
@Matt
You seem to have forgotten the acrimony left over from the 2000 election. They hated him (more) since then.
Good draft. I read the comments and I don’t think anyone has picked up this point about #5. The Capone analogy makes the point that WMD wasn’t the only reason, but #5 does not make it clear that WMDs were one of many FORMAL reasons given before the war by the president including humanitarian reasons. As a steadfast supporter of the war I would never argue that WMD were beside the point and agree with Joel Katzman’s point that certainty about WMD was the goal. I believe the president said that waiting until the threat of Saddam having WMDs was imminent was not an option. Not an option – I agreed then and I agree now. Furthermore, I am disappointed that everyone’s intelligence was so wrong or that Saddam was clever enough to hide them successfully. (I don’t put much store by the latter but the Deuffler report makes it clear that it is a possibility.)
Here are a couple of ‘realpolitik’ points for consideration.
a) Rudi Giuliani would deal with really bad neighbourhoods by dropping a new precinct station right in the middle. The Mad-East is a Bad Neighbourhood and Iraq is right in the middle of it.
b) Nothing had been working in the Mad-East for a generation or more. Kicking it over hard was certainly not going to make it any more dysfunctional and dangerous and might get things moving.
c) It was a good place (since we had plenty of reasons to go in) to learn how to invade and occupy an Arab country. That lesson has not been lost on the Saudis, or the Syrians, or the Libyans.
d) It effectively surrounds Iran (along with Afghanistan and the US Navy) which for a generation has been seen as the ultimate problem in the region.
Remember, the first place we invaded after Pearl Harbor was … Morocco. We needed it to get started on cleaning Hitler out of Africa, and we had to fight the French to get in.
My goodness, could the trash-talking trolls PLEASE just give it a rest for a while to allow a mature discussion to unfold? It seems that some idiots (e.g. Max, antimedia, Feagles, et al) can’t resist the urge to pollute a fine discussion with juvenile jabs at ideological opponents. Go to Redstate.org or DailyKos for such nonsense, please.
I am flabbergasted that Chris could come up with such a well-reasoned concept of what we anti-war people are thinking (I say anti-war because we are the people who feel the insurgents in Iraq should have stopped in April 2003 unlike the liberals who are pro-war because of the way they have been cheering the insurgent on to think they can influence US politics into 2006 and 2008. We anti-war people wanted a united American people to force the hands of the Iranians into not even dreaming they could stick their middle finger up at us the way they are doing now. In other words, what you call anti-war people are those who have probably made war with Iran inevitable).
But, Chris, you insist on ignoring the most important reasons for the Iraq War:
1) Make the Shiites an unstoppable enemy to the Sunnis, forcing the Sunnis to switch from being anti-American to pro-American the way the Nazis switched when the Soviets were about to take over all over Germany.
There is an AP news article from today saying that the Sunni insurgents are now trying to negotiate with the US Army to make peace in light of the Iranian threat. This was a predictable event and its fruition will end the war on Sunni terror and change Al Jazeera’s attitude on its own. Of course, using Iran as a threat to the Sunnis can be as dangerous as using the Soviets as a threat to the Nazis. :-0
2) Make the Shiites an unstoppable enemy to the Sunnis…
3) Make the Shiites an unstoppable enem to the Sunnis…
4) Draw out and kill a large number of young and violent arabs from across Europe and the Middle East who would otherwise live with their mothers and sisters and couldn’t be targeted.
5) The Oil wasn’t captured in order to PAY for the war, Chris. In any war, especially WW2, the
oil is captured to keep the ENEMY from having it!
Cmon, Chris, you KNOW that.
Let’s be adults here. This point about keeping oil out of enemy hands is not a debatable strategy in any war. It is not debatable that, taking the enemy’s financial resources in war only makes them “angry” and therefore shouldn’t be done.
So my compliments are NOT to Chris for grasping the real arguments for the war. He did a good job in explaining secondary reasons, however. Hats off to that.
An “anti-war” person is someone who would have spent the past 3 years hoping that Ted Kennedy and Michael Moore would be more and more angered by the killing of American soldiers in Iraq…to the point where they would say: “One more attack on American soldiers and I will support the President for regime change in Iran and Syria.”
An anti-war person would have wished for guys like Ted Kennedy to draw a line in the sand on the insurgents: keep fighting and killing our people and we American politicians will become more and more united.
I have 6000 years of history backing me up on this analysis.
But wait…realpolitically…this may well be what IS happening outside of Iraq. The liberals are, indeed, telling the terrorists that they will agree with George Bush if the terrorists take their game out of the sandbox Bush created for them.
People like Ted Kennedy are only “anti-war” because they seem to be telling the terrorists that terrorism is ONLY allowed in Iraq. The “anti-war” crowd is brow-beating terrorists into getting liberal “support” only if they go after well-armed US soldiers in Iraq and leave soft targets like civilians in London alone.
So you got the commie Mayor of London sucking up to the terrorists…until the London Bombings, after which he delivers a blistering attack on the terrorists, which effectively brow-beat the terrorists back into a mostly Iraq-only strategy. The Mayor of London resumed his pro-terrorist stance after it became clear that the terrorists would abide by
Terrorists know that, if they attack civilians in London again, England will turn to the right.
Terrorists know that, if they riot more in France, France will go even further to the right.
Terrorists know that, if they attack Australians in Bali again…more Australians will behave in a manner that the British and French (and even Americans) are too “civilized” for.
Socalled “anti-war” liberals have done their strategic job of keeping the conflict in Iraq, by withholding their support for terrorists who don’t abide by that unwritten rule.
My own problem with people like Chris, is that they don’t KNOW this and, thus, their role in concentrating and confining terrorists. Thus, many liberals actually do feel more liberal everytime a coalition soldier is brutally murdered…instead of more determined to make sure that the murderers (regardless of whether they are in Iraq or London) need to be rooted out and exterminated…or “flipped” via the Shiite strategy I mentioned above as the #1 strategy for the entire Iraq War.
I guess what I am trying to say is that, a true “anti-war” person would be horrified at the continued violence perpetrated against innocent American soldiers who only want to kill terrorists and recapture many of the 100,000+ criminals that Saddam purposely released before the war…while other soldiers and many civilians innocently try to build schools, power plants, police forces, armies and political structures.
A real “anti-war” person would gasp and outwardly comment that such violent people are proving with every murder just how lucky we all are that they no longer control 33% of Middle East oil.
For an “anti-war” protestor, each death of an American soldier in Iraq should make the protestor want to go to Iraq and protest in the Sunni Triangle in front of Sunni males, holding up flowers and saying “give peace a chance.”
In the Vietnam era, real “anti-war” protestors would have gone into the jungles of Vietnam with flowers, looking for Soviet-funded NVA or Chinese-funded VC gun muzzles to stick those flowers into. Or they would have gone to Red Square in Moscow with “Give peace a chance” placards aimed at the Kremlin.
But who are we kidding.
PacRimJim,
Much of the anti-Bush sentiment dissipated immediately after 9/11, and only resumed during the Iraq lead-up, if I recall correctly.
I don’t see the most important reason. A supply of oil to the US and its allies that is not interrupted. I don’t mean that the US wanted to steal the oil (thought it would end like that) but that it needed a supplier of oil that would always deliver if the US offered a fair price, and in this case a fair price would be a price in dollars the US could afford ($200 in todays dollars is still a price the US could afford)
Katzman, in the next 10 years Iraq is now more likely than under Saddam to have real WMD (chemical weapons are bad but IMHO do not create mass destruction)
” but that it needed a supplier of oil that would always deliver if the US offered a fair price, and in this case a fair price would be a price in dollars the US could afford ”
Didnt we have that in Saudi Arabia guaranteed by our troops there and the threat of leaving them to the mercy of Saddam? How has our position improved?
You can only believing that Saudi Arabia is trustable if you believing that the “Jews” did 9/11 and i don’t think you belong to that group (me neither)
Having US troops there would make controlling Saudi oil somewhat easier but if you have a former Saudi oil minister say that America has to choose between oil or Israel and that it can’t have both doesn’t sound good to me.
After the First Gulf war Iraq wasn’t even a treat to Kuwait, let alone the much bigger Saudi Arabia. They were not at the mercy of Saddam if the US left the Gulf. Maybe Iran but we will see with the US leaving the Gulf now it has lost in Iraq.
_that America has to choose between oil or Israel and that it can’t have both doesn’t sound…_
That fallacy! America is much less dependant from the Persian Gulf Oil than Europe.
America produces itself a lot of Oil, and Canada, exports to them millions of barrels per day, as do Mexico and Venezuela, even with Chavez.
If the Arabs stopped producing oil, the most affected would be the Europeans and Japan.
Stop saying its about Oil, please!
“If the Arabs stopped producing oil, the most affected would be the Europeans and Japan.”
No, the most affected would be the Arabs.
It is not important if it is a fallacy. What is important is what Ahmed Zaki Yamani said. And to paraphrase him it was you can have our friendship or Israels, not both.
uh yes and the domino theory but with democracy. Does anyone else see the big winner here as Iran ? Well of course the Kurds will be better off but really historically who care about them ?
I think that we should just stay there till their feet get back under them then pull out. If the war ended tomarrow without it being finished, the men and women that have died would have died for nothing but 6 worthless years in a country without finishing what was started. However if finished the ones who have suffered for so long will have fufilled what they volunteered to do. oh ya… the history books will care about what happens john ryan.
im a soldier in the U.S. army and I absolutely believe that we should be at war and I agree with Shawni. If we were to pull out of Iraq now their entire would come crashing down and that would lead to the destruction of their country, and if Obama gets president the troops that are down range right now would die, it would be a repeat of Vietnam. the troops would be massacred. obama will cut the military fund which would result in not being able to replace the gear that keeps our soldiers alive and safe. I plan on going to Iraq as soon as im done with college and, i dont know about u, but I would like to at least feel safe. u can be anti war and still support the brave men and women that are there fighing for your freedom
thank u
the supported!