MaggieEh and I have been having what I consider a very interesting discussion about Iraq in a subthread of an old diary on which no one else but the two of us has posted for days now. And (I hope doing this is okay with BooMan, and with Maggie for that matter) I’d like to invite people to click the link, read our little debate (to be clear: just the subthread, not the whole diary), and then come back here to join in.
This is an awkward way to go about it to be sure, but it seemed a shame for both of us to put so much time and energy (for me at least, today, more than I’ve put into the rest of the site combined by a wide margin) into a discussion that no one else probably knows is even going on. Especially when this site is still young enough to need all the content it can get! I’ve long argued on Kos that we should at least partially incorporate the system many message boards use, where threads keep popping up to the top as long as people keep posting to them; but absent that, I decided to go this route.
Okay, enough meta-discussion. Let’s talk about the war!
of the Iraqi War:
The Good: Oil Companies/Halliburton/NeoCons make Kazillions
The Bad: The loss of lives, American, Iraqi, Coalition Forces
The Ugly: We the People of the United States of America, have been lied, cheated, and stolen from
Is that really the only “good” you see? I don’t deny for a second that a lot of ugly crony capitalism has gone down there. But again, I submit that the majority Shia and Kurdish populations clearly find themselves to be better off as a result of the ousting of Saddam.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
I’d say they are far FAR worse off than under Saddam. It’s not even close. America is turning Iraq into a giant ghetto while it practices genocide. I’d sooner take seriously Hitler’s claim to have liberated Poland and far sooner Saddam’s claim to have liberated Kuwait.
But let’s assume for one second you’re right.
Say there’s a hornet hovering around your head. I pull out a .45 and shoot it. I’m not a good shot by the way but by luck you end up not dead (and oh yeah… the hornet flew off too).
Are you going to thank me?
No. You will insist that the actual results are irrelevent and what counts is the likely results that were predictable (not necessarily intended) as a result of my actions. Shooting at you doesn’t become moral after the fact simply because I got lucky.
But as I say — Iraqis are far FAR worse off — predictably so. Since we disagree on this, if you were to try and say the invasion was moral on the basis of projected results (ie ends justify the means) you would have to have a review process to determine who’s projection was correct, yours or mine. But there was none for the Iraq war. Any evil warmonger can lie and claim his war will result in good and most do. That is not a justification for war.
I have tried to think about it fairly and I still can’t find a hint of good in it from any angle. Not unless you count profits for the major companies and I don’t. A war of conquest, a brutal occupation, where is the possible good? To steal from someone far better with words than I,hey, I know it’s a really long list…
“….children and animals without hope in the present moment’s eternity; the prisoners of cruel men, the cruel terribly imprisoned in themselves…the still unknown suffering of the unmeasured years of war… ” M. Renault.
The current administration has consistently proved by their actions that they lack the planning skills necessary to cook eggs, much less prosecute a war. I agree with Maggie. In your last post you asked what we couldawouldashoulda done at the time. Let’s review.
U.S. Air Force controlled the skies over two-thirds of the country [no-fly zones]; WMD production had been stopped; UN inspectors were ready to release their final report attesting to that fact; Kurds controlled the North; Hussein was certifiably insane [remember the book of poetry?]; and U.S. pressure was having an effect on illegal oil sales, further crushing the economy.
BushCo reaction: Claimed massive increase in WMD production; nuclear threat to other countries in the region; implied nuclear threat to U.S.; Hussein supporting Al-Qaeda/Hezbollah terrorists; Iraq diverting huge amounts of cash to military operations; and of course the “gassing of his own people”, etc.
Public/media reaction: Yes massa. PNAC agenda downplayed; no investigation of the claims; war heavily promoted as the “best alternative” [with regret – sorry we have to kill y’all] and much flag-waving; congress – ALL OF THEM – rolled over and played dead; and the silence of those questioning the justification for war was deafening.
I kept thinking it was just a huge Texas bluff; that King George was pushing Hussein to the wall, and the wall would collapse. Regime change without firing an American shot. OTOH, if this idiot was really taking our people to war then he would at least adhere to the “Powell Doctrine”. Wrong. No room for planning in “Rummy’s World”.
No hypotheticals, let’s talk about now – the real deal – your contention of improved conditions. No water, electricity, or sanitation in most of the Country; roads totally unsecure in the “middle third”, marginally passable elsewhere, checkpoints everywhere; medical & food supplies low, and difficult at best to deliver; the entire records system for property, power, employment, education, medical care, and banking destroyed, but oil records saved.
Human cost: Estimate of Iraqi casualties over 100,000; 1500+ American troops dead, at least 12,000 wounded; infrastructure of Iraq utterly destroyed; U.S. taxpayer bill @ $212 billion and counting; entire combined military forces stretched to the breaking point; veterans returning with PTSD unable to be treated; GI’s coming home to bankruptcy, divorce, and foreclosure.
That’s enough, even though it’s only a partial list. You gotta ask yourself: Are the Iraqi people better off today than they were two years ago? Two years, and enough destruction for a lifetime for at least two nations. The fact that you can find justification for so much human suffering in the face of the information at hand is mystifying.
Like my dad used to say: Give me a puff on that before you throw it away.
Mmmm…no, that’s not what I asked. I pointed out that oftentimes we have to settle for “multiple choice” instead of “fill in the blank”; and I asked if there was only a binary choice (the way things are now, or the way they would be if we had left Saddam in power), which would you choose?
And it appears as though you’d choose the “reset” option, putting Saddam and his Ba’ath goons back in charge. I won’t deny that would work out better for some Iraqis (like those who have died, along with Saddam and his ruling clan of course). But let me ask you this: do you seriously deny that the majority of Iraqis who are Shia or Kurdish would prefer what they’ve got now to a “reset”? If you do, I want some of what you’re smoking.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
What I said was: No hypotheticals, let’s talk about now. There never was a binary choice, but playing on your board as they say: Reset.
Hussein at the time of the invasion was rather toothless, especially in the face of the escalating pressure from the world community as an extension of the “war on terror”. Inspectors were prepared to finish their final WMD inspections, his army was only loyal on paydays, and his economy was tanking. We had declared our policy of regime change in the prior administration, and could easily have ratcheted up the pressure on him from the outside.
He had virtually no support from his Arab neighbors other than the Palestinians, and we were not his only adversary in the region. Given the state of the world two short years ago, and our political capital, we would have been able to strangle his arms import business, further reducing his capacity to wage war on his own people.
We had more tools available and would have reached the same result – regime change – without going to war. Following the overthrow, Kurds & Shia would likely have thrown out the Baathists in their respective areas. It would have been their choices that created a new government. They would definitely prefer that to the destruction of their country.
Saddam lasted a dozen years after the first Iraq war, and the sanctions regime was crumbling. I think it’s facile to claim that regime change would have occurred without an invasion.
I do agree that Saddam was no real threat to the U.S. I never claimed otherwise, and that was not a factor in my advocacy for invasion. Bushco lied about WMD and have changed their rationale now to the one that I advocated all along. But sadly, I think if they had just gone for a humanitarian intervention rationale from the beginning, with no putative defensive component, the American people would have overwhelmingly rejected that.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Well just the idea didn’t kill 250,000 people and ravage the lives of 25 million, but yeah, it kinda sucked anyway. I’ve never seen a legitimate (ie ethically principled / based on universally applicable principles) defence of the war. Usually people just say the equivalent, “If it feels good – do it”. That’s not a defence of what was and remains a vast crime.
The British government of course recently admited they never did have a legitimate defence against the charge that the war was criminal. Their “secret” legal opinion from before the war, was non-existent. Bush of course never bothered to even have one. As far as I know there’s simply no legitimacy to the view point that the war was justified. It’s not simply a wrong opinion in other words. An opinion is not legitimate if the opinion cannot be rationally supported.
I think I’ve pretty extensively supported it rationally. All you’ve done, by contrast, is state that I have not, without really making any real case for your position.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Certainly not in thread you linked to.
Your statement leads me to believe that you don’t comprehend what is necessary to make a rational support for the legality of a war under international law (I consider the possibility that you admit it was a criminal war but nevertheless claim it was a moral war in the reply below).
I’m sorry to be short with you but this isn’t rocket science and I don’t see you even trying. You are no doubt aware of the wording of the UN charter (and if you aren’t why even have this conversation) that outlaws the use of force as a means of settling disputes between nations. You presumably don’t deny that Bush used force against Iraq and therefore the action was illegal.
Is there any more to say?
Two exceptions to the law exist and neither even remotely occured: (1) that Iraq attacked the US first and (2) that the UN SC passed a resolution authorising Bush to invade.
As far as I know there’s nothing you’ve said, or anyone else including the British government has said, to even throw doubt on the fact of the criminality of the war. It’s an open and shut case. Perhaps the most open and shut case in the history of the UN. I’m not saying you’re dumb for coming up empty. If the entire British government can’t make a legal case why would you be able to?
I’ll go look for that comment then.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Maverick’s argument rests on the principle that any nation should be able to invade, bomb, occupy, commit mass murder & genocide, poison, terrorise rape and enslave any other nation so long as the attacker claims it is all for a good cause. Their claim shall NOT be subject to any standard of review – the claim is enough.
Have I sumarised your universal principle correctly there? In other words is this the law you’d be happy to be subjected to with an army invading your own country?
So Hitler’s wars were entirely ethical (he claimed it was for good reasons). As were Saddam Hussein’s of course. In fact I doubt there has ever been a war that wasn’t righteous by this standard which is basically “if it feels good – do it!”.
It’s ironic to realise that people suppport this concept who opposed putting a tube into Shiavo on the (ethically correct IMO) basis of her right to decide her own fate isn’t it? One dead woman? She has rights. 25 million living Iraqis? Nope.
Now the law says that you can’t go around killing people like this but Maverick’s position is that the law (the universal ethical principle) should be re-written to allow anyone to invade anyone they like as long as they make a claim of doing it for good reasons. That claim is not to be tested by any system of review (such as a UN security council vote) so obviously it is wide open to “abuse” — although frankly both Hitler and Saddam had class A1 solid gold excuses when compared to the Iraq war.
Is my summary fair?
Yup. And pointing to what good has actually come out of the war, whatever that is (and I don’t deny that good things have happened also) is, to me, a “lets-get-over-the-past-and-make-the-best-out-of-this” scenario, which, again IMHO, is taking the best part of a rotting piece of fruit, eating it, and never trying to figure out why the rest was rotten.
And, if as a society, we just keep scrounging for edible nips while the meal is spoiling all around us, we are doomed eternally by our own stupidity. This is why we must demand a structure that benefits the lives of people around the world, spend time and money discovering economic systems that are sustainable.
Economy=Ecosystem Instead of spending so much time and energy on weapons and war plans… This is why I voted for Kucinich. His proposal of a Department of Peace was the best idea I have ever heard. Maybe not his orginally, I don’t know, but when he said that in the primaries, he had my vote. Instead of arguing about how many troops to send in, we should be on another bus altogether.
No, not at all–but you’ve built up a nice little straw man.
Let me point out that the three permanent members of the UNSC that opposed the war included a totalitarian regime (China), one that is quasi-totalitarian and going down fast (Russia), and in France a center-right government that had extensive ties to big businesses that were involved economically with Saddam (basically, their own version of Halliburton). While at the same time, the Netherlands joined in the war effort, and the William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, told Newsweek in June 2003:
I think it’s instructive that someone who was really engaged with the nightmare situation that existed under Saddam “applauds” his removal. It’s easy, as I pointed out in my diary on pacifism, to mouth platitudes (or carry signs) about “peace”, but there was no peace in Saddam’s Iraq for those who were not part of the ruling class.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
This post (“War- if it feels good, do it!”) is the one I referred to above which criticises your argument that the war is moral. Ie it is not concerned with the existing international law. It’s the post you just replied to. Ok.
This one (“What principle do you endorse then?”) was supposed to be a continuation of this ‘thread’ (should have appeared where this post is). I goofed.
Actually it’s not bad to just add to the end of the thread because sometimes these longer replies get out of whack as they get pushed further and further to the right hand side of the page…. you know? where it gets narrower and narrower?
Or rather Amnesty USA which is even less convincing isn’t it? They don’t go around endorsing wars or not and what you quoted wasn’t an endorsement. Neither is the fact they’ve been criticising Saddam for 20 years – do you know how long they’ve been criticising the US government?
What is your point here?
Are you saying “It’s ok for any country to invade any other as long as they can get a non-endorsement endorsement from Amnesty (national branch only – not international)”?
In any case if Amnesty had known the war was hanging on their word I expect they’d have thought about it a tad more. The point is this is not a review process. Anyone can go out and dig up some folks to endorse their immoral war. Especially if the “independent source” comes from the same country as is making war! The fact is those countries that were independent of the US refused to sign on to this war because they knew it was immoral. Naturally the US could bully and bribe various countries to it’s point of view by fortunately the existing international law had a sufficient review system to reject Bush’s bogus claims. And since then we’ve learned how utterly bogus his claims were. The system worked.
Just as they would have done for Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan and Haiti and Clinton’s war on Yugoslavia. Therefore those presidents did not even ask for permission.
But you have not stated what review process you’d replace the UN SC seal of approval with have you? There are many that would be an improvement – such as a ruling by the World Court. But of course the Iraq war never had that either did it? If you have no process of review then you are back to saying any country can invade at any time for any reason (the “strawman” position) — as long as they make a public CLAIM to be acting for the good. Which all evil men do.
as believing (like MoveOn.org and Michael Moore) that we should have left the Taliban in power too. Ugh–fortunately, even Howard Dean (and most folks here) don’t go that far.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Yes I am.
You are on record as supporting mass murder (the taking of life in the process of commiting a crime is murder).
I prefer to oppose mass murder and that appears to be the choice since you presumably discount the idea of a third way of NOT invading Afghanistan but working to improve the conditions there without a war.
is laughably ineffectual. The idea that you could “improve conditions there without a war” is the sort of pacifistic naivete that only serves to help protect oppressors like the Taliban.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
You won’t admit your position is supporting mass murder then? Why is that? I was under the impression you had decided not to contest the criminality of these wars.
You can’t have it both ways you know. You call me a Taliban supporter. I admit supporting a course of action that would leave them in power. Now it’s your turn to confess.
I believe Amnesty stated that the US was responsible for 50% or more of all the terrorism in the world a few years ago. Still want to use them as the review process?
I was against her hydration tube being removed. I was with Jesse Jackson and Ralph Nader on this one.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
If you endorse none then your position is immoral.
Do you understand? I’m asking what universal rule you think should apply instead of the current international law that you disagree with. In suggesting the war was right you’ve said nothing to say why America was special so presumably you feel any nation could have attacked Iraq, yes?
You don’t use any special circumstances in the relationship between America and Iraq either.
You appear to base your entire justification on the claim that “Saddam was a bad guy” or words to that effect. But who says Saddam was a bad guy? If the only opinion that counts is that of the attacker then you have the position as I described it above precisely. So far you’ve not indicated how your position differs from what I presented it as.
I honestly was making the best case I could from what you’d said. It’s not my fault if your argument is nonsense. Frankly I think your “argument” is not based on any moral principle (universally applicable law) at all and you’d never agree to any other country acting as you say America can. If that is the case then your argument is entirely amoral — just an appeal to emotion and the rule of the jungle.
But if we treat that as a moral system then even then both Hitler and Saddam Hussein could claim the same moral system justifies their own actions.
Do you even understand what I am getting at here?
Do you know what I mean by a universal law? The concept is described many ways in all ethical systems whether it’s “do unto others…” or the Golden Rule, or the idea that “no one is above the law”. It’s basic fairness. Recipricocity. Kant had a word for it too but really it’s simple enough. You don’t get to play by your own rules Maverick. Otherwise it’s not ethics it’s bullying and violence and injustice.
Look if it helps consider the general case. Country A wants to attack country B. Under what circumstances would you support that attack?
“Do you even understand what I’m getting at here?” Pffft.
Listen, though I majored in history originally, and am now going back for a math degree, I’ve dabbled in philosophy as well. I’m not all that impressed with philosophy and critical theory as a means for seeking truth (it often seems more to seek obfuscation, or get mired in navelgazing) or for solving real world problems. But since you seem to be pretty into it, I have to wonder: are you a postmodernist? If so, your insistence on “universal” truth seems at odds with that school (or schools) of thought. Maybe you’re more of a modernist a la Habermas, but in that case I’d expect you to put greater stock in Enlightenment notions of individual liberty.
I find it more useful, though, to frame our disagreement in terms of Kohlberg’s stages of morality.
I’m tempted, within Kohlberg’s framework, to view your vehement objections to breach of “international law” as characteristic of conventional morality:
Obviously most supporters of Bush, and conservatism generally, are mired in this stage. But I submit that many of those opposed to the war are in the same stage, but are simply members of a different social group diametrically opposed to the other (whether or not it makes sense to be opposed in any given instance).
I, like anyone who buys into Kohlberg’s framework, would like to consider myself as having advanced to the postconventional stage of morality:
I’ll grant you that this does involve “universal” ideals. But at the higher stage (6) of postconventional morality, these are not those that have been agreed upon in advance in a “social contract” or other such legal means, but on principles which could be called “higher truths”. And I believe that the principle of rescuing the oppressed trumps other principles that weigh against the war.
Though I don’t believe it’s necessary to articulate some universal blueprint to substitute for judgment in individual situations, I’ll nevertheless go ahead and advance a kind of “test” for deciding whether this invasions and others in the future are warranted:
A nation which, broadly speaking, guarantees its citisens basic civil liberties like freedom of speech and assembly, has the right to intervene militarily on behalf of the citisens of a nation whose government does not guarantee such rights.
Now of course, we all know that the US is not perfect in terms of civil liberties by any means. And we should always agitate for improvement. But in the post-civil rights era, I think it’s fair to say that our country lies above a certain hypothetical “line” while Saddam’s Iraq fell below it.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Who decides? I don’t consider America to be a country that guarantees it’s citizens basic rights. For example: Bush says he has the right to hold indefinately without legal process any US citizen and kill them if he wants to.
Without a review process this disagreement over a country’s status is reduced to nothing but a claim and a claim any government can make before invading any other country. Once again Hitler did it and so did Saddam. In fact Germany had a good civil rights record and so did Saddam’s Iraq compared to Poland and Kuwait respectively. I’m “failing” you on this basis.
The rest is just “interesting thoughts”.
(1) I find your suggestion that the invading country has to have certain qualities is ad hoc. You never suggested such a thing previously. I’m glad you appear to be ok with developing your position, but I question why you think that an action is moral if a “nice” person/nation does it but immoral if a “bad” person/nation commits the very same action. Usually an act is moral or not regardless of who does it. That’s pretty much the point of being equal before the law and so on.
(2) you have dropped all talk about making life better for the citizens of the attacked country. Huh? You really think that a country that looks after its own citizens better than any other ought to be able to do whatever the hell it wants to any other country’s citizens? Let’s hope Norway doesn’t get the bomb.
(3) While in some ways the US treats its own citizens well, it’s the worst country in the world for how it treats OTHER nations’ citizens. That seems a lot more to the point don’t you think?
And I sounded the alarm about Jose Padilla as loudly as anyone. The fact that the Supreme Court has decided that Bush does not have that right, and that Padilla is entitled to due process, is not only a great relief, but evidence that our nation is in fact more morally just than Bush is.
I think the victims of Krystalnacht et al would disagree with you about Germany. As for Kuwait, that was the main reason I opposed the first Gulf War: we were supposedly going to war to “liberate” Kuwait, but only took it from one dictator and gave it to another. This is just the opposite, btw, of the position Dean and many Kossacks take (not sure about Boomaniacs): they hold up the congressional authorisation for the first Gulf War as more justifiable, even though it was at the time of the vote more solidly opposed by most Democrats.
I agree with this in part, because after all I do think Bush is “bad” but couldn’t oppose his doing what I saw as on balance a “good” thing. But a nation which does not guarantee basic civil liberties for its people has no moral authority whatever to act to protect the liberties of another people; nor does it have any credibility in terms of actually being likely to follow through. Bushco struggles in this regard as well, I’ll grant you; but as I demonstrated above our government is more than just an expression of Bush’s every desire (unlike Saddam’s Iraq).
I have done nothing of the sort! Just because I don’t repeat my previous statements over and over, does not mean I don’t still stand by them.
I somehow find it hard to get too alarmed by the notion of Norway as enforcer of civil liberties.
I concede your point here. But I felt that with so much attention paid to this intervention, it would be hard for Bushco to get away with the kind of stuff Reagan et al pulled, in terms of just installing some sort of pliant, pro-U.S. tyrant. Still, I was always concerned about the possibility of that and other human rights violations, as I told the WaPo before the war:
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Come up with a principle that includes these previous statements because I don’t know if you see them as genuinely relevent or if you were just trying for a post-hoc justification.
If you’re having trouble consider the current law, or the “just war” doctrine.
From the time I wrote an op-ed piece for a local alt-weekly supporting the war in fall ’02, I consistently stated that I didn’t believe taking Saddam out would make Americans any safer, and that in fact there might be some marginal increase in our risk of being hit by terrorism. So, while the Bushies are indeed belatedly using the “democracy and liberation of the Iraqi people” as their replacement for their original WMD rationale, I don’t need to adjust anything from where I’ve been all along.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
This is an email I received from my friend in Iraq on Dec. 1, 2004, I am just posting it here without comment since it speaks for itself. I am going to try to get a diary together in the next few days with more letters from her. These are her words, I changed nothing.
“”About the current situation in Iraq I have a completely different perspective than about 95% of Iraqis. Why? Because I find it hard to talk about America without biases in her favor, something which is quite rejected and bitterly criticized not even in Iraq but throughout the Middle East and the whole of the Arab world. I don’t even exaggerate when I say that this fact has got me into many troublesome situations very often.
From where did I develop such zeal? Many factors contribute to the development of such feeling. But probably in our case, we Iraqis, the tyranny under which we suffered for more than 35 years encourages us to try and find a way of survival, even if through the intervention of a third party, other than people and state. However, for me, this is not the only reason. I love particular cultures for their own sakes. In the case of America I’m like Sinclair Lewis, the famous American writer, when he says “Intellectually I know that America is no better than any other country; emotionally I know she is better than every other country”.
Besides, I know what my people are, how they think, how they feel and how they respond and interact to foreign cultures. This really is a very complicated topic that I am trying to discuss with you. In order to give you a clear picture of what life, in all its political, juridical, religious and social details it would take me more than one e –mail.
Besides I am not sure if you are particularly interested in knowing such details. But let me start by saying that 99 % of those responses and reactions to foreign people and cultures have non- political motives. After all, what does the average citizen know about politics or what political leaders are up to, especially when tyranny is the absolute ruler?!! Since politics is not the motive because of which a certain course of action is decided, then what is?
I can assure you that religion and popular culture are the prime movers of countries in the Arab world. And since differences in these two points are countless between West and East, one can easily expect the conflicts that arise.
Particularly for this reason all news networks and companies fail to capture the real spirit of what is going on. This is not just in America for I have e – pals in Italy, France and Germany who complained of the same thing: conflicting views over what happens in Iraq. The standard question one could hear with a big question and exclamation marks in the voice of foreigners: What the hell is going on over there?
Whether Americans are doing a good job over here or not is, I think, a purely political question, which requires a good analysis of causes and effects and the resulting phenomenon. However I can say that neither Americans nor Iraqis are totally right or totally wrong. For example US forces made a tremendous mistake when they intentionally lost grip over a broken, tyranny-stricken country by following a policy of toleration never practiced before in the country – not for the last 35 years.
The result: the majority of people misused their newly – gotten gift. American authorities allowed that each person could have access to weapons to defend himself and his family. The result: guns are in the hands of almost everyone from 10 years old on. How come? People are simply not educated as to what a gun is really for!!!
This is not to mention that 2 months before the war, the ex – president declared a resolution by which he ordered to free every single prisoner regardless of what he’s committed!!!(That’s no tolerance Diane, don’t be misled by how compassionate the president was!!!)
A lot of people say that he did this on purpose because he knew that his days are over and that he knew if this portion of society he can win, then his chances of restoring his throne are stronger. So every single prison around the country was virtually empty. Murderers, adulterers, armed robbers…etc all free and at large. You can imagine what they did when anarchy replaced tyranny. Well, US forces should have contained this, for example, as soon as they put their foot inside the country.
On a completely different note, one has to bear in mind the ignorance, the unfamiliarity with western world and culture, the severity and oppression under which the country groaned for over more than 35 years of its history…all these factors and many more made communication with Americans and Europeans an impossible task. Even now, after the removal of Hussein, people can’t break free… can’t just let go.
Responsibility and liberty, I guess, are a source of fright and helplessness for them, not happiness or salvation. For this, one can’t even say “good morning” to an American freely because the feeling that there is some petty – minded, Saddam – fanatic, religiously intolerant watching over your shoulders, someone who can really hurt you or your family!!! When Americans came in they tried to open our society all at once, which is the most dangerous thing to do, especially here in Iraq. The result: tribulation for both natives and non– natives.
One of the most deplorable facts about people in my country – young and old, men and women – is that they are so rigid in terms of evaluating ideas and opinions. They are still so fanatically attached to customs and practices adopted thousands of years ago. They won’t even take the trouble to examine and evaluate the weight and significance of their views and what they believe in.
This can easily be seen in their dealings with the situation in the country these days, in their approach to foreigners, such as Europeans and Americans, in their country. They won’t bother to get to know a new culture or get to know some new people. For example, many consider the existence of women in the US army a shameful wrongdoing – even insulting to the society’s long – established traditions.
But when you ask someone why he or she thinks this way, they just remain tongue – tied, as silent as the dead or sometimes simply say “ It is just not appropriate.” Why? how? Nobody answers. It is just not appropriate in the same way it wasn’t appropriate thousands of years ago!!!
On the other hand, many people are optimistic about what role can the US play in Iraq. They just think it is a matter of time.
For me I think that the US can play a positive role ONLY IF the Iraqis themselves try hard to help themselves and not just sit back and wait for the US forces to do everything for them. The responsibility of restoring the country has to be shared, otherwise peace and settlement are mere words. How can Iraqis help themselves? In many ways. But first of all they have to start from the head, i.e., by changing attitude and cleaning up their minds and hearts from the poisons of the former times.
This brings us to the heart of the problem, the point from which I started and approached the topic of our discussion. And since such changed I don’t believe is going to happen any time soon, the problem will just continue to tear the country apart.
All these things and many others render the situation more problematic than any news network can convey faithfully.””””
Well the conversation seems to have stalled. The problem with your initial conversation with MaggieEh was a lack of accountability or authority. Basically you both assumed that America had the perfect right to invade Iraq and the conversation simply turned on whether on balance it was a nice idea or not. This is exemplified by the “A doctor first does no harm” argument she proposed. Let me tell you that the first thing a surgeon does is get the patient’s permission to operate on them or otherwise establish the legal authority to cut someone open.
In attempt to make this less about America I asked you to explain under what circumstances you would support generic country A invading country B. I asked you what you would replace the current legal position under the UN Charter with – since you obviously disagree with it and endorse Bush’s violation of it.
Now this is where it got a bit odd. Although your conversation with MaggieEh had concentrated upon trying to prove that the Iraqis were better off (which they are NOT) under their new dictator Bush you didn’t mention anything about making conditions better for people in your equivalent of just war theory. Instead you said that any “good” country ought to be able to attack any “bad” country with good and bad defined in terms of which country gave their own citizens (not foreigners) basic civil rights. Your justification to me was completely unrelated to the justification you used on her.
Well I criticised that on various grounds, including mentioning that on that basis Hitler’s invasion of Poland was justified, but I didn’t really touch on thing about it which pisses me off the most which is this idea you have that you have the perfect right to kill 250,000 brown people and then patronisingly tell them it was all for their own good. (And yes I do think racism is an element of this sort of thinking but that’s not the heart of it).
I suspect that you’d never really considered this question of exceptionalism or “what gives you the right…?” or universally applicable principles before in your thinking on Iraq. You’d always just taken for granted the power of life or death over anyone in the third world and that America could kill anyone it wanted to in complete disregard for established international law. In scrambling for a justification for this authoritarian attitude (the negation of a libertarian attitude) you came up with a new claim — that there are “good” countries and there are “bad” countries. That no one has the right to kill people in “good” countries but that people in “good” countries have the right to kill anyone else. And of course, America is a “good” country.
Saying simply “good” like that would sound lame so you said “countries that have basic civil rights” which I pointed out included Germany prior to WW2 but excluded Poland at that time. I dare say you could have picked some other proxy for the US such as “countries that are democracies ought to be able to invade countries that aren’t”.
But this really doesn’t answer the question of why “good” countries should be able to commit an evil act like invading somewhere. I assume the argument that’s going on in the back of your mind here is the equivalent of what just war theory calls “good intention”. IE you are saying that if a country is “good” then it will have the best reasons and act with sincerity when it kills people. That pretty much reduces your formulation back to the one I suggested which you called a strawman — that “Countries should be able to invade whenever they say it’s for a good reason”. The difference is that you say a “good” country is perhaps more likely to be believed.
But clearly Bush himself is a counter example because he’s in charge of America and there’s nothing sincere in how he went to war or his motivations for war. So even though you want to say America is “good” that obviously doesn’t guarantee any kind of sincerity (and the history of the US shows that it acts with evil intent but I’m guessing that you don’t believe that).
Is that a fair summary?
I have some questions at this point.
(1) if you knew Bush was such a total asshole why did you go along with his war? How could you possibly think he was a “good” invader?
(2) on the point of the war’s criminality: Granted you disagree with the law’s current wording – but don’t you think that in deciding if a leader is sufficiently “nice” to allow to invade places one of the things to take into account would be that person’s willingness to obey the law? In just war theory this is called “legal authority” or something like that. Bush and anyone else going to war under the current legal regime is ipso facto a criminal and a criminal is ipso facto not a “nice guy” that you ought to allow to invade places.
(3) Regardless of (2) you still need to say how you would come up with a way to identify which countries or leaders are “nice” enough to be allowed to invade countries in your opinion. Clearly saying “America can” is not a moral (universally applicable) answer, and saying “countries that have civil rights” or some other proxy for America won’t work either because of leaders like Bush (at a minimum– or in my view, all US presidents) have been war criminals.
(4) Don’t you think this concept that if someone is nice enough they should have ultimate power over others has some serious flaws? Where’s the checks and balances? I’m a communist but even I’m not that optimistic about human nature. At least the current UN system has a review by genuinely independent interested parties.
(5) It would be one thing if you genuinely believed in a sort of world government with a benevolent dictator invested with the power to kick ass all over the world because we trust him because he’s Mr Nice Guy. But I get the impression you don’t. You just arbitrarily say America is that dictator. The hard part isn’t you saying you’d agree to be the dictator. The hard part is saying under what circumstances you’d agree to someone else being the dictator. Under what circumstances would you be happy to be one of the 250,000 dead people? Or as bellatrys put it would you sacrifice your life to invade Iraq? would you sacrifice your relatives lives? No? Then how come you feel the right to sacrifice their lives?
I would like to thank you. I’ve been following this thread and you have put your arguments forth with such clarity that they can hardly be disputed by someone claiming to be ethical (I won’t say moral because it is a word that means too many things these days). I say hardly only because of the surgical analogy at the start of your argument. Couldn’t it be said that Iraq gave it’s permission by proxy via its expatriates in that they had the patient declared insane or otherwise incapacitated? That the patient went in with a benign tumor and came out with terminal cancer is not from lack of good intent (assuming one believes this) on our part, even if the blame lies with the surgeons. Of course this argument could be used by one claiming to work for the greater good, but it is not one that values individual life. Don’t get me wrong, I wholeheartedly agree with you, I just like to look at various angles.
In the specific case of Iraq I don’t think this question arises because it’s so clear (though Maverick has denied it) that a peaceful solution was possible — because Saddam Hussein had already effectively lost control of a large part of his own country in the North where the Kurds are. This was achieved without any ground fighting.
However if we assume Maverick is correct in asserting that the only way to oust Saddam was by massive violence and the killing of huge numbers of people, is it possible that the Iraqi people could indicate they wanted an invasion — removing the main moral objection to the war (that it decides others’ fate for them)?
I think practically speaking the answer is “no” and the UN has no such legal loophole. Legally the government represents the wishes of the people period.
Some people say there is a loophole for humanitarian intervention, but that’s not true – it doesn’t appear in the text of the UN charter. You could intervene if there was a local armed revolt. The UN SC has the authority (and duty) to take steps to end any armed conflict – but not to create a new one – even for the best of reasons. Practically speaking people don’t like being invaded (unless the war already started). People want peace and are willing to put up with quite a lot to get it.
For example only about one third of the American colonists wanted to leave the British empire in the 18th century and we don’t know how many of those would have said they were willing to be invaded by the French to achieve independence. Let’s say 25% of them wouldn’t. That would have left only a quater in favour of a humanitarian intervention. Would the French have been justified in invading on the basis of only one in four?
No? Well how many then? It takes three quarters of the states just to amend the constitution. Certainly you’d want a larger proportion to endorse something far more serious. How about 80%? If 80% of adult Iraqis agree they want to be invaded do they have the right to subject the other 20% (and all children) to their will? Do they have that right? Maybe not but practically speaking that’s what happens whenever a country goes to war, and usually a lot less than 80% of the country agree. Even in the US at the start of the Iraq war less than half agreed with the war. In Britain about 80% disagreed. Well let’s say 80% for the sake of argument.
How do you go about deciding if 80% agree? You can’t take a poll. You can’t rely on self-selected expatriates or figures produced by the government that wishes to invade. Nor can you take the word of the government to be attacked or expect any co-operation from them.
In any case how do the Iraqis know what they are voting on? Are they voting for an easy invasion with few loses and a quick transition to a stable government? or are they voting on “shock and awe’, indescriminate bombing of civilians, terrorism, a brutal resistance, secular government replaced with religious fanatics and a foreign occupation that lasts for decades steal the wealth of the nation and… and so on.
Practically speaking the “If they want independence that bad, let them form a revolt against the government and then we will intervene with a clear conscience” may be best.
I was referring to Iraqis and their descendants who no longer live there and more specifically to those living in the US. The vocal ones supported the US invasion by claiming that Iraqis were unable to live by self rule, in part by people who felt they had something to gain by potentially having a say in the new Iraq. I would agree that they were ignorant as to what an invasion would entail, in part through dishonesty by the US government. It goes to reason that the non-vocal ones did not support this invasion either due to fear of indefinite detention, exile or they felt it was none of their concern anymore. However those that were vocal now show their hypocrisy in that they are not returning to Iraq to help – I’m sure in part because they have no inclination to sacrifice either their life or their lifestyle.
You speak of percentages but I will confess that they mean little to me (in terms of my respect for such things). If 100% endorse military action that, as you mentioned, leaves the children, which still makes it unethical. We voted on giving the president the power to invade Iraq through the Senate. To vote on invading a country by a group of people with limited knowledge on the history of that country, or with private interests (personal or corporate) in that country is also unethical. In other words: to vote on something such as an invasion of another country we know little about, which holds no impact upon the lives of the citizenry of this country, is not something that should ever be put to vote. I would consider being allowed to vote on killing people or being ignorant of any given subject matter, are serious flaws in democracy.
I would certainly agree with the UN on the reasons war is permissible, after all these things were drafted by ethical Statesmen with far superior knowledge of world events than most of our Senators (many of who were elected by people with no outside knowledge of their own cornfield). The UNs purpose is to limit armed conflict, not endorse it.
As for the Arab States we are hardly impartial judges. It certainly seems that those States that are controlled by fundamentalism are the ones we support. The secular States, such as Iraq, Syria and Egypt are ones we are frightened of, though they are hardly any more brutal (which takes many forms) than the religious States. In the case of Iraq, for instance, it’s the Kurds and the Shiits that are heavily fundamentalist. Now I don’t agree with or endorse the secular Arab regimes, but it must be recalled that when Sadat lessened the “restrictions” implemented by Nasser, on the fundamentalists, they assassinated him. I’m not sure we (Westerners) fully comprehend all the dynamics that are at play in Arab culture, but I do know that if we do deal with them it needs to be done fairly and by example (ours not theirs).
War should only be used when a country is first attacked. Even in the case of the first Gulf war I would make a case that the war was unethical – not in terms of the UN, but in terms of the US. Furthermore the following sanctions were criminal and this was done by the world community. In the case of Afghanistan we certainly had a legitimate reason since under no circumstances is the killing of civilians acceptable. The war with Iraq has undermined that effort in that al Qaeda has perhaps not spread, but certainly is as strong as before, and present in countries most Americans haven’t heard of. Our government is not so stupid it doesn’t know this so we end up paying with diminished freedoms. In any event this was a situation where there was no question that there would be retaliation, so it was also unnecessary to vote on this.
Just wanted to let you know that my Iraqi friend has just this day posted her own diary and you can find the link to it on my latest diary Introducing My Iraqi Friend’s new blog. Thought you might want to know after our conversation the other day.
I will look into it.
Thanks for getting that letter out; I finally was able to get to the site this morning. The views on how various groups of Muslims view Christians was especially enlighten information (since I know being Christian has in recent months become very difficult for the Iraqi Christians and that has clarified things). Fundamentalism 101.
I don’t know how much your friend has been exposed to in regards to her education but it was a similar situation to what Iraq is going through now that dominated Hussein’s childhood and thus created him (with a little help from us). Children growing up in this conflict are going to be the ones to watch since they are the most impressionable part of the population and the ones that hold the most grievances. Furthermore the person who will eventually take control will probably end up being a tyrant as well, since other factions will easily pick off the non-paranoid ones.
That is unless we are committed to staying there for at least a generation, making sure everybody has jobs and filtering out the violence in the society. Of course it could go in the direction of breaking into smaller countries, which I’m sure, would not be in our interests, and would leave the individual countries venerable.
Ultimately I don’t see there is any way (other than propping up another tyrant) we can leave for a good long time because our interests are so entwined in the region (of course if they run out of oil we’ll be gone the following day). This matter is pretty much out of the hands of the American public – it’s a done deal. That is to say even if public opinion becomes anti-war, such as in Vietnam, our departure from the region could (I would bet on it) start a region wide conflict. This is why we are starting to target Syria now. They are also very keen on having a Pan Arab State, and with Iraq weakened and the US gone it would be an excellent opportunity. The fat sheiks (i.e. Saudi Arabia, UAE etc..) have no real designs beyond maintaining their corrupt lifestyles, and the Iranians who are Persians aren’t really that interested in Arab territories.
Though I would be happy if someone could convince me of a less gloomy outlook.
meant to say: individual countries vulnerable
Thanks for your comments above. Please read all the comments I made below my diary as I have added a lot of info regarding my friend there and some realating to her education
Fundamentalism 101 comment brings to mind an interchange I has with her recently when she asked me why we always call things 101. And my screen name is 101 too, funny. Anway I told her that it was from school system to designate beginning class in a subject,, what would you have said? I had never thought of it before, but it does point to the fact that words or phrases or numbers chosen to represent something can either have an entirely different meaning to some or just be not understood at all. So it is communication that is the first step in a long series of steps to get to the top of any problem, etc.
Rambling, I guess.
Could you post any further comments on my diary so I will be sure to see them.
I agree with you that we shouldn’t be allied with oppressive fundamentalists like the Wahabis in Saudi Arabia. Were it up to me, they’d be dealt with very harshly.
However, you are wrong in your characterisation of the Shiites and especially the Kurds in Iraq. Shiite leaders (as well as the rank and file) have been pretty consistent in advocating a separation of church and state, though there is a minority that wants a theocracy like Iran’s. Kurds have been very consistent about wanting a secular government. Where did you hear otherwise?
Alan
Maverick Leftist
News World International, PBS or BBC – is all I watch here – and the show was probably 4 years old (I think NWI). The Kurds, from what I remember are Sunni, but considered more fundamentalist than say the Baathists who are lets say ‘Arab communists’. The Shiites I wouldn’t be so quick to trust (I would put my money on extremists) – given the high unemployment. Saudi Arabia 30 – 50 % unemployment of college grads. – depending on the source – keep in mind that this educated elite has nothing to turn to but religion. Given that and the fact that they see foreigners get wealthy on their oil is a breeding ground for extremism. So I’m not so quick to judge just based on religion, but also poverty – the two go hand in hand – and of it is borne extremism in times of peace. Back to the Kurds – we can’t forget Iran and Turkey in all this – they are fighting for liberation, which if we deal with it, it must be across the board. Also keep in mind that saying one wants a secular government isn’t always meaning it. The Kurds are using us since their choices are limited.
Thanks for writing so well so many of the things I was wanting to say. In my defence, may I disagree with your stating “Basically you both assumed that America had the perfect right to invade Iraq and the conversation simply turned on whether on balance it was a nice idea or not.”
My starting point was more that America had invaded Iraq, and look what that choice has meant for the Iraqi people. If I wrote anything indicating I thought it had a legal right to do so it was unintentional. The fact that it’s going so badly leads inevitably back to why it was all so wrong in the first place, and to why international law exists and why it matters.
And the question “would you be willing to sacrifice your life to invade Iraq” really should be the litmus test for the support of a war. Unless you would be willing risk death yourself, you have no right to choose ‘war’ for others.
Certainly you stated the war was criminal which in a sense should be the end of it but doesn’t make for much of a debate. What I meant was that your debate proceeded from a certain point with certain assumptions (as you say above). I apologise for suggesting that was your opinion.
The article by Bellatrys is great for making people think, and I wrote to congratulate her on it and ask if I could use it but technically I think it is false on two grounds:
(1) even if you are willing to sacrifice your own life that doesn’t mean they would.
(2) even if you are not willing to die for a cause, it may be that the people themselves are.
These objections might be solved by asking a slightly modified Bellatrys question: would you be willing to die if you were the one living in Iraq? If I was in Iraq I think my answer to her question would be a lot more likely to be a “yes”.
But there will always be some willing and some not willing in a situation. For example anyone married with a familly is likely to say, “no”. There will be those who like the current regime and those who oppose. Even in a democracy the question of how you figure out what the people want is not simple.
I still like the original question, but am likely making some assumptions: That I find it hard to imagine (regarding a non-defensive war), a situation bad enough in which the people making the decision for war would actually make that choice if it meant they themselves would likely die as a result, and because it means (for the reasonably self-protective decision maker)there would also have be no other possible options left, which in reality is almost never the case.
Like the old saying ‘nothing focuses the mind like the prospect of a hanging in the morning’, if choosing war meant almost certain personal sacrifice, an awful lot of ‘impossible’ situations would find pretty quick resolutions.
In reality of course you’re right, it can never be that simple, and your choices are never just about you. And on that depressing thought, I think I’ll go find my cat. Not that I can figure out my cat either, but the purring is quite nice…
I’ve heard this over and over, and while it has a certain rhetorical strength, I think it is fundamentally unfair. You indirectly (through local elected officials) choose to authorise the government to hire firefighters to take on the dangerous task of running into burning buildings (when most of us would run out). Do you not have the right to do this until you go and fight a fire or two yourself? If you don’t have that rare courage, should you then vote to eliminate the fire department, figuring you don’t have the right to ask others to do what you won’t do?
Please also see my post below which, I think, addresses some of the other issues we’ve debated. In particular, I’d be curious to hear your response to my “SWAT team” analogy.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Bullshit. I previously acknowledged that the U.S. has a sorry history of military intervention, particularly in Latin America. I can list any number of cases that I have always condemned–from the Mexican-American War, to the Spanish-American War, to the invasion and annexation of Hawaii, to subsequent incursions by the Marines in Cuba, and on and on to Guatemala, 1950s Iran, Nicaragua, Grenada, and El Salvador in the 1980s, and in fact the first Gulf War. So save your lecture for someone who actually does buy into this “America is always the good guy” nonsense.
Please, provide some evidence to enlighten me as to Hitler’s stellar record of preserving civil liberties between 1933 and 1939. I’ll try to keep an open mind, but that is pretty hard to swallow.
Now, quick answers to your numbered questions.
(1) In the discussion that led to this diary, I addressed this issue:
So my point was, I didn’t trust Bush to do it right, just as I don’t trust him when he claims he’s going to cut power plant emissions. But I can’t very well say “no, let’s not reduce pollution”! I would say instead “yes, that’s the same goal I have, but I’ll be keeping an eye on you and crying foul the moment you go off track”. And frankly, I think in terms of Iraq, someone like me has more credibility when I do criticise things that go on in Iraq, as compared to a naysayer who is presumed to be against every aspect of the mission, regardless of the specifics.
(2) Once again referring to Kohlberg’s stages of moral reasoning, I think you (like most people) have not made it to the “postconventional morality” stage. You are still in the legalistic “conventional” stage: “if it is against the law, it is wrong.” That idea can be dismissed as easily as pointing out that what John Brown did was also certainly illegal–but it was not morally wrong in my opinion. (How about yours?)
The others are more or less rehashes of points where we’ve gone round and round. I would mention, though, that you are wrong: I do favour a world government. Like you, I am a kind of communist (click the “Maverick Leftist” link for more information on that).
But here’s the bottom line on how I feel. I think that you, and many other opponents of the war, are held back by a kind of hand-wringing paralysis: “If we do this, innocent people will die.” So instead you prefer to do nothing, while innocent people are oppressed and killed steadily over an indefinite period of time. Here’s an analogy that illustrates the way I see it–and this, to my mind, is much simpler and more evident than trying to satisfy your framework:
Let’s say there is a compound where a madman is holed up along with some wives and children that he never allows to leave, and from all reports he is extremely physically abusive to some of them (specifically, those who displease him–in fact, he has killed some of them in the past, and the rest live in constant fear of what he might do).
Now, an FBI SWAT team raid, it is predicted, would almost certainly result in a short term increase in the loss of life in the compound. Bush is holed up with his advisors trying to decide if and when to order this raid. Would you seriously come out against the raid? You’d rather they just leave everybody inside alone, other than making sure they get regular shipments of food and other necessities?
I would not. Sure, Bush is an asshole, and the raid could result in some innocent lives lost. But I know that if I were one of those trapped inside, I’d want him to go for it anyway, and I’d take my chances.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Sorry I didn’t get a chance to jump in here this weekend. I live on Vancouver Island, where the ski season on Mt. Washington has been a complete write off due to lack of snow. Except that now that the ski season is really and truly dead, it snowed buckets. So we headed up there for the weekend to do some snowshoeing, really gorgeous deep deep powder. In April. Sigh.
But for what it’s worth Maverick, here’s my take on what seems to me the fundamental flaw in your arguments supporting an interventionist foreign policy to `free the oppressed`. The desired `success’ of your foreign intervention is completely dependant on the benevolence of the intervening nation. Which in reality conflicts with the fact that the primary motivator of most nations and individuals is self-interest. Not the only motivator, but in a fight between benevolence and self-interest, I believe history favours the latter. Which is why the UN was primarily borne of self-interest: how can we work together to avoid another global war, in which all nations suffered so horribly?
As to you question on “would I push the button marked “Reset”, which would undo the invasion”, what would give me the right to make such an extraordinary decision, granting life and death based on my own personal whim? I’m no George Bush and would not care to play God. If you’re asking do I wish the war had never happened, absolutely, for all the reasons stated so well by rba above.
I envy you your certainty that “it’s facile to claim that regime change would have occurred without an invasion.” You’re so certain that nothing else would have worked. But it seems to me you’re weighing up the options on philosophical grounds and then rejecting those that don’t hold up to your own standards of scrutiny. But the Iraq war is not theoretical, it’s real, and in the real world the standards of scutiny are real too. You seem to dismiss diplomacy as non-functional and therefore useless to pursue. Going back to the medical analogy, medicical practice does not come to a grinding halt because of an over-analytical application of `first do no harm’, neither does a foreign policy based on this caution. It is a guiding principal, not a philosophical absolute. Surgeons, under `first do no harm’, happily cut open chests every day. And they are answerable for doing so to the patient and their family, the hospital, their professional organization, and the laws of their country. The rules and laws governing behaviour are there to set a higher standard than individual convictions.
What I’m trying to get at is this: In a civilized society, the guy who lives next door to you may be a totally evil asshole. Let’s say he boils kittens in his backyard for fun. This does not give you the right to go and shoot him yourself. If you do shoot him, and you were not doing it in self defence, expect to go jail for murder. The fact that he was `evil’ will not help you in court because in a civilized society, individuals do not have the right to decide for others if they should live or die. If when you shot him he was hurting someone else, you would have to prove before a jury of your peers that there was absolutely no other possible action you could have taken. The decision on if the shooting really was necessary to save another life does not under any circumstances get to be made by the murderer. In Bush’s world, this is what he was required to do in front of the UN security council. He had no case. This war is wrong for the same reason you can’t murder people you think should die. Because in a civilized society, that choice is not yours to make. Period.
That’s awesome. I used to be a big skier in high school, when I could go several times a week on my “off peak” season pass. I haven’t gone for years though. But I do really want to visit Vancouver Island! My sister is a naturalised Canuck (she lives in the city of Vancouver), and she and her partner have a summer home on Salt Spring Island, but I haven’t even made it to see that yet, sadly. When I get a teaching job, hopefully by summer ’06, I’m going to start visiting a lot of places I’ve been dying to go to, and that is definitely near the top of the list.
You have a point, but with this pessimistic philosophy, you might as well give up on passing laws against domestic violence or rape, and just go the anarchistic/libertarian route and suggest everyone carry a gun. That is, your philosophy seems at odd with any use of state machinery for progressive purposes. And isn’t that what we’re supposed to be all about here?
I’m not certain–but I’m very, very sceptical that anything else would have worked.
As a general rule? Not at all. But there are those who show that they respond to diplomacy, and those who do not.
But this analogy fundamentally breaks down because the reason we can’t “take the law into our own hands” is that we are expected to be able to get the justice system to handle it. We can call the cops and have them come over and arrest him for his evil practices (let’s say he’s boiling people for fun, as I don’t believe anyone should be shot for boiling kittens, cute though they are). But there is no equivalent on a planetary basis, a worldwide justice system superimposed over and above the rule of individual governments (the World Court is far too toothless, let’s face it–and yes, Republicans are partly at fault for that; but it’s not likely in our lifetime that we’d allow such a court to supersede our government’s power). There wasn’t any “911” number we could call, to get an armed incursion force (which is what the cops are, after all) to go arrest Saddam.
So if we were to correct your analogy to make it, well, analogous, we would have to stipulate that we are living in some kind of anarchistic environment (talking about the neighbourhood as a whole–despite the fact that we have various laws within each household). In which case, I would absolutely agree that any neighbour who objects to the evil acts going on in that house ought to go over and shoot the bad guy. And if another neighbour disagrees with that action? They can come over and take me on if they have a big enough issue with it.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Important things first: spending time visiting on Salt Spring Island is an invitation you really should not turn down! It doesn’t get much more lovely than that. And I have some strong opinions on the proper doom for kitten boilers, but that is far too disgusting an argument, so let’s just let that go.
As to the questions you’ve asked, I’ll have to catch up with you in a day or two, having just squandered my computer time writing elsewhere about birds flying into windows.
I suspect at some point we may simply have to agree to disagree, but not quite yet – I still have a few links I want to track down and pass on..
You’ve said that my analogy of individuals not being able to decide to kill others breaks down on an international level because you can’t “call the cops” internationally. In other words, if you didn’t have a functional justice system, you’d have no other choice but to let individuals make their own moral judgements in such an anarchistic environment, and live with the consequences.
This excludes the other obvious choice: work to make the justice system you have functional. You will likely disagree, but I believe that if the Bush administration had put the money, time, manpower, sacrifice, and determination into making the international justice system genuinely just, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. And of course it would be extremely difficult, and would face all the sorts of difficulties that occur whenever three or more people, let alone three or more countries, try to work co-operatively. But just imagine what might have been done with that $161,000,000,000, with hundreds of thousands of full time staff working tirelessly on this and nothing else for the last two years. Add to that the fact that instead of millions of people around the world pouring into the streets to oppose the war, you’d have those millions in the streets demanding their own governments do the same.
I think what may lie at the root of our disagreements is we have very different ideas about what `war’ is, and because of that different hopes (in your case) and fears (in my case) on what outcome a `interventionist’ war is likely to have.
For me this is war: link From this past weekend, ‘Army reservist witnesses war crimes’
For me war also means a diversion of money, manpower, talent and science away from the goals of improving individual lives and society, and instead pours these resources into advancing the many ways we have of maiming, killing and destroying each other. This weekends TomDispatch had a good piece on our chilling `progress’ in this area with `If You Build It, They Will Kill’.
And lastly there is this: I don’t believe we are in any position right now to be flirting with possible disaster. Global warming is likely to have catastrophic effects on people around this planet in the coming decades. If there was ever a time for needing international institutions to be strengthened, it is now. You may not like those institutions, but that’s what we’ve got. I may not like the entropy law, but physics (and any child with Lego) can tell you that it is much harder, and takes much longer to create order that to create chaos. This war is shattering so much of the long, hard, thanklessly built up co-operation and communications between nations. And time to rebuild them a luxury we may not have, with the potential therefore of a great deal of suffering and destruction that need not have occurred. (And this is without considering the results for us all if the Iraq war spills over into a regional/ world war, or regionaly goes nuclear.)
There is this: time does have a way of sorting these things out. Believe me, no one would be happier than me if my fears proved groundless and your hopes for a better life for the people of Iraq became a reality. And it’s been really interesting to read your perspective, I think it’s always too easy to get into a `if you disagree with me then you must be an idiot’ sort of mentality, particularly in politics.
Likewise. I think you, in this post in particular, make the strongest case I’ve seen against my position.
Related comment
“Another perspective: the US imperium”