My Lack of Moral Outrage Explained For a majority of the recent posts dealing with the Iraq war between the quadfecta of blogs (you know who you are) and J. Morgan, it seems that the argument has come down to this. I'll label the sides red vs. blue for, well, obvious reasons.
I think good American foreign policy would dictate that we do whatever we can to make the world a better place for us, not that we make the world a better place for altruism's sake, or that we continue to prop up some fanatical regime for the sake of it's unfortunate citizens. In this sense, I never really believed that the US invaded Iraq in the search for WMD's. Well, yeah I believed the Iraqis had them after using them on the Kurds and because the President told me, but I think I recognized that there was more at stake than Al-Queda acquiring a bomb laced with anthrax. The point was that by changing things in the Middle East we won't have to worry about Arabs with nukes anymore than we worry about Russians with nukes, or hell- the Chinese with nukes.
In essence, Bush was forced into providing some rationale for the invasion of the war to satisfy those who preach that Arabs have as much right to their extremism as we to our comparitive safety. Had Bush said, "We are going to rewrite Middle Eastern politics because the current ones don't promote stability in the region or the safety of the US"- there would be the same amount of talk about how "unjustified" the war is. The tragedy is that liberalism has demonized America and capitalism so much that Bush couldn't, or at least thought he couldn't, come out and say, "Extremist middle east authoritarian regimes are undermining global security and our security while exploiting their own people. In the effort to combat terrorism and improve the lives of impoverished Arabs, we are going to form an alliance with our real allies (i.e. England, Austrailia, etc..) to help modernize the Arab world and reduce the influence of those leaders who are a thorn in the side of peace and tolerance- starting with Afghanistan and Saddam, who, respectively, have harbored terrorists and aided the 9/11 hijackers, and violated 14 (or 16 or whatever the number is) of UN resolutions.... etc..."
In regards to the Middle East, I think that economic sanctions or any kind of non-authoritarian plan is pointless. For us to stabilize that region of the world, we need modernism to temper extremism- not in any kind of philosophical sense, but in the sense that an Iranian with the internet, a washing machine, and a future is less likely to strap explosives to their their body and take out a few Jews or Christians. We need to capitalize the Middle East. The reason the plan has to be authoritarian is that we it won't do us any good in the long run to pump aid, education, and trade to the people without some assurance that their government in turn won't confiscate it (or the fruits of it in regards to education) to turn back on us as a nuclear program with scientists we effectively trained or bombs that we paid for. As I quoted Friedman earlier, "Terrorism is 98 percent about what governments let happen- the charities they allow to raise and funnel money, the lies they allow to be told about us in their press and the terrible intolerance they allow to be preached."
Fire Away... and read the new post at Michael Yon's blog- it will rock your face off.
Red- "The Iraq war benefits everybody"Ok, we agree that the Iraq war should be carried out to the end and that it's rationale was spotty at best. It seems to me that the main difference between myself (I won't speak for the others on my side) is best illustrated in this question to me from J. Morgan.
Blue-"But Bush lied to us to lead us into it in the first place"
Red- "Yeah that sucks, but the Iraq War totally benefits everybody."
Blue- "Yeah, that's great, but Bush totally lied to us to lead us into it in the first place"
Red- "Yeah that sucks, but the Iraq War totally benefits everybody."
Blue- "Yeah, that's great, but Bush totally lied to us to lead us into it in the first place." etc...
"It should matter to you that the administration made a huge effort to construe spotty, irrelevant, and inconclusive evidence as complete certainty. It should also matter to you that they were wrong. Why doesn't it? Why doesn't that stir some moral outrage?"After mulling it over quite some time (by mulling it over I mean not really thinking about it except when blogging) I had an epiphany. The reason that this fails to stir some kind of moral outrage or really even affect me at all is this: I believe that I already had some a priori belief that taking out Saddam and instituting a pro-US democracy style government was a good idea based on those merits alone. Call it manifest destiny and label me an imperialist, but I'm really not opposed to the idea of spreading American influence for the goal of spreading American influence. I'm not in any way advocating colonialism or even comparing us to a Biblical Israel out to inhabit a global Canaan, but I really don't care about the rationale for taking down some anti-US government and putting up a pro-US one in its place, I think that goal is rationale in itself.
I think good American foreign policy would dictate that we do whatever we can to make the world a better place for us, not that we make the world a better place for altruism's sake, or that we continue to prop up some fanatical regime for the sake of it's unfortunate citizens. In this sense, I never really believed that the US invaded Iraq in the search for WMD's. Well, yeah I believed the Iraqis had them after using them on the Kurds and because the President told me, but I think I recognized that there was more at stake than Al-Queda acquiring a bomb laced with anthrax. The point was that by changing things in the Middle East we won't have to worry about Arabs with nukes anymore than we worry about Russians with nukes, or hell- the Chinese with nukes.
In essence, Bush was forced into providing some rationale for the invasion of the war to satisfy those who preach that Arabs have as much right to their extremism as we to our comparitive safety. Had Bush said, "We are going to rewrite Middle Eastern politics because the current ones don't promote stability in the region or the safety of the US"- there would be the same amount of talk about how "unjustified" the war is. The tragedy is that liberalism has demonized America and capitalism so much that Bush couldn't, or at least thought he couldn't, come out and say, "Extremist middle east authoritarian regimes are undermining global security and our security while exploiting their own people. In the effort to combat terrorism and improve the lives of impoverished Arabs, we are going to form an alliance with our real allies (i.e. England, Austrailia, etc..) to help modernize the Arab world and reduce the influence of those leaders who are a thorn in the side of peace and tolerance- starting with Afghanistan and Saddam, who, respectively, have harbored terrorists and aided the 9/11 hijackers, and violated 14 (or 16 or whatever the number is) of UN resolutions.... etc..."
In regards to the Middle East, I think that economic sanctions or any kind of non-authoritarian plan is pointless. For us to stabilize that region of the world, we need modernism to temper extremism- not in any kind of philosophical sense, but in the sense that an Iranian with the internet, a washing machine, and a future is less likely to strap explosives to their their body and take out a few Jews or Christians. We need to capitalize the Middle East. The reason the plan has to be authoritarian is that we it won't do us any good in the long run to pump aid, education, and trade to the people without some assurance that their government in turn won't confiscate it (or the fruits of it in regards to education) to turn back on us as a nuclear program with scientists we effectively trained or bombs that we paid for. As I quoted Friedman earlier, "Terrorism is 98 percent about what governments let happen- the charities they allow to raise and funnel money, the lies they allow to be told about us in their press and the terrible intolerance they allow to be preached."
Fire Away... and read the new post at Michael Yon's blog- it will rock your face off.
posted by Justin at 3:08 PM 
21 Comments:
"Extremist middle east authoritarian regimes are undermining global security and our security while exploiting their own people."
Absolutely. However, IRAQ WAS NOT ONE OF THESE REGIMES. Saddam Hussein might have been an evil butcher, but he was NOT a Muslim fanatic. He was a SECULAR leader who had nothing to do with 9/11. Even IF I grant as true all the points you made, they just fail to apply to Iraq! Why do you think I don't argue with you about the invasion of Afghanistan? Because all your points apply to it.
"Good American foreign policy would dictate that we do whatever we can to make the world a better place for us."
That's what we like to call relativism. When it's applied as a principle it justifies all sorts of countries invading the US and taking our stuff. Does that bother you?
So, to summarize, I made two points. One: you made all sorts of good points about cultivating democracy and capitalism (both of which I'm all about), that simply fail to apply to Iraq. Two: you're a relativist.
=)
I still don't see how Iraq affected your security, white man. Now, Saudi Arabia, which controls 300 billion+ barrels of oil, bred most of the 9/11 hijackers, and funds terrorism all around the world: THAT'S a country that's got you and your "security" by the cojones.
I never said Saudi Arabia wouldn't be on the list.
I never said that Iraq was a part of 9/11, I said they violated a host of UN resolutions. However, I didn't see Iraq condeming 9/11, I saw them offering rewards to family members of suicide bombers- which is justification in itself to the set of criteria I laid down. Well, the lone criterium (is that the singular? If not I propose it should be) I laid down: If you aren't for us you are against us.
I'm not a relativist because I believe in absolute truth and morals- it's just that we are proponents of those same truths and morals, making us right and others wrong. :)
Jacks - great post, even if a little politically offensive. Two points:
1. Ends justify the means? Maybe, but the jury is still out. I guess you could make a quasi-Biblical case for it with Rahab and such, but never a great idea to make doctrine from narratives.
2. I will assume that "freedom" and "democracy" are the truths that you find absolute, and assume that you could spend the next five years working on why these are grounded in a revalatory framework from God or some other ontologically sufficient standard setter, so I don't think you are a relativist. A relativist would say "I believe in liberal politics and meaningless religion because I feel like it." That would be Charles. Cheers to that!
Charles has very articulately dealt with one side of the argument, and now I will do my best to deal with the other:
“In essence, Bush was forced into providing some rationale for the invasion of the war to satisfy those who preach that Arabs have as much right to their extremism as we to our comparitive safety. Had Bush said, ‘We are going to rewrite Middle Eastern politics because the current ones don't promote stability in the region or the safety of the US’- there would be the same amount of talk about how ‘unjustified’ the war is.”
What you are basically saying is that national security is more important than democracy. Look, free democratic republics are necessarily weak nations. Neo-Cons need to realize that. Once military objectives or foreign policy decisions are held as higher goods than maintaining those principles that make America a free democratic republic, we have really fucked up. Since WWII, the military has influenced foreign policy to an inordinate, un-American degree. That is a problem and wars like this are clear illustrators of that. When the President, an ELECTED OFFICE, feels the need to misconstrue the facts so that he can convince (read trick) Americans into supporting a war that military advisors thought would be a good idea, we have a serious problem. We have a fundamental breakdown in the democratic process. This is a catestrophic failure that no amount of Middle East restructuring or anti-terrorists measures are worth. Those are measure to protect America, which are only meaningful if America is meaningful.
Just an after-thought:
“If you aren't for us you are against us.”
That is the essence of a relativistic political framework. I don’t even know where to begin with that, but that is probably the most rediculous thing I have ever heard (from both you and the Texan). If this doesn’t constitute “might makes right,” then I don’t know what does.
“I'm not a relativist because I believe in absolute truth and morals- it's just that we are proponents of those same truths and morals, making us right and others wrong. :)”
What are those truths and morals that are so absolute and what makes you think that we are proponents thereof?
I don't think I'm going to get anywhere with anyone who's still convinced that the war was justified--it just keeps coming up. j. morgan did a good thing by taking this discussion in a more metaphysical direction. If America is something worth fighting for, then we have to adhere to a certain standard when doing that fighting. Right?
Another way to look at it is like this, and the hawks are going to disagree with this, but that's okay. For me, if thousands of civilians are going to die, a high burden of proof is needed to justify a war. Iraq not being a threat to our security in any way, that burden was not met: what we have accomplished was not worth the lives of the men, women and children that were collateral damage in this war. On the other hand, that standard of proof WAS met in Afghanistan.
j. morgan touched on yet another way to look at this war: the simple exercise of American military muscle and power. We've talked about this before, but it regularly floors me when the usual conservative skepticism about 1) government and 2) government's ability to do anything well is completely absent from any discussion of war. War, for the conservative, is a necessity; it's unlike Social Security, welfare, or any other government program, even though war IS the costliest government program.
Two questions for the hawks to take this in a more interesting direction:
1) What would it have taken for spineless weasel Democratic politicians and progressive citizens to get together and stop the machine from going to war in Iraq?
2) What would the consequences of this action have been?
I'll start at the end with Charles and work my way back to J. Morgan.
There wasn't any way for the progressive and spineless to stop the military machine from going to war in Iraq. A majority of the public would have been for war for just about any reason promoted by the administration. People aren't rational, they are sheep- in this case, angry, vindictive sheep bleating for blood after they watched the twin towers come down. Also, choosing Iraq to invade bolstered public support for the war initially. People remember the first Gulf War and know that we can just waltz in, fuck up the Iraqi National Guard, and be in Baghdad within days of the commencement of a ground war. The Democratic leaders realized this and jumped on the bandwagon as political opportunists, changing as the public grows war weary. Ever play the Sid Meir's Civilization? It's easy to go to war, but you better win fast before public opinion changes.
For the purpose of that argument, the absolutes were freedom and democracy- and I was stating that part of America's duty is to spread those at the expense of dictators and slavery.
As to might makes right, I don't think that is what I'm advocating at all. I believe that I am right, and I believe that others are wrong. If I have the power to push the right in places where the wrong presides- wouldn't it be a moral imperative for me to do so? If the family next door abuses their kids and you have the ability to stop it- shouldn't you? I'm really wading into uncharted waters for me here, but isn't that part of Christianity? to bring the light where before there was only darkness?
In regards to national security vs. democracy- I'll get on that after I take a shower and go into work.
"If I have the power to push the right in places where the wrong presides- wouldn't it be a moral imperative for me to do so?"
Not if it requires you to violate that same moral imperative yourself in order to accomplish that. If it is an imperative, you are bound by it in the same ways that you advocate others be bound by it also. That includes democracy, even when it is counterproductive.
If what you are saying is true about the American people (“A majority of the public would have been for war for just about any reason promoted by the administration”), then that makes the stakes even higher. That means that the administration is bound to demonstrate even great moral sensitivities than it would be otherwise. Circumventing the democratic process by misrepresenting the motivations for war, and leaving your assertion completely untested, doesn’t even meet the lowest threshold of morally responsible governance. You might be right that Americans would have fought anyone for any reason given the circumstances, but that doesn’t mean that you lie to them. It means that you lay the case out fully and truthfully and then see what they want to do. Now, that doesn’t make the war right (in fact, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not our nation should ultimately go to war or whether or not that war effort is justifiable), it just means that we are living up to our own standards about a free and democratic society.
If you think I am wrong, prove it, but do not avoid my assertions.
No one is arguing that the administration went about this the perfectly right way, and I know that no one is saying our government is flawless about always doing everything in a morally responsible way. I admit this, what else do you want from me?
The end doesn't always justify the means, but I'll admit to being utilitarian in nature and cracking a few eggs to make a delicious omelette.
jack, answer my question #2 above: had a citizen/weasel coalition been able to stop the war machine, what would the consequences have been?
First, from Jonah Goldberg, "But even if you could prove that the war was a mistake in every way, to say that it never should have happened is not a good argument for abandoning the project. If a man is stabbed in the chest, you don’t cure him by simply yanking the knife out. In other words, the old talking points on both sides do not matter anymore."
As for question #2: If the citizen/weasel coalition had stopped the war- then we wouldn't have invaded and I wouldn't be able to read IraqtheModel or MichaelYon. If you are looking for some far reaching conclusion, I don't know what the effects would be.
I'm with Jonah Goldberg on that one. Who wants to pull out and drop everything? Russ Feingold's the only person I can think of with any influence who does.
My point in asking the question is that nothing would have happened had we not invaded--for charlespeirce, j. morgan and jackscolon. Saddam Hussein would have continued to oppress his people.
For CharlesPierce, J. Morgan, and Jackscolon nothing has happened because we invaded. Also, nothing has happened to me because of 9/11. What is your point?
Okay, well if I am right that the government failed democracy and failed America in their presentation of the war effort, then that has some consequences.
The first thing that comes to mind is that the war cannot be justified if those in whose name we are fighting (that is the American citizenry) didn’t get straight answers before they allowed their government to wage this war. If the American citizenry were reliant on faulty information to inform their decision, then their decision cannot be said to represent their will. That is just a fact and I don’t see how you can argue against it. The war is not justified and does not necessarily represent American will. Period.
The second thing that comes to mind is that we have evidence that the administration is not trustworthy in the arena of foreign policy or military ambitions. If what you said is true – that Americans would have support a war with anyone at whom the government pointed a finger – and the government still deceived us, then there is a serious credibility issue here.
The third thing that comes to mind is that we need to be honest about what this war says about us as a nation when we talk about it. Further, we should demand that our government and military do the same. We should not talk about this as the march of freedom across the Middle East to liberate the enslaved, but a catastrophic failure of democracy that is, at best, an unfortunate and immoral campaign that may yield good consequences. I want every soldier in Iraq to know that that is the situation, preferably from the mouths of those that were responsible for the deception.
Now, none of that means that we should leave or anything like that; it just means that we should be honest with ourselves – particularly our soldiers – and our allies about what this war is and what it is not. We should demand that our President do away with the rhetoric of freedom and democracy and admit that this war fundamentally compromises both. Then, once that is all cleared up, then we can fight the goddamn war until everyone feels confident that they have killed enough people. I don’t care, just don’t be deceptive about it.
But, something tells me that I am not going to get my wish... and that is sad.
One quick point to nitpick and then I have to go give a golf lesson...
"If the American citizenry were reliant on faulty information to inform their decision, then their decision cannot be said to represent their will."
Ok, the only problem is that the American public as a whole isn't directly responsible for voting on every single action. It was the will of the American public to elect certain officials, who in turn voted for the war representing the will of the American populace. My question is: To what extent should we let public opinion determine policy in the immediate future? I would have to say I'm against deciding the country's future based on the whim of the mob...
... and I'm unequivacally opposed to telling our military that they fight for a "catastrophic failure of democracy that is, at best, an unfortunate and immoral campaign," for one main reason- that's total bullshit.
1. I think invading DID affect Charles Pierce, Jackscolon and J. Morgan, and me too, because now soldiers from my country who are my friends and my relatives and paid with my tax dollars etc. etc. etc. are killing hoardes of Iraqis and occasionally dying also. I could go on, but you get the point.
2. To say that Bush couldn't tell us the real reason for going to Iraq because the liberals made people too stupid isn't a very good argument and does nothing more than push the blame somewhere else. Maybe people are too stupid to understand the real reason this country went to war in Iraq. That doesn't absolve the President from the burden of telling them the truth anyway, and the conservatives are just as involved in the dumming down of society as the liberals. As evidence I site the evolution debacle in Kansas.
I think you're right that in order to get John Kerry on board, bush had to make it so unpopular not to vote for the war that liberal senators couldn't back down, and that this required something like WMD's. That might be true. I don't think the pragmatic reality of the situation is justification enough, however.
Jackscolon:
“Ok, the only problem is that the American public as a whole isn't directly responsible for voting on every single action.”
Democracy is not always (even mostly) exercised through voting. I didn’t say anything about a vote; I was making a statement about the democratic process and culture in America.
“To what extent should we let public opinion determine policy in the immediate future? I would have to say I'm against deciding the country's future based on the whim of the mob...”
To the greatest extent that wouldn’t lead to an immoral outcome. I distrust the voting public as much as the next guy, but I think our system of government requires that the American citizenry be intimately involved in the course of their government unless that course needs to be moderated for the sake of legality or morality.
That being said, I don’t think the immediate future should be our biggest concern. I think Americans and the American government need to be honest about the nature of our current situation and the path that brought us here. That is, as far as I am concerned, the most important issue on the table right now regarding the war and the military.
“that's total bullshit.”
Could you, maybe, flesh that out a bit? I seriously want to know your objections.
It's bullshit because-
A) your claim is completely subjective. I don't believe the war is immoral. If the President lied about the motives for war, that is immoral, but I don't think that means the war is immoral. As I said, I think the war was justified for a lot more reasons than WMD's- a point on which I think we will have to agree to disagree.
B) I think telling our troops that they are fighting for a "catastrophic failure of democracy that is, at best, an unfortunate and immoral campaign" is retarded. Even if that was true (which I absolutely believe it isn't) that could be the most demoralizing thing I've ever heard. Good luck asking the military to fight for anything again, regardless of importance, if they think they are just going to be withdrawn before they win, rendering their sacrifice worthless. Besides, everything that I've read or heard regarding the opinion of soldiers over in Iraq is predominantly in favor of staying and finishing the job. If they choose to be there (re-enlistment is exceptionally high regardless of recruitment) then I think we should support that decision.
jackscolon:
Responses in kind:
A) I will reference one of my previous posts to respond here:
“...if I am right that the government failed democracy and failed America in their presentation of the war effort, then that has some consequences. The first thing that comes to mind is that the war cannot be justified if those in whose name we are fighting (that is the American citizenry) didn’t get straight answers before they allowed their government to wage this war. If the American citizenry were reliant on faulty information to inform their decision, then their decision cannot be said to represent their will.”
Now, if I am right about this, then I think I have a good case that the war is immoral – not because of its methods or because of its aims, but because it undermines that which it is ostensibly protecting.
So, don’t just disagree with me on this. If you disagree, it has to be because I am either wrong about something or that I am neglecting some other information. If that is the case, bring it to bear.
B) Well, my claim may very well be true – that can be decided through a discussion of point “A” above. Nonetheless, I think you got my point exactly right. One of the most important reasons you don’t deceive the American people about your military objectives is because it disenchants people; it embitters them, not least of which are our soldiers. It is fundamentally wrong to ask men and women to risk their lives under false pretenses and, if you do so, it has consequences that are potentially disastrous. Their sacrifice might be worthwhile in the end, but it isn’t justified. And if that is true, they deserve to know, regardless of the consequences. It isn’t bullshit to tell people the truth when you are asking them to risk their lives. It is bullshit to worry about the success of a campaign before you worry about your soldiers or what they deserve to know.
A couple of counterpoints that won't satisfy you I'm sure.
1)"If the American citizenry were reliant on faulty information to inform their decision"- the decision of the American citizen was irrelevant of the governemnt's decision to go to war. The decision of the individual American only counts when it comes to electing officials, for example- public opinion is now against the war, but it won't cause a withdrawal.
I know you can make the case that Bush mislead congress, but they all had access to the same intelligence and made the decision fairly unilaterally. I'm really going to have to see some conclusive proof the Bush deliberately lied, fudged documents, pressured the CIA, etc.. about WMD's before I will conceed the fact that the decision to go to war was in bad faith because...
2) of the current state of political discourse. It's not that I'm the biggest Bush fan in the world, but the left makes me want to be. I disagree so wholeheartedly with the meanspirited vilification of Bush that I feel compelled to defend him in the face of all odds just because I'm so adverse to the Bush bashers. Color me reactionary, but as long as Bush=Hitler to the left, he can't do much wrong in my eyes.
Post a Comment
<< Home