Just for the Record: My Position on Iraq at Time of Invasion
Not that it really matters, but, since it's come up in comments so often of late, my position on Iraq at the time we invaded was that we shouldn't go, and that citizens should actively oppose the war. Although I'd wanted Saddam deposed since Gulf War Episode I, and although I thought that the humanitarian case for war was strong, I opposed the war because of my strong opposition to the way the war was "justified"--or, rather, rationalized.
As evil as Saddam was, I thought that the greater danger was the threat to American democracy posed by the morally reprehensible rhetorical and political tactics of the Bush administration. And since I still then considered America to be the world's best hope for justice, I concluded that the harm done to America, to democracy, to international law, and to the world was likely to be greater even than the great good I expected to come from destroying Saddam.
The lies, the demagoguery, the militarism, the disdain for the judgment of the people and for the democratic process... In the end I split with pro-war liberal hawks not because I did not think that destroying Saddam was a worthy goal, and, to my shame, not because I thought that the cost to Iraq would be too great, but rather because I thought that the cost to American--and, hence, world--democracy would be too great.
My biggest mistake--and I think this has come out in discussions with Matthew Christman and Azael--was to underestimate the harm that would befall Iraqis by overestimating the competence of the administration and overestimating its commitment to Iraqi democracy. I really thought that they were going to do it right once they started it. I do now think that I should have seen that this was unlikely, and opposed the war on these grounds, too. (I still do not agree that this was a conclusion that all rational, well-informed, well-meaning people should have drawn at the time--but that's a different subject.)
But I still stick to my original grounds as sound reasons to oppose the war. I would be willing to sacrifice a great deal to establish a sane government in Iraq. One thing I am not willing to sacrifice is American democracy itself. And I still believe that the health of our democracy was on the line. Consequently, I think that we now have the worst possible outcome: American democracy took the hit--we allowed ourselves to be manipulated by the administration and its cabal of lackeys (or, perhaps, a cabal and its administration lackeys) despite the fact that this manipulation was fairly obvious at the time--and we still probably aren't going to see a sane government in Iraq.
(Incidentally, I don't think that these conclusions, either, should have been obvious to all rational, well-informed, well-meaning people. It took me quite awhile to figure all this out and articulate it with relative clarity. I was still unsure what I thought until a few weeks before the invasion.)
The situation is, of course, worse when one reflects on the fact that it is not clear that this administration was even legitimately elected. But that's a different tale of woe, one I've gone on about too many times already.
Not that it really matters, but, since it's come up in comments so often of late, my position on Iraq at the time we invaded was that we shouldn't go, and that citizens should actively oppose the war. Although I'd wanted Saddam deposed since Gulf War Episode I, and although I thought that the humanitarian case for war was strong, I opposed the war because of my strong opposition to the way the war was "justified"--or, rather, rationalized.
As evil as Saddam was, I thought that the greater danger was the threat to American democracy posed by the morally reprehensible rhetorical and political tactics of the Bush administration. And since I still then considered America to be the world's best hope for justice, I concluded that the harm done to America, to democracy, to international law, and to the world was likely to be greater even than the great good I expected to come from destroying Saddam.
The lies, the demagoguery, the militarism, the disdain for the judgment of the people and for the democratic process... In the end I split with pro-war liberal hawks not because I did not think that destroying Saddam was a worthy goal, and, to my shame, not because I thought that the cost to Iraq would be too great, but rather because I thought that the cost to American--and, hence, world--democracy would be too great.
My biggest mistake--and I think this has come out in discussions with Matthew Christman and Azael--was to underestimate the harm that would befall Iraqis by overestimating the competence of the administration and overestimating its commitment to Iraqi democracy. I really thought that they were going to do it right once they started it. I do now think that I should have seen that this was unlikely, and opposed the war on these grounds, too. (I still do not agree that this was a conclusion that all rational, well-informed, well-meaning people should have drawn at the time--but that's a different subject.)
But I still stick to my original grounds as sound reasons to oppose the war. I would be willing to sacrifice a great deal to establish a sane government in Iraq. One thing I am not willing to sacrifice is American democracy itself. And I still believe that the health of our democracy was on the line. Consequently, I think that we now have the worst possible outcome: American democracy took the hit--we allowed ourselves to be manipulated by the administration and its cabal of lackeys (or, perhaps, a cabal and its administration lackeys) despite the fact that this manipulation was fairly obvious at the time--and we still probably aren't going to see a sane government in Iraq.
(Incidentally, I don't think that these conclusions, either, should have been obvious to all rational, well-informed, well-meaning people. It took me quite awhile to figure all this out and articulate it with relative clarity. I was still unsure what I thought until a few weeks before the invasion.)
The situation is, of course, worse when one reflects on the fact that it is not clear that this administration was even legitimately elected. But that's a different tale of woe, one I've gone on about too many times already.
6 Comments:
Well said, Winston. There's nothing there that I disagree with. My only remaining beef with liberal hawks is with those who STILL refuse to admit any errors.
I'm not one for trading blog links, but since this one knows ol' reliables Drum and Yglasias better than I do, there it is.
Iraq will turn out to be worth it or not. It's getting worse or it's getting better. It will become self-governing and unthreatening, or descend into civil war. My own epistemologically-challenged mind cannot be certain of anything at this point, so I continue to listen to both sides. The elections and the change of tone of the Arab League are to me significant, tho.
Thing is--and I've made this point a zillion times before: RESULTS DON'T MATTER WHEN YOU ARE ASSESSING THE RATIONALITY/MORALITY OF AN ACTION.
What matters is the intentions, and whether the action APPEARED TO BE RATIONAL given the information available when it was undertaken.
Even if Iraq turns out well, it was a bad decision. It wasn't crazy. It wasn't insane. It wasn't evil. But it was bad. Very bad. A reasonable person would not have undertaken the invasion given the evidence available to us at the time.
I don't know how things are really going over there, and I hope hope hope you are right, Tom. But even success won't make the invasion smart or right.
I'm trying to be a good guest, O My Host. Trying hard. I take my cues--if you decline to respond to something I challenge, I don't insist.
I'm a stranger in a strange land--if we're discussing utility, debate is in order. If it's morality, then discussion is called for.
Philosophy, political philosophy, morality? (Theology is off the table, I think, by mutual agreement.)
I honestly don't know which, even after all this time of trying to get to know you.
You set the terms, and it would be boorish of me, on your blog, to speak my language instead of yours.
Gimme a clue, mate. My regard for you will impel me to comply, even if it involves accepting a permanent hall pass.
(Me, I think WMDs were litigated in the last election, and WMDs 24/7 leaves room for nothing else.)
"RESULTS DON'T MATTER WHEN YOU ARE ASSESSING THE RATIONALITY/MORALITY OF AN ACTION."
Winston,
Despite my high regard for your mind and reasoning, I'm not sure I can get onboard with extreme deontology.
If you mean UNFORESEEN, ARBITRARY or *LUCKY* results, maybe. But aren't FORESEEABLE RESULTS part of one's moral calculus in deciding yes or no on some particular undertaking?
I agree with your position on the war, and the seminal posting for this thread was spot on. But Tom makes a good point when he says: "If we're discussing utility, some debate is in order".
Again, my reckoning is I'll come down on the same side of the debate as you there; maybe I'm being an ass, but perhaps that comment by you about results was a bit, say, sloppy?
LC,
No, my comment above was ALOT sloppy. You are exactly right. I meant *actual* results, not *forseeable* results or *intended* results. I count intended results as a part of the intention. But you're dead right on that and I appreciate the clarification.
tvd,
I appreciate the effort and will try to write something clarifcatory--but you're being too gracious by letting me set the terms just because I know the password... I meant to assess the decision in a relatively ordinary way--the way we'd assess the action of an individual. What did he intend to do? Was he honest about it? Was he rationalizing in order to gain for himself? Was his decision responsible? Did he exercise due care in his reflections? etc.
I do thank you for leaving out theology, mostly because I don't know anything at all about it. But I don't have any fancy or technical conception of moral evaluation in mind when I hold forth about the invasion.
So sting away, oh gadfly.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home