Back!
Hey, yo, I'm back. Didja miss me?
Packer's Assassin's Gate continues to kick serious ass, though it's been hard to sqeeze any reading in amongst all the interviewing. (I'm interviewer, not interviewee, so this has been time-consuming but less stress-inducing than the other way.)
If Packer is even 1/3 right, the history of the Iraq war is a history of monumental incompetence. Some lefties seem to not like him because he doesn't think that the invasion was the most evil act in human history...but what he gives is a level-headed, apparently objective account of how we sent Iraq down in flames. I found the comments on the last post to be too depressing to deal with in detail right now... And one of the things that's most depressing about them is that they seem to reveal that the left is almost as bad as the right. Many on the left can't even acknowledge the evilness of Saddam and the associated allure of a plan to topple him. Fact is, Saddam was so evil that even the administration's dishonest, crackpot scheme to get rid of him was tempting. And any plan that was even ultraminimally competent might have worked.
But neither the dogmatic right nor the strident left has ever been very good at acknowledging facts. So it's left to us in the reality-based community--i.e. the center and liberal-center--to try to do things rationally.
Anyway, gotta crash, but more soon. READ THE PACKER BOOK. It's the best thing on Iraq I've read BY FAR. Everything else is second-rate.
Regular posting to resume asap, FWIW.
Hey, yo, I'm back. Didja miss me?
Packer's Assassin's Gate continues to kick serious ass, though it's been hard to sqeeze any reading in amongst all the interviewing. (I'm interviewer, not interviewee, so this has been time-consuming but less stress-inducing than the other way.)
If Packer is even 1/3 right, the history of the Iraq war is a history of monumental incompetence. Some lefties seem to not like him because he doesn't think that the invasion was the most evil act in human history...but what he gives is a level-headed, apparently objective account of how we sent Iraq down in flames. I found the comments on the last post to be too depressing to deal with in detail right now... And one of the things that's most depressing about them is that they seem to reveal that the left is almost as bad as the right. Many on the left can't even acknowledge the evilness of Saddam and the associated allure of a plan to topple him. Fact is, Saddam was so evil that even the administration's dishonest, crackpot scheme to get rid of him was tempting. And any plan that was even ultraminimally competent might have worked.
But neither the dogmatic right nor the strident left has ever been very good at acknowledging facts. So it's left to us in the reality-based community--i.e. the center and liberal-center--to try to do things rationally.
Anyway, gotta crash, but more soon. READ THE PACKER BOOK. It's the best thing on Iraq I've read BY FAR. Everything else is second-rate.
Regular posting to resume asap, FWIW.
posted by Winston Smith at
5:08 PM
12 Comments:
You know what I like about you, Azael? consistency. I always know what you're going to say. Even when new facts emerge, I know you'll stick to the party line.
It's comforting in a way.
Tragic, but comforting.
When I get really, really mad about the way the right it ruining the country, I go talk to some lefties...and count my blessings...
Oh, and re: CT (a blog I like very much, incidentally) and the claim that CT is required reading re: the Packer book...
You know what's required reading re: the Packer book?
The Packer book.
But it contains lots of facts and reasoning you might find...inconvenient....
Seriously, man. Calm down. Read. Think. Don't just toe the party line. It's what separates us from them.
Oh, and do be specific about what kinds of people you don't think exist. If it's just, say *people who don't think Saddam was all that bad*, then the very fact that you're asking me to produce examples shows your bad faith. Not that I couldn't do it...but that you'd even deny that such people exist--if that's what you're doing--shows that you're either detached from reality or being willfully obtuse. I've encountered SCORES of lefties on the web who argued that Saddam was bad...but, y'know...not really THAT bad...
But before we embark on this silliness I just want to be sure what it is that you're asserting.
But note...just to anticipate what I fear is the inevitable...it's normal for the folks in question to make some token assertion about his badness out of one side of their mouths while going ton to down-play it out of the other side.
And remember the "human shields"? Are you denying that they existed?
What ARE you asserting, anyway?
And how is it that you're so darned certain about everything?
Can I get some of whatever it is that you're taking?
Love ya Winston, but what Azael said.
I will concede this small *fair and balanced* point, though, which can be applied more generally as well as re: the Iraq War. And that is, can we stop with the dogmatic absolutism? Please?
Everyone who cites prudential or pragmatic concerns with a considered course of action is not a cold-hearted Kissingerian. And neither is someone who makes a moral, humanitarian case for the other course a hopeless dreamer.
Maybe this is where philosophy reaches the end of the road? You know, like when you must be absolutely consistent in your doctrine or else you're a weak-kneed waverer or a phony?
I see nothing, nothing wrong with tempering idealism with a dose of reality and some concern for your own; neither do I see a problem with trying to *do good* for others, despite the fact that it might not be absolutely in your best interest.
The problem as this applies to the IW is that there was a mountain of nasty complications and collateral problems that accompanied the undeniable good of seeing Saddam swing from the gallows. I would also add that the PROBABILITIES of the bad (especially the bad which we take as inevitable - a given - in war, which is civilian death and destruction) so far outweighed the PROBABILITY of a good outcome, that it seemed an obvious answer to me. Many and most of these, which have come to fruition, were predicted beforehand.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if people's lives are going to be risked to rid themselves of a tyrant, create a democracy or whatever, it's up to THEM to decide that it's worth it.
Imminent or ongoing genocide is a different matter, because there the probability of innocents' deaths are clearly high or certain anyway. Convince me that was the case in Iraq before our invasion and I'll agree with you.
Yes, I've never seen Crooked Timber lose an argument, either.
;-)
Ah---as I was typing this I see Mr. Carroll has written along the same lines. I'm not surprised, LC, but here goes anyway:
What gets conflated is whether the war was invalid or merely imprudent. My problem with ideologues of all stripes is that they feel the need to invalidate (and most often, demonize) the other side's arguments.
That Saddam was a bad man and should be removed for the good of humanity should be a given premise. People of good conscience should be able to disagree with Bush's (and Blair's) conclusion on when and how without going nuclear.
I will resubmit for the nth time that anyone who holds that the murderous sanctions regime was either moral or even tenable simply hasn't done their homework. And a record of going tut-tut over Saddam's continuing evil is no moral badge of courage. Doing nothing is no guarantee of prudence, either.
As for the Packer book, I've read about about it and have no reason to doubt his chronicle of stupidities and failures. No plan survives the battlefield, and I suppose we should add that war is the merely the continuation of stupidity by other means. The Allies got 750 men killed by German torpedoes just practicing for D-Day.
(Sorry for messing this abstract discussion with a sense of perspective.)
LC,
I don't actually think you ARE agreeing with Azael. See below and you be the judge.
A,
O.k., ignoring quibbles and just cutting to the chase: You've apparently just conceded the point. Let's recap:
WS: Many anti-war lefties can't/won't even acknowledge how bad SH was.
A: That's false and WS is crazy and evil!
WS: Um...
A: Because many on the anti-war left DO acknowledge how bad SH was!
WS: That is true, but in no way inconsistent with the claim that many can't/don't. 'Many x are non-F' does not entail that 'many x are F' is false.
A: Look! Over there!
fin
So, lest this go on any longer or get any more tedious, let's try to get clear about your point: Are you seriously denying that many on the anti-war left underestimate SH's awfulness?
And re: the Wes Clarke comments: not relevant. When are you going to get it through you're head that *I was against the war*???? I *agree* that the evidence available to us at the time of the invasion was insufficient to support an attack.
What's at issue here is whether or not it was a reasonably close call. My position is that it was a fairly close call. If I'm forced to rank positions in order of their rationality, my ranking goes like this:
1. Reluctantly anti-war.
2. Reluctantly pro-war.
3. Stridently anti-war.
4. Stridently pro-war.
Not sure how many times and in how many different ways I have to say this. The very fact that this is the hundredth or so time I've had to make this clear to you says...well, something...
And do try to be civil, willya?
Thanks for the back-up, Tom...but I'm not sure I can go with the D-Day analogy.
In that case we had a basically competent--though occasionally incompetent--effort to do something that had to be done.
Ignoring the question of whether Iraq had to be invaded for right now, the picture that emerges in the Packer book is one of almost unimaginable incompetence grounded in large part on willful dogmatism. This coheres, IMHO, with what we already have reason to believe about this admin.
But read the book and judge for yourself.
Sorry, WS, you've jumped the shark as far as I'm concerned. You're so invested in your position you're not able to reasonably engage a request to substantiate your claims.
LC, azael, tvd, lurkers - drop me a line at my blog when he listens to the Clark viewpoint and comes to his senses, please.
Sorry, Rilkefan, you're not making any sense here.
On this topic this seemed to start right away with your very, very bad analogy in response to my first Packer post (the robbery analogy). If you're gonna make arguments like that--and like this one--there's nothing I can do for you, bro...
Again, all I can say is: do read the Packer book. It continues to amaze me that people who haven't read the book have such strong opinions about it...
And DO note, plz, why an enumeration of actual individuals dismissing SH's awfulness is premature at this point, for reasons already explained. That's a pretty straight-forward point: until we know what Azael & co. are asserting we can't really determine what evidence is relevant.
Tom,
You're right that I may have been conflating those two types of concerns, and in that regard my comment should have been much clearer.
Sorry Winston, but I think I DO agree with Azael, at least to this extent:
I am able to take a deconstructionist view of the IW, and grant you (and Tom, and many others) good intentions in envisioning a good theoretical case to be made for war. I think one must torture modality so much (e.g. good supposition upon good supposition) to make the case that I think the case is not a good one, but I can grant that you or he came to the position in good conscience.
It's a deconstructionist view because I feel no need to impute such motives to George W. Bush. The fact that he and his administration deceived and dissembled so much in selling the war, changed rationales multiple times and made little or no provision for humanitarian support of those they purported to be liberating leaves me no alternative but to doubt their motives.
So in that sense, the question took on a life of its own as a sort of geo-strategic Rorshach test whereby every person saw in it what they were prone to see or wanted to see. These perceptions in many cases, I believe, bore little resemblance to reality.
The real question here is: why are you so less charitable with your judgment of those opposed to the war? Sure, you can find some fringe Saddam apologist to hold up as your distorting example, but that's hardly fair to those who came to their decision in good faith.
Perhaps I'm wrongly perceiving your attack on 'strident left-wing opponents of the war' as implicitly critical of me, Azael and others. If that's the case, then it's just a misunderstanding. However, it seems to me that you want to group those of us who weighed the pros and cons and came to the conclusion that, considering all the circumstances, the odds of the war being a success were so low, and the odds of negative consequences so high, that it was a foolish venture with those who reflexively are against Bush no matter what.
I suppose it boils down to two questions:
1. Why was your anti-war position so much more valid than mine or Azael's?
2. Why do you think it's valid to lump us in with the knee-jerk anti-Bushies, while I won't lump people like Tom in with Bush and his mindless followers?
WS, that robbery thing wasn't so much argument as mockery, though I do think it captures your level of receptivity here. The Frist surgery thing was intended as a more serious way to get you to see how unreasonable your line is. Your scorching rebuttal: "lame".
What you're inexplicably unable to understand about the Packer book is that it systematically tells me things I believe or am predisposed to expect while it refuses to honestly engage that vis-a-vis the pre-war argument. It's not news to me, or won't teach me anything I don't already believe, that SH was awful and that the conduct of the war was awful. The point of my (and I believe others') objections is that an intellectually honest book would reference the people who were arguing that exactly such a book would probably be written post-invasion. I wanted a democratic secular prosperous Iraq, and a pony. I was willing for US blood to be shed for the former. I wasn't willing to sacrifice 100k Iraqis and $1 trillion (a low estimate for the integrated cost of the war) and our standing in the world to do so. I wasn't willing to go in based on lies, the only way the Cheney admin could make it happen. I can imagine a semi-acceptable outcome long down the line, but let's not get post hoc - the current situation is too much worse than the replacement level reality. Packer made a series of bad evaluations, and the Clarkists made a series of accurate evaluations. That Packer implicitly confirms the latter is all well and good - that he doesn't explicitly do so is intellectual dishonesty. That you haven't grasped this objection (regardless of whether it convinces you or not) while instead getting stuck on some mythological straw left is extremely frustrating - I guess it's an indication you don't take this blog seriously, so I don't see why I should take it seriously either.
Oops. The previous comment was, in fact, mine.
Staying with Canis Major and C'ville Animal, and accidentally logged on as the latter.
WS
"Well, Rilkefan, as you know I respect your judgment"
I neither know this nor why you should, but thanks regardless. If you come to the conclusion that the book is full of fascinating details but lacking a mandatory accounting of the not-this-war-now liberal interventionist view pre-war in that light, and that a simple explanation of the above is that the whole thing is a CYA exercise aimed at convincing people "I couldn't have forseen they would have done this bad a job, don't revoke my cred", and if you agree that the Bush-admin-incompetency argument should have been sufficient to convince reality-based liberal interventionists to oppose the war, and that the liberal hawks not acknowledging the unnaceptable risks of the current situation are intellectual losers, then fine, I've been wasting time and emotion objecting to your Packer posts and I apologize.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home