Saddam--Not So Bad?
Just out of curiosity, I jumped the gun a bit and did a bit of googling. Listen, folks, this stuff is not hard to do and not hard to find. In about 0.14 seconds I already found this from Democratic Underground. I think 3 and 7 are the real winners here. Note that almost nobody comes right out and says "I love Saddam and want to have ten thousand of his babies," what they say is things more like "sure, Saddam is bad, but..." and then you get various dismissive assertions demonstrating that the writer does NOT, in fact, believe that at all, e.g. to the effect that (1) SH is no Hitler, (2) SH kept the warring factions in Iraq together, (2) any war would be worse than life under SH, (3) Bush is worse than/almost as bad as SH, etc.
Now, saying any of these things is fair indication that the writer doesn't realize how truly terrible SH was. In every case you can make up some story to try to deflect this clear implication, but unlikely interpretations are available in almost all cases, no matter what the subject.
What stuns me is that people even question the fact that many on the left underestimate SH's terribleness. It's evident in conversation with them. "Sure Saddam was bad, but..." is on the order of "Sure Hitler was bad, but he made the trains run on time." Were someone to assert the latter I doubt we'd cut them interpretive slack, would we?
This foggy and dismissive template will make simple googling more difficult, but for those who really doubt, they should be willing to do the work. I found more if you really want to see 'em...
Just out of curiosity, I jumped the gun a bit and did a bit of googling. Listen, folks, this stuff is not hard to do and not hard to find. In about 0.14 seconds I already found this from Democratic Underground. I think 3 and 7 are the real winners here. Note that almost nobody comes right out and says "I love Saddam and want to have ten thousand of his babies," what they say is things more like "sure, Saddam is bad, but..." and then you get various dismissive assertions demonstrating that the writer does NOT, in fact, believe that at all, e.g. to the effect that (1) SH is no Hitler, (2) SH kept the warring factions in Iraq together, (2) any war would be worse than life under SH, (3) Bush is worse than/almost as bad as SH, etc.
Now, saying any of these things is fair indication that the writer doesn't realize how truly terrible SH was. In every case you can make up some story to try to deflect this clear implication, but unlikely interpretations are available in almost all cases, no matter what the subject.
What stuns me is that people even question the fact that many on the left underestimate SH's terribleness. It's evident in conversation with them. "Sure Saddam was bad, but..." is on the order of "Sure Hitler was bad, but he made the trains run on time." Were someone to assert the latter I doubt we'd cut them interpretive slack, would we?
This foggy and dismissive template will make simple googling more difficult, but for those who really doubt, they should be willing to do the work. I found more if you really want to see 'em...
posted by Winston Smith at
8:20 AM
11 Comments:
First, the rhetorical part: at-best-pseudonymous comments from Democratic Underground? *That*'s your opening salvo?
Second, the substantial part: maybe I've misapprehended the rules of the game here (although I remind you the initial challenge was worded, and I quote Azazel, "I'd wager you can only find a few, insignificant people who fit your categorization"), but that strikes me as about as useful a finding as a comment or ten from (pick your favourite foaming-righty site) and saying "see? The Right is UNHINGED!"
[ first aside: there's some kind of emphasis here, not sure what the cause is, about "which team you're on" and forcing members of the same 'team' to defend or decry the actions or statements of their 'teammates.'
As a matter of public debate, that's unfortunately important, but if we're considering the cogency of the arguments, it's shockingly irrelevant ]
[ second aside: there's a correlative to the "Saddam wasn't so bad" claim, and that's the tendency to minimize or dismiss the actual costs of war, as when pro-war folks defend their position by saying "but we removed Saddam" as if that were the only effect of the invasion. And the existence of other motives, some not altruistic ("somebody must pay") some that are downright selfish ("we have to make sure people sympathetic to us control the oil") and some downright evil ("let's use Iraqi civilians as human shields to defend us from terrorism"), has to also be taken into account. ]
I'd put my position as the claim that in the end, there's no such thing as a "good war," at best you have a "necessary war." We can quibble around the edges of this claim; e.g. a "naive consequentialist" might say that going to war may produce the least bad consequences from the available options, and hence be a good thing in that respect. I don't suppose I'd object really strongly to that, but in all cases we need to remind ourselves of what the freaking freak a war *is* and what happens during a war. Even with "precision weaponry" and rosy scenarios about the 'application' thereof, Innocent. People. Will. Die.
I suppose I'm on Packer's (and your) side insofar as I believe that, could I have waved a magic wand removing SH from power and emplacing an open and responsible government in Iraq, I would have done it without question. But again, that's not what war is, even with the most competent people in charge.
And if you painted the worst-case scenario (I'unno, all out battle in the streets of Baghdad leaving hundreds of thousands dead), with say, Iran jumping in and thus bringing in Israel and hell, maybe even Pakistan (it's a worst-case scenario, I get to say crazy stuff!), raising the prospect of regional nuclear war, the it's an obvious no.
On any reasonable scale, the actual outcome is somewhere in between, and one argument is about where you draw the line; one could be 'stridently anti-war' on the grounds that one didn't see it as remotely likely that the outcome was going to be as 'unbad' as possible.
I'm actually a little at sea as to the rules of this game are, because I've mentioned consequences mostly here, and I'm not about to beg that question (and I get the sense you're more sympathetic to deontology, but then I don't know how one applies that to the actions of a nation).
Fair enough, TB: it's not clear how much weight to give to DU(h) comments... Tho I'd say that spirit is fairly common at DU(h)...
I was just saying that even the quickest and dirtiest Googling turned this up as the top return... That is, it dudn't take much effort...
The important points here are rather more subtle and I suppose a serious discussion of them is, in fact, in order.
You hit on what I take to be one of the major points: Given the disagreement at hand, what exactly is (er, was)being disagreed upon? Were we disagreeing about the facts about Iraq and/or U.S. military power? Was one of the relevant groups underestimating the badness of Saddam? Was one of the relevant groups underestimating the badness of war?
It's telling that the best available poll of Iraqis THEMSELVES before the war said that their preferences went as follows:
Best: A short war removing SH
Next best: Keeping SH in power
Least good: A long war removing SH
Now, although we technically had 1, I think that in reality we've got 3...
But anyway: The Iraqis themselves--more familiar with both SH and war than most Americans--seem to agree with Pullman and me.
I'm not dead set on being right here, and am more than willing to admit if I'm not...but if I'm in error here lemme know where.
Here's what one leftist had to say about the subject of "How Bad is Saddam?"
He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq.
Link
DA,
Yeah, I found a long TON of left-of-center types arguing that SH wasn't a military threat. But--in part because they were just right about that and in part because I think it's a separate issue--I don't cite them.
As I understand the dispute, it's about whether SH was, *morally speaking*, a Very Very Very Bad Man.
Well, A, as usual I marvel at your certitude and passion even as I scratch my head over your arguments...
You seem to have a much more subtle and nuanced understanding of my own position and motives than I do... (Note: that would be sarcasm.)
YOu are consistent, tho, in that you always ascribe the worst possible motives to me...and predictability is something of a virtue I suppose...
But the fact of the matter is quite different. Since I was anti-invasion and since Packer's book is (thus far) a long argument that the war was a mistake, and since so many on the left are against the war for bad reasons (or, knee-jerk-wise, for no real reasons at all), I just wanted to make my position on all that clear. A rather simple point, and one I would think lots of people would make: although I agree with the *conclusion* of that segment of the left that is stridently and relatively unreflectively anti-war, I do not agree with their reasons. Since I think it was a tough call, I actually agree more with the reasoning of the reluctantly pro-war right, though I disagree with their conclusion.
Of course, and for the gazillionth time, the folks I agree with most are the folks who's reasons AND conclusion I share, to wit reluctantly anti-war liberals.
On a more general note, I think you may have a faulty mouth-foam regulator. Here's a strategy I recommend: start with the assumption that those with whom you disagree are minimally rational and work from there. Sometimes they'll disappoint you, but that approach often yields greater rewards.
But, as I said to someone else, you've apparently finished the Packer book whereas I haven't. So it is, of course, possible that I'll be on your side re: much of this by the time I finish the book.
"A rather simple point, and one I would think lots of people would make: although I agree with the *conclusion* of that segment of the left that is stridently and relatively unreflectively anti-war, I do not agree with their reasons."
Okay, then Winston, let's have it. Kindly quantify what it is in say, Wesley Clark's or Hilzoy's oppositions to the war that demonstrate a 'sufficient reflection or lack of stridency' or a valid Auto Da Fe for Saddam's badness that is somehow lacking in mine or Azael's or various other targets that provide fodder for your attacks.
I will state again that it is possible that I'm misreading your attacks on these others as implicitly an attack on me; however, what may be lacking is an adequate explanation of what YOU SEE as these insufferable war opponents' reasoning in opposing the war and how it differs from mine.
Since I do value your opinion greatly, I am interested in finding out just what it is that makes these parties' opposition to the war so craven, and whether my reasoning is sufficiently different from theirs so that my perception of your implicit attack on my position is an incorrect one on my part.
I would also maintain that it's possible you're mistaking the vehemence with which certain of these parties EXPRESSED their opposition to the war with a lack of intellectual and moral rigor in arriving at their opinion. I will allow that sometimes HOW you say something can be important too. But at the same time, loudly and vociferously proclaiming something doesn't make the claim any more or less valid.
A very sensible and civil request, LC, and one that I'm obviously obligated to respond to.
I can't right now, and it'll take some thought anyway, but if I don't respond, then I'm a wiener. And, worse, probably wrong.
So here's a promis(s?)ory note: I'll produce a response asap...which still might be a couple of days, as I'm still travelling about.
This challenge actually raises some meta-issues I was just thinking about during the desultory daily ass-dragging that I dignify by characterizing as my "run"...
More soon.
And let me express my appreciation for your good-natured and diligent attempts to keep me honest.
Thanks Winston, and you know if I didn't value your opinion I would just say to hell with it and not bother with further discussion.
I am shocked, though, that you have other more pressing matters to attend to. ;)
A,
Thanks for the civil comments. I'm not picking out the worst examples of the left and generalizing. Rather, I'm offering a hypothesis about a significant chunk of the left.
See above.
One possible point of misunderstanding here is "reluctantly anti-war". I thought that a) there was a long list of reasons to want to go to war b) there were no significant WMDs and no link to terrorism and no evidence the admin could rise above abysmal c) there was a long list of not unlikely ways things could go wrong d) the risk was unacceptable. I wasn't "reluctant". I argued a) with my knee-jerk anti-war European friends for months, but if ANSWER hadn't run the rallies I would have marched.
I'd like to go free Tibet, but I don't "reluctantly" refrain.
"Rather, I'm offering a hypothesis about a significant chunk of the left."
You have to have some data to explain.
WS, sorry to get back to you later than I should've on this, but you should know that the 'leftist' I referred to in my post was none other than Colin Powell.
You better check your irony sensors, I think they've gone past the 50K snark reset limit.............
Seriously folks, I followed up the debate leading up to the war on various blogs along with keeping up with what columnists from the MSM and other gang leaders had to say about the subject.
I don't recall a lot of folks who were on the SH wasn't so bad, he was 'misunderstood' side of the debate back then. The issue you raise seems strangly irrelevant today, kinda like writing an essay detailing all the reasons that the 21st Century will see a revival of Monophysite Christianity due to a successful Western response to the threat of Militant Islam.
The fact that you can find some "SH not so bad" posts on DU message boards is about as revealing as finding 'patriots' who don't understand or care about understanding their rights under the 4th Amendment viz 'searches and seizures' posting at FreeRepublic.com.
Was the above helpful to you?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home