Liberals and the Iraq War (I)
Folks who reside toward the right end of the political spectrum frequently assert that liberals have not whole-heartedly supported the war in Iraq. They also claim that this lack of support has harmed the war effort in various ways--demoralized our troops, given aid, comfort, and hope to our enemies, and so forth. Most liberals deny these charges.
My own guess--rather more than a guess, actually, but not much more--is that conservatives are right about the first claim. Liberals have not whole-heartedly supported the war. I believe that I have supported it more than most liberals I know, and I have certainly not supported it whole-heartedly. Rather, I've been torn virtually every step of the way. I do not want America to lose, and I do not want our troops (nor innocent Iraqis) to die. But I have to admit, I can never muster a degree of support that could reasonably be called "whole-hearted." I hope that it goes without saying that if I had two magical switches in front of me, EASY VICTORY and DEFEAT, I'd flip the former in a heartbeat. Nevertheless--and this isn't easy for me to admit--there's part of me that would have been a bit angry had we actually achieved the easy victory we were promised.
My guess is that many liberal bloggers feel the same. Many of them seem inclined to accept bad news from Iraq more readily than good news, to strain to qualify or spin good news downward, to focus more on the failings of the Bush administration than on Saddam's brutality, and to have decided long ago that withdrawal is the only option, despite the fact that experts are clearly divided on the issue. There are other explanations for these phenomena--for example, they may to some extent represent an effort to counter-act the administration's relentless propaganda. But my suspicion is that a failure to fully and enthusiastically support the war is at least part of the true explanation.
Some conservatives have argued--reasonably--that despite any anger or regrets about how we got into Iraq, the rational thing for liberals to do would be to bygones be bygone and focus on making the best of a bad situation. Liberals have had no very good response to this argument that I know of. Sometimes they suggest that bitterness about the run-up to the war has not, in fact, colored their thinking about how to conduct it, but such claims are only marginally plausible to my ear.
Since failure in Iraq now seems to me to be approximately as likely as success, it seems likely to me that we will spend much time in the future analyzing and explaining the failure. Conservatives have already begun looking for scapegoats--to explain failure if that comes to pass, and to explain the difficulty of the victory otherwise--and liberals and the "liberal" media are, unsurprisingly, at the top of their list. Many liberals will defend themselves by denying that their support for the war was half-hearted. I could not honestly employ that defense. And I'm not sure how many of my fellow liberals can honestly do so, either.
Folks who reside toward the right end of the political spectrum frequently assert that liberals have not whole-heartedly supported the war in Iraq. They also claim that this lack of support has harmed the war effort in various ways--demoralized our troops, given aid, comfort, and hope to our enemies, and so forth. Most liberals deny these charges.
My own guess--rather more than a guess, actually, but not much more--is that conservatives are right about the first claim. Liberals have not whole-heartedly supported the war. I believe that I have supported it more than most liberals I know, and I have certainly not supported it whole-heartedly. Rather, I've been torn virtually every step of the way. I do not want America to lose, and I do not want our troops (nor innocent Iraqis) to die. But I have to admit, I can never muster a degree of support that could reasonably be called "whole-hearted." I hope that it goes without saying that if I had two magical switches in front of me, EASY VICTORY and DEFEAT, I'd flip the former in a heartbeat. Nevertheless--and this isn't easy for me to admit--there's part of me that would have been a bit angry had we actually achieved the easy victory we were promised.
My guess is that many liberal bloggers feel the same. Many of them seem inclined to accept bad news from Iraq more readily than good news, to strain to qualify or spin good news downward, to focus more on the failings of the Bush administration than on Saddam's brutality, and to have decided long ago that withdrawal is the only option, despite the fact that experts are clearly divided on the issue. There are other explanations for these phenomena--for example, they may to some extent represent an effort to counter-act the administration's relentless propaganda. But my suspicion is that a failure to fully and enthusiastically support the war is at least part of the true explanation.
Some conservatives have argued--reasonably--that despite any anger or regrets about how we got into Iraq, the rational thing for liberals to do would be to bygones be bygone and focus on making the best of a bad situation. Liberals have had no very good response to this argument that I know of. Sometimes they suggest that bitterness about the run-up to the war has not, in fact, colored their thinking about how to conduct it, but such claims are only marginally plausible to my ear.
Since failure in Iraq now seems to me to be approximately as likely as success, it seems likely to me that we will spend much time in the future analyzing and explaining the failure. Conservatives have already begun looking for scapegoats--to explain failure if that comes to pass, and to explain the difficulty of the victory otherwise--and liberals and the "liberal" media are, unsurprisingly, at the top of their list. Many liberals will defend themselves by denying that their support for the war was half-hearted. I could not honestly employ that defense. And I'm not sure how many of my fellow liberals can honestly do so, either.
posted by Winston Smith at
12:41 PM
13 Comments:
Some conservatives have argued--reasonably--that despite any anger or regrets about how we got into Iraq, the rational thing for liberals to do would be to bygones be bygone and focus on making the best of a bad situation. Liberals have had no very good response to this argument that I know of. Sometimes they suggest that bitterness about the run-up to the war has not, in fact, colored their thinking about how to conduct it, but such claims are only marginally plausible to my ear.
I think the trick here is to pin down exactly what conservatives mean by "let bygones be bygones and focus on making the best of a bad situation". If the administration were to, for example, propose raising the number of troops in Iraq, or instituting an emergency gas tax, or any other reform that would cause me personal grief but have a good chance of fixing things in Iraq, they'd have my support. My support in this instance might not be joyful, because of all the crap that's happened so far, but it'd still be support - whether it's "wholehearted" or not shouldn't really make a difference. So, no, I don't think conservatives can honestly level the "well, you're not on board no matter what we do" charge at liberals.
On the other hand, a lot of the "let bygones be bygones" stuff I've seen thrown at liberals comes from their continued failure to support the president regardless of the actual content of his actions. This argument doesn't - and shouldn't - wash, but it keeps getting used because it is a convenient scapegoat mechanism.
Speak for your self alone, WS. If you secretly wish for the defeat, then that's your position. But please do not try to peer inside the minds of others and try to discern their intents. Speak to the facts and leave the psychology to someone trained in the field.
Sorry, A, you're wrong about that one.
First, I made it clear that I'm talking primarily about myself.
But, second, anyone who thinks I'm alone on this is just not paying attention.
And, third, psychologists don't deal with questions like this. They're in fact probably LESS good at this kind of thing than, say, novelists. Psychologists construe psychology very, very narrowly.
Chris's comments, however, I tend to agree with, FWIW.
I didn't support the war at all, although I of course hope for the best and have and will support anytyhing that protects our interests and minimizes our losses.
It is unreasonable to drive a car over the edge of the Grand Canyon over the protests of your passenger and then hand the keys to him and say "Fine, you drive." That is the "reasonable" let bygone-be-bygones argument.
Sucks to be wrong, sucks to have blood on your hands, sucks to realize that others had better ideas and tried to state them, but you ignored them. Why are you so interested in what war opponents have to say now?
I don't know how to make Iraq work out nice, and I have no interest in supporting people who have always said that they do. They don't, and I don't need to offer them anything or support them in any way. Call me when you need a problem solved, not a tool to bring down with you when your rosy ideas turn to shit.
My earlier comment was a bit intemperate, so I want to make sure to clarify that the "you" was a pronoun for folks who say that "well, we're there now, what are you going to do to fix it?"
Along the same lines, I think I understand WS's reluctance to have the path of war succeed isntantly...war is not a good thing, ever, and it is especially worrisome to have the idea of pre-emptive war become a favorite tool of diplomacy (which, even it its absolute failure, it apparently continues to be). It, obviously, doesn't work. And being anti-war is in no way incompatible with being pro-troop and pro-America. Any person who can't understand this is being willfully stupid.
Finally, not being willing to look on the bright side of life is not being defeatist or anti-american or not supporting the troops. When you see an awful situation where someone is going to get hurt or killed, you can hope all you want that it doesn't happen. But it will, and if you decide to hope instead of taking steps to make sure that more folks are not hurt or killed, you are part of the problem. Our troops don't need the kind of support that keeps them there forever in a mess that is not going anywhere good, and is actually getting worse. That attitude kills troops, Iraqis, and does NOTHING to make things better. Death without any benefit to anyone, not a good calculus for anyone. The troops need the type of support that gets them home and safe as soon as possible.
Some conservatives have argued--reasonably--that despite any anger or regrets about how we got into Iraq, the rational thing for liberals to do would be to bygones be bygone and focus on making the best of a bad situation. Liberals have had no very good response to this argument that I know of.
I have a response.
Bush needs to stand up and publically state that he was wrong about his reasons for going into the war. And mean it.
Then, he needs to ask the international community to help us contain the burgeoning violence in Iraq.
From where I'm sitting, many of the problems we are having are stemming from the fact that the US is seen as an invading enemy and an occupying force. (Which, we are)
What that needs to change to is an international peace keeping force, and force to rebuild the country.
If we have an *actual* international coalition, and have soliders OTHER than US soldiers visible, we might actually be able to quell the burgeoning civil war and rebuild the country.
But I don't see how the US can do it alone.
I agree with much of what you guys are saying, but plan to unleash those fascinating thoughts for you as a new post soon.
Thanks for the insightful feedback.
Some conservatives have argued--reasonably--that despite any anger or regrets about how we got into Iraq, the rational thing for liberals to do would be to bygones be bygone and focus on making the best of a bad situation.
Lucy says, "C'mon, Charlie Brown, kick the football."
Liberals should make proposals whose primary purpose is to remove from power the idiots who made such a hash of Iraq.
Why not be immediately constructive? The Republicans have demonstrated that they will not listen to any Democratic proposal, much less one from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. There is no reason to believe that they are chastened enough to listen now.
Liberals can only have an impact in the long term, and that impact is the best support of the troops they can possibly give.
What the conservatives really want is for liberals to shut up, become Joe Lieberman, and stop making realistic statements about Iraq that have woken up the electorate. It's just a more polite my-way-or-the-highway. They can go to hell.
Whew...I have to say, I think it takes some balls to tackle this subject. I think it's about impossible to touch on this subject without raising the ire of liberals who have grown accustomed to having to defend themselves from accusations that they are "traitors" or "defeatists" or "don't support the troops" or whatnot.
In light of that however, I think that it is reasonable to say that some liberal bloggers do spin bad news to score points against Bush. By "spin" I mean they generally do not blog about positive developments, or in discussing the news explain how this is yet another failure of Bush. I could be accused of doing the same, at least through the first couple of years of the occupation, as I clearly was looking for evidence of the occupation to turn bad, as I suspected it would from the beginning. So you could argue that I was psychologically invested in things going sour. Does that mean I hoped that they would? I don't think so, nor would I accuse anyone of doing the same. But it's awfully uncomfortable, knowing that for me to be right, things would have to go very, very bad over there.
Having said that, I would say that the question has become less and less relevant as things have actually worsened. At one time back near the beginning of the occupation it was reasonable to accuse some liberal bloggers of cherry-picking bad news. But now it's very reasonable to say that things are bad, and only getting worse, as even some conservatives who are invested in victory in Iraq are beginning to admit that things have not gone according to plan, that things have actually gotten worse.
Also, at this points it's hard to define what "support" means. If by support you mean "staying in Iraq until there is stability and peace" then I think it's obvious that there are many liberals who do not "support" the war, because they do not believe that such a thing is possible. They believe we should come home. I believe that stability is still possible, and because we precipitated this conflict, we have the ultimate moral responsibility to stay as long as we must to either fix what we broke, or it becomes clear that we can do nothing else to fix it. If that's "support", then I guess I do support the war.
Despite the fact that I favor our continued presence, I still believe that we should not let "bygones be bygones." The mistakes that were made in the run-up and prosecution of this war and the occupation must be made clear, argued about, and held against the Bush administration. I say that for practical reasons; the more the rest of us can hold Bush accountable for his mistakes, the more we can perhaps force him and his administration to take the actions which give us a chance for success in Iraq. Plus, it's hard to avoid saying anything about it when the indignation over their mistakes is so great.
Thanks, X.
I've stayed out of this one because there has been honest discussion (cheers, all!) and a neocon like yours truly could only screw it up with the usual internetia of wack-a-mole (the mole being me in this case).
"I believe that stability is still possible, and because we precipitated this conflict, we have the ultimate moral responsibility to stay as long as we must to either fix what we broke, or it becomes clear that we can do nothing else to fix it. If that's "support", then I guess I do support the war.
I think Mr. X's position is a principled one, and I also think advocating withdrawing the troops immediately is principled, too, altho I disagree with it. Leaving out the casus belli discussion, this recent survey of the Iraqi people, if accurate, should be probative.
Most feel a continued US/UK military presence exacerbates the butchery. I happen to disagree on the whole, but I could very well be wrong, and I don't live in Iraq.
Still, many Iraqis feel the troops should remain in the near term. Virtually none for the long term, of course. Who would? How embarrassing, that any society should become the ward of another state.
As for the post mortem, we are already there---regardless of the ineptitude of the administration's PR, the reality is that we are already in a postwar Iraq: 77% feel all this chaos and suffering in deposing Saddam was worth it. I myself am surprised, mostly in that the populace could discern so quickly that Saddam's Iraq was hell, and the contemporary version pales.
Interesting.
"I hope that it goes without saying that if I had two magical switches in front of me, EASY VICTORY and DEFEAT, I'd flip the former in a heartbeat."
W. thought he had those buttons in front of him.
Somehow the wiring got all messed up.
regardless of the ineptitude of the administration's PR,
PR is the least of the administration's ineptitude.
the reality is that we are already in a postwar Iraq:
Mission accomplished?
77% feel all this chaos and suffering in deposing Saddam was worth it.
This result of polling Iraqis doesn't put us in the post-war any more than past approving results of polling Americans did.
Drilling into the poll reveals that it essentially breaks down on sectarian and ethnic lines. Kurds and Shia are happy we deposed Saddam; Sunnis aren't. Sherman ain't marched to the sea on this one yet.
I wonder how many North Koreans would applaud Kim Jong Il's overthrow. More than 77% is my guess.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home