Drum on James Joyner on the Foreign Policy Community's Silent Opposition to the Invasion of Iraq
Here.
Just Drum's summary, but you know how to follow links.
My long-standing hypothesis (a word that sounds so much more official than 'guess'...) about something partially responsible for this: the same thing that discombobulated (and sometimes silenced) so many folks like me: the pro-war folks, including the White House, just all sounded so damn certain. They acted like it was (ahem) a slam dunk. From where I was standing, the evidence just simply did not add up...but I knew that I wasn't an expert, didn't know much about the facts, had an anti-Bush inclination...I spent many months second-guessing myself before my position finally coalesced. In such a state of doubt, it's hard not to be swayed by the appearance of certainty on the other side, marginally rational though that is.
Somewhere Kissinger says something about the advantage that...what's the exact group he's talking about? I can't recall...extremists...radicals...anti-democrats...some variety of asshole. Anyway. The advantage that they have over ordinary folks in a democracy: we sit down, assuming that they can be reasoned with and, indeed, that they are being reasoned with...when they aren't listening to anything we're saying. They're just plotting their next move, using our fallibilism, open-mindedness and civility against us.
The weight of that point came crashing down on me after I'd spent so many months tossing and turning about whether or not I should support the invasion. Then I realized that I'd been had. While I was actually thinking about it, they were just pushing through their pre-determined conclusion, never having any intention of actually reasoning about it or listening to the public.
Add to that the fact that everyone who expressed any doubts about the war was branded unpatriotic, crazy, and/or "objectively pro-terrorist" (yep, that was actually a phrase that seemed to semi-catch on for awhile)...and, well, there's no doubt that all of this will dampen criticism and pervert the public discourse.
Anyway, my guess: to some extent, the experts were just like the rest of us, tricked and cowed into non-opposition.
Here.
Just Drum's summary, but you know how to follow links.
My long-standing hypothesis (a word that sounds so much more official than 'guess'...) about something partially responsible for this: the same thing that discombobulated (and sometimes silenced) so many folks like me: the pro-war folks, including the White House, just all sounded so damn certain. They acted like it was (ahem) a slam dunk. From where I was standing, the evidence just simply did not add up...but I knew that I wasn't an expert, didn't know much about the facts, had an anti-Bush inclination...I spent many months second-guessing myself before my position finally coalesced. In such a state of doubt, it's hard not to be swayed by the appearance of certainty on the other side, marginally rational though that is.
Somewhere Kissinger says something about the advantage that...what's the exact group he's talking about? I can't recall...extremists...radicals...anti-democrats...some variety of asshole. Anyway. The advantage that they have over ordinary folks in a democracy: we sit down, assuming that they can be reasoned with and, indeed, that they are being reasoned with...when they aren't listening to anything we're saying. They're just plotting their next move, using our fallibilism, open-mindedness and civility against us.
The weight of that point came crashing down on me after I'd spent so many months tossing and turning about whether or not I should support the invasion. Then I realized that I'd been had. While I was actually thinking about it, they were just pushing through their pre-determined conclusion, never having any intention of actually reasoning about it or listening to the public.
Add to that the fact that everyone who expressed any doubts about the war was branded unpatriotic, crazy, and/or "objectively pro-terrorist" (yep, that was actually a phrase that seemed to semi-catch on for awhile)...and, well, there's no doubt that all of this will dampen criticism and pervert the public discourse.
Anyway, my guess: to some extent, the experts were just like the rest of us, tricked and cowed into non-opposition.
posted by Winston Smith at
2:43 PM
26 Comments:
I think what you're saying is true, but I also think that there's a contempt in the public discourse for people who are uniformly anti-war (that is, an understanding that their views can be safely ignored, because "yeah they oppose this war, they oppose every war") that we don't see for someone who is similarly hawkish, like Bill Kristol.
I don't think being 'uniformly' anything is a good idea, but if Mr. Kristol is to be taken seriously each time he comes up with a new target for our bombs, and his opposition can be safely written off because, "Ho, hum, we've heard it before," then it's no mystery how we got where we are.
The certainty was moral, not political and certainly not born of prudence. That Saddam was an unrepentant butcher, that he adored WMDs, that he had no compunctions using them, that he left hundreds of thousands in mass graves, that we stood by doing nothing while he slaughtered the very people we'd urged to revolt, that our own sanctions killed their tens of thousands of Iraqi women and children by starvation and disease, that he was building palaces with Oil For Food money (the extent of the corruption in the "international community" being largely unsuspected at that time), that his sons were throwing their people into paper shredders.
Surely as much moral justification as entering Kosovo, and where all the bodies the administration told us about never actually turned up. As I linked elsewhere on my remarks on Bernard Kouchner, now the French foreign minister and a founder of Médecins Sans Frontières, the humanitarian case is the one that should have been made, but wasn't.
In fact, let's link that again, in case EVERYONE missed it, which they apparently did, except for one guy who read it halfway through before he started slagging off on me.
(Here within the safety of the mob, not there, left to his own resources.)
People on the right like me took for granted that EVERYONE (your caps here, I prefer not to shout) recognized the moral imperative of toppling Saddam.
That was not so, and was a grave rhetorical error on the part of the administration.
Ironically, and contrary to the popular narrative, it's those who claim to have voted to authorize toppling Saddam solely for "immediate threat" (they didn't read the briefings), WMD and national security reasons---and who recant now---who were the new Tom DeLay-type "national interest" beancounters like those who opposed the Kosovo intervention.
I've chosen not to question Bill Clinton's motives with Kosovo, although the circumstantial "wag the dog" allegations are not implausible. I cannot claim to see into the man's heart. Regardless, it was a good thing, at least by putative intention (we'll see how it shakes out geopolitically). I shall not judge him by the results, good or, perhaps in the future, bad, as we may have created another al-Qaeda refuge.
There was murder in Kosovo, and there was murder in Iraq. This is uncontrovertable fact. I'll defend breaking down the other fellow's door if it's happening in his house, law and prudence be damned.
Tom, I would point out how pointless your post is on specific levels but I will just say that as usual you have taken your post in a direction that has little to do with the topic at hand and leave it to WS or someone else who has more time on their hands to point out the specifics. But at the end of the day this isn't a debate about if the war is justified or not, it is a debate about if those who thought it was a bad idea prior to the event should have their feet held to the fire for not speaking out ahead of time.
Jesus, Tom, you just don't give up, do you?
These points have all been refuted before. t-r0x is right.
But one note:
Funny how the right only recognized moral imperatives when there's oil involved. They give the brutal bastard Saddam Sarin when it's convenient, and when guys like me object they ridicule them as naive. Morality, they tell us, has no place in foreign policy. Then when they decide they want to get rid of him because he's got the chemical weapons they gave him, suddenly they're all "Gosh, he's so brutal...we're just doing this for human rights!"
Please.
I used to think there was some subtlety here I was missing. Now I realize it's just bullshit.
The certainty was moral, not political and certainly not born of prudence.
Right . . . which is why we're in Darfur, right? It certainly seems to be a more pressing moral imperative.
Aaaaand why we're invading China. Brutal dictator, killing his own people, yadda yadda yadda . . . What's that? It's a horrible idea that will end in bloody disaster? Prudence has no place here! This is a moral certainty! To the guns, men!
Well, I don't think that China is a good counterexample, Myca, because *that* war would be a catastrophe.
But Darfur, the Congo, and all the place like them, where conservatives would never even consider raising a finger, do give the lie to Tom's claim.
Think about the rabid conservative opposition to intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo. Think of the criticisms of Jimmy Carter for his weakness and naivete in emphasizing human rights. Think of conservative support for Pinochet, the Shah, and the others in the endless list of brutal dictators they cozied up to.
No, human rights are only a stalking horse for conservatives.
When you want to know what people really think, don't listen to their words, look at their deeds.
Well, I don't think that China is a good counterexample, Myca, because *that* war would be a catastrophe.
No, no, that's specifically why I brought it up. It would be an utter catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions . . . but remember, this isn't about prudence. It's about doing what's morally right, whether it's prudent or not.
If the argument is that, "Sweet god, we can't invade China! Are you off your gourd? That would be World War Freaking Three," then 1) I agree and 2) it's an argument that takes prudence into account, not just moral certainty.
Because, as it turns out, prudence is kidn of important.
At this point in this discussion, an excerpt from a book by someone who has dedicated themselves to a thorough, logical and consistent analysis of the justness of war seems in order.
I don't offer this as dispositive, since nobody but the most philosophically impaired is persuaded by appeal to authority. I just think it sums up my discomfort with the Iraq War as a worthwhile humanitarian venture, and is consistent with the sentiment expressed by Myca and others in this thread:
"To set prudence and justice so radically at odds, however, is to misconstrue the argument for justice. A state contemplating intervention or counter-intervention will for prudential reasons weigh the dangers to itself, but it must also, AND FOR MORAL REASONS, weigh the dangers its action will impose on the people it is designed to benefit and on all other people who may be affected. An intervention is not just if it subjects third parties to terrible risks: the subjection cancels the justice." (emphasis in original)
-- Michael Walzer, JUST AND UNJUST WARS, p. 95.
Good points, Myca and A.
I was thinking not of the prudential consequences of a war against China, but of the moral consequences, but I didn't make myself clear.
A war against China would be a moral (as well as a prudential) disaster, b/c it'd probably cause more harm than good.
That's what I was thinking, anyway.
Also, re: A's point:
Not every appeal to authority is fallacious, and an appeal to Walzer here is perfectly reasonable.
One thing I'll say in response to the quote though--and this is probably just philosophical niggling--but:
Aside from the fact that the actor state will probably automatically consider the prudential reasons, they also ought to consider the moral obligation that they have to themselves. To take an obvious example: there are moral reasons not to put U.S. soldiers in harm's way for frivolous reasons, and this in addition to the reasons we have not to gratuitously screw up other countries.
Anyway: sometimes people don't realize that we have moral obligations to ourselves as well as others. (Though that point doesn't really come out so clearly in examples where the actors are states.)
OK, Winston, if I understand you correctly, I agree.
That is, the quote would more completely capture the moral implications of action if it said "...A state comtemplating intervention of counter-intervention will FOR BOTH PRUDENTIAL AND MORAL REASONS, weigh the dangers to itself...".
Do you agree?
Funny that this discussion has completely taken the form of moral justification vs. prudence yet I get accused of irrelevance. Hmmm, could it have something to do with my political leanings?
Sort of reminds one of the post above this about how awful it is to stifle dissent. The irony is daily around here lately.
And yes, WS, you did miss some subtlety, or maybe what was plainly said, that the moral justification for toppling Saddam was easily as great as moving into Kosovo, a war that you thought was just jim-dandy.
As did I. The point was that those who have withdrawn their original support for the war surely had the moral imperative in mind (altho they've forgotten since), and those who opposed it strangely ignored the same moral imperative that enabled them to support Kosovo, which was Kouchner's point. OK?
I dunno, Tom, maybe you've got a point. But the conversation moved to this point organically, whereas your comment just seemed irrelevant fulminating.
I mean, what's that crap about how:
"People on the right like me took for granted that EVERYONE (your caps here, I prefer not to shout) recognized the moral imperative of toppling Saddam.
That was not so, and was a grave rhetorical error on the part of the administration."
?
C'mon, Tom, this administration didn't give a shit about the moral case against Saddam. Conservatives don't operate like that. As I noted above, they back evil tyrants when it's convenient, and call folks like me naive and unpatriotic for objecting. Then they trot out the human rights rhetoric when THAT suits them.
If conservatives gave a shit about human rights, then conservative admins wouldn't have given Saddam weapons, or would have objected at some other point. Hell, the human rights case was always an afterthought and a post-hoc rationalization for invasion.
It wasn't a "rhetorical" failure of theirs to assume liberals recognized Saddam's awfulness--liberals were trying to get us to stop supporting the SOB since...well, since YOU guys started supporting him.
It also wasn't a "rhetorical" failure to underemphasize the human rights case. It was a *substantive* failure. The war was not motivated by human rights concerns. That was always a sideshow.
But we've been over all this before. Again and again and again. Hence the frustration.
There's almost always enough complexity and vagueness in such situations to provide plenty of ammunition for somebody who doesn't want to see things clearly. I guess it's more and more seeming to me like you are one of those people. Maybe your mistakes are honest ones, or maybe you are right and I am wrong...but that's not what it seems like from where I'm standing, trying my best to be reasonable.
Precisely right, Winston.
It's not that I'm saying that prudence overrides morality or that morality overrides prudence or anything of the sort.
Both are important considerations and both should be taken into account.
However, if, as someone opposed to the war, I say, "this is a bad idea, and it's going to be a big freaking disaster," and I am met with, "clearly you liberal scum don't care that Saddam is a murderous tyrant," it is not at all out of line to respond with a list of murderous, tyrannical regimes that the right does not care to depose . . . because deposing them is a stupid idea . . . just like this was.
It's not that I'm insensate to the moral considerations, but neither am I insensate to the practical ones, and neither are you.
When someone has a practical objection, claiming that their practical objection is somehow a moral failing is both intellectually dishonest and kinda shitty.
C'mon, Tom, this administration didn't give a shit about the moral case against Saddam. Conservatives don't operate like that.
This one does. I can only speak for myself. No butchery, no war, and I can't think I was alone in this.
We all end up with strange (and undesirable) bedfellows, as Kouchner pointed out. Objecting to the war on prudential grounds was certainly principled, but represented a low percentage. Most were fanned by anti-Republican president, anti-American, anti-globalist feeling, or sentiments against the ickiness of all war in general. I maintain that on humanitarian principle alone, Iraq was as justified as Kosovo. That there were geopolitical factors involved as well tends to muddy up the question of morality.
And surely there were those who wanted war for geopolitical reasons alone, altho I'm not prepared to judge anyone individually. When it's a choice between A or B, one's coalition ends up with all kinds.
1) That's fine if that's what YOU think, Tom, but WS is saying that the administration never thought that way.
2) I don't know how this war can be considered to be justified in any way that even closely resembles humanitarianism. Saddam killed how many? Well, he was on trial for the deaths of 148 people. Johns-Hopkins University last gave the estimate of the deaths caused by the war at a staggering 654,965 (and that was in October, 2006).
I'm afraid the war appears to have failed on the humanitarian front miserably.
"I can only speak for myself."
Except when I say:
"Objecting to the war on prudential grounds was certainly principled, but represented a low percentage. Most were fanned by anti-Republican president, anti-American, anti-globalist feeling, or sentiments against the ickiness of all war in general."
I can only speak for myself except when I make and obscenely broad statement that not only summarily dismisses anyone who might disagree with me but also points out that if they do they are traitors. Tom come on now this is getting out of hand.
I dunno what the percentages were like, but I stopped supporting the invasion when the lies and deception became intolerable and the charges of unpatriotism began flying.
I wanted Saddam out, but the smell of rat became overwhelming.
Any support for the war I felt evaporated when it became clear that the Bush administration felt the need to lie in support of it . . . over and over and over and over.
If the case for invasion is solid, one does not need to make shit up.
And yes, I'm sure that there are all sort of very sophisticated reasons that very serious people will offer as to why my reasoning is incorrect here . . . but in the end, I was right, they were not, and I don't think that that's luck or coincidence on my part.
---Myca
Except when I say:
"Objecting to the war on prudential grounds was certainly principled, but represented a low percentage. Most were fanned by anti-Republican president, anti-American, anti-globalist feeling, or sentiments against the ickiness of all war in general."
Actually, I was referencing Bernard Kouchner, a gentleman of the left. Ad hom him, not me.
And most support for the war was based on false information, nationalism,militarism, authoritarian inclinations, etc.
So the mass of supporters on both sides seem to have held their positions for bad reasons.
But the question is: what were the best reasons on each side.
Most of the best reasons were anti-invasion, though there were some decent pro-invasion reasons.
Well, even if I disagree with your final conclusion, it's nice to boil it all down without the bedfellows and resulting yelling.
WS posted:
"And most support for the war was based on false information, nationalism,militarism, authoritarian inclinations, etc."
"So the mass of supporters on both sides seem to have held their positions for bad reasons."
WS -- The first sentence supports half of the second (that most pro-war supporters held their position for bad reasons. However, it does not support the concurrent claim that that most anti-war supporters held their positions for bad reasons.
This isn't obvious to me, can you help?
Well, that was just bald assertion on my part, and now that you call me out on it I want to retreat from the claim. I was half-way just granting Tom his point, half for the sake of argument.
What I really think: MANY anti-war folks held their positions for bad reasons (they were just anti-Bush, or quasi-pacifists, or whatever).
But I have no evidence that most of them did.
WS, thank you for addressing the question I raised.
FWIW, I think that the anti-war folk had a wide range of reasons for opposing the war. (Hell, I know so, for I was one of them.)
But all were united in believing that the burden was on those who supported invading Iraq to show beyond reasonable doubt that war was necessary -- not just that the preferred outcome was desirable.
And, all of those that I knew in the anti-war movement (pre-invasion) were convinced that the administration and its supporters had failed to do so.
Is this not the default position from a moral standpoint? War is presumed to be wrong until shown (beyond reasonable doubt) to be preferable to the alternative.
Yes, it's true.
I guess folks like me who flirted with being pro-invasion got stars in our eyes over the prospect of ousting Saddam.
I remember having exactly this kind of conversation with a friend of mine, arguing that this administration would never use U.S. military force to promote humanitarian ends, and that, though nobody could figure out why they had a boner to go into Iraq, at least it was likely to *achieve* humanitarian ends, regardless of their actual motives...so we should support it even if they were obviously bullshitting us.
But 'necessary' is funny in these contexts, as is 'last resort.' Nothing's ever *strictly speaking* necessary, nor a last resort...there's always something else you *could* do...I guess I just didn't see any other way to get Saddam out.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home