Centerfield: Rational opposition

February 17, 2005

Rational opposition

I respect anyone who opposed the decision to go to war in Iraq. It took months before I reluctantly concluded (and not based on the specific arguments advanced by the the Bush administration) that it was the right thing to do. But I have always believed that once the commitment was made, failure could not be an option.

Fast forward to 2005, and I direct you to this article from a New Yorker.

Like most New Yorkers, I disagree with the Bush administration politically, temperamentally, and ontologically most of the time. Two years ago, however, unlike most New Yorkers (but probably like most Americans), concerning Iraq I went from 50-50 fence-sitting to fretful 53 percent support of an invasion. So the ups and downs of the war and occupation since have conformed, more or less, to my own deep ambivalence.

But for our local antiwar supermajority, the Iraq elections were simply the most vertiginous moment of a two-year-long roller-coaster ride. By last November, they’d hoped the U.S. would see things their way—and it was some solace that by January, a solid majority of the country apparently agreed with New York that Iraq was a mess and a misadventure.

Until the Iraqi vote: surprisingly smooth and inarguably inspiring and, in some local camps, unexpectedly unsettling. Of course, for all but a nutty fringe, it is not a matter of actually wishing for an insurgent victory, but rather of hating the idea of a victory presided over by the Bush team. (I may prefer the Yankees to beat the Red Sox, but I cannot bear the spectacle of Steinbrenner’s gloating.) Three months after failing to defeat Bush in our election, plenty of New Yorkers privately, half-consciously hoped for his comeuppance in Iraq’s. You know who you are. . . .

Each of us has a Hobbesian choice concerning Iraq; either we hope for the vindication of Bush’s risky, very possibly reckless policy, or we are in a de facto alliance with the killers of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. We can be angry with Bush for bringing us to this nasty ethical crossroads, but here we are nonetheless.

I don�t mean to suggest, in the right-wing, proto-fascist rhetorical fashion, that every good American is obliged to support all American wars. But at this moment in this war, that binary choice of who you want to win is inescapable and needs to be faced squarely�just as being pro-war obliges one to admit that thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed or maimed or orphaned.

So, there it is. Both for me and those who legitimately argued for a different course.

Posted by Todd Pearson at February 17, 2005 11:00 PM

Comments

Most amusing. These are the words of one who was (as I was) inspired by Iraqi Election Day I, but is consumed with guilt over it.

He disagrees with Bush "temperementally and ontologically?" And he's clearly not "right-wing, proto-fascist?" Oh my! Yet he hopes for success for the Iraqi in their drive for democracy. How generous.

Posted by: Literally Retarded at February 18, 2005 06:37 AM

I thought "proto-fascist" was an unnecessary thing to say, a careless thing that suggests a certain cluelessness. But in the context of the particular audience to which the author is quite obviously speaking, it makes some sense. When speaking to Romans, speak Roman, I suppose.

Despite the artlessness of the waysome of this is expressed, I agree with the sentiment. From the beginning, I thought Bush's Iraq plans were a big gamble chosen from a short list of possible options, none without flaws. And it was obvious to me that opposition to the admin's chosen course became pretty pointless pretty quickly. After invasion/liberation, there did not seem to be any honorable alternatives to hoping things came out as decently as possible.

Seems to me that many centrists share this results-oriented view. I care SO much more about decent results in Iraq, about fostering a better future for Iraqis and bringing our people home as soon as the Iraqis can stand than I do about the minutiae of the rationales for various courses that might once have been possible but no longer are.

And as for where we go from here foreign-policywise, I think the die has been cast to a large extent, and what happens from here will be large;y ictated by just a couple of things.
1) our realism regarding the limits of American power,

and 2) by human nature, in other words, by what really lies in the hearts of everyday Iraqis and other everyday middle easterners. Will fear win, or hatred, or hope for good things during THIS life on Earth?

Posted by: bk at February 18, 2005 08:25 AM

I agree. Anyone who roots against good things is not just anti-American but anti-Iraqi. I opposed the war and still think it was a mistake, but I fervently hope things work out both for us and for the Iraqi people. Anything other than that is just ideological fanaticism. I read somewhere (maybe on another blog) someone saying something to the effect that even if things work out Iraq, it will always be tainted by our actions. To me, that's one of the dumbest comments ever. If things work out and the Middle East becomes peaceful and democratic, in a 100 years no one will give a damn how it happened (except, possibly, left-wing historians). That's the way history works.

I must say though that the Bushies have a way of pushing my buttons and making me grit my teeth at their arrogance.

Posted by: MWS at February 18, 2005 03:18 PM

WAs this "New York" magazine or "The New yorker" magazine?

Posted by: Chris at February 19, 2005 02:21 AM

Centerfield

A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics

February 17, 2005

Rational opposition