Centerfield

I think that's a valid question, and, if you may recall, there was a concerted effort on the part of these kinds of organizations in the nineties to publicize the excesses of the Taliban in Afghanistan and their reign of terror, particularly against women. Likewise, many of these groups are trying to raise awareness of human rights violations and environmental degradation in other places. In the case of Afghanistan, virtually the only people who were up-in-arms about what was going on there were liberals.

The problem with Iraq has been that, during the Saddam era, the country was pretty much closed off, so not much could be done, and other than the general human rights violations that pretty much everybody knew about, Iraq wasn't really any worse than a lot of other places (women's rights and environment-wise).

Now, you bring up an interesting question, and I recall that in the early days, post 9/11, the left were very distrustful of George Bush, and felt that his hasty invasion of Afghanistan was more of a political symbol of "action" than a well-planned tactical assault on our enemies, and even though they had been pushing for action against the Taliban for years, they were wary of Bush's motives and plans. I, for one, was happy to see them go, but I think that many of the left's fears turned out to be well-founded, as the U.S.'s seeming uninterest in seeing their project in Afghanistan through has left the country in a very precarious position and vastly increased its Heroin-producing capacity, turning it into a potential narco-state.

As far as Iraq goes, it's still a very dangerous war zone, and there's not much that feminist and environmental organizations can do there. Even NGOs that focus on aid in dangerous areas aren't operating in Iraq, so how can you expect the Sierra Club to set up shop there?

I think you're right that in their fear and distrust of Bush, the left is loath to chime in with his chorus of "we're liberators."

Posted by: David Adams at August 9, 2005 12:30 PM

As far as Iraq goes, it's still a very dangerous war zone, and there's not much that feminist and environmental organizations can do there. Even NGOs that focus on aid in dangerous areas aren't operating in Iraq, so how can you expect the Sierra Club to set up shop there?

Very true. I don't expect them to try to set up shop, per se. But it might be nice if it such organizations were vocally on board regarding certain goals, regardless of the company those goals required them to keep. They could even raise money towards the goal of getting ready to set up shop if and when things stabilize, or even just raise money to give to local groups who share those goals.

The thing that baffles me, I guess, is that I just don't see how, say, a feminist organization loses out by vocally supporting efforts to provide equal rights and enfranchisement for women across the middle east by most or even any means necessary.

I'd have a TON of respect for any such organization , feminist, green or other, that said "we don't support many or even most of the Bush administration's policies. But we will support them in trying to do [this or that one particular very good thing.]"

Posted by: bk at August 9, 2005 01:01 PM

I think there is a logical disconnect with some on the Left. They tend to believe that "raising awareness" and gathering donations is all one need do to magicaly solve all problems.

I would submit that there was no deficit of awareness of the abuses of the Taliban prior to 911.... nor would I argue that the Left was particulary deficient in playing an equitable role in creating such awareness (They ARE in some instances, like Iraq and Cuba, but they were pretty upfront about the Taliban, I think). What they seem to fail to comphrehend was that all the awareness in the world didn't matter one whit to the people on the ground holding the guns. Nor does all the "aid" in the world matter one whit as long as the people on the ground with the guns can come and take it away when they want.

The advocacy Left is reasonably effective (IMO) at dealing with problems where the controling regime actualy wants to do the right thing but simply lacks the resources or where a regime can at least be SHAMED into doing the right thing.

However, they're completely dysfunctional at dealing with situations where the controling regieme doesn't mind being an international piriah. If you can't address something by holding a rally, the Left gets stymied.

Posted by: cengel at August 9, 2005 01:19 PM

George Carlin has a skit where he avers that environmentalist groups "don't really care about the planet; all they're really interested in is a nice place to live, a safe place to drive their Volvos".

In other words, many of these "advocacy" groups are essentially advocating their own interests, dressed in the rhetoric of a broader public good. Not that there's anything wrong with that, per se, but it does answer the question of why they're focussed on things that affect them, as the original post questioned.

Which isn't strictly on-topic, but it's a good excuse to impart some Carlin wisdom. ;)

Posted by: Simon at August 9, 2005 01:23 PM

Re: Yeah, How Come?

This has bothered me for some time. I am unwilling to go so far as to say Bushed screwed up the invasion/toppling/occupation because I can't predict the outcome at this stage (WWII was virtually won, then came the Battle of the Bulge - a setback? a quagmire? History says not).

But (and maybe I don't read enough) isn't the logical outcome of the current left side of the argument that we should have left Saddam in charge? That such a status quo would be more beneficial to human rights than otherwise?

I don't get the obvious disconnect. Shouldn't human rights organizations be demanding equal rights for women in Iraq? Even before Gulf War I?

Will I ever be able to stop asking rhetorical questions? Who can say?

Posted by: Literally Retarded at August 9, 2005 01:55 PM

I wouldn't mind seeing more international outrage at Sharia (as envisaged by, say, Iran) than at Great Britain for curbing some civil rights while under the threat of attack.

Posted by: Literally Retarded at August 9, 2005 02:02 PM

I think all of these points are good ones. Like Brian, I don't think this should devolve into a rant on the left, but I do think the problem the left (or at least the more radical left)has is dealing with the reality of power. They are so averse to the idea of using power, especially US military power, that they are simply incapable of dealing with situations that, as Cengel notes, require more than holding a rally.

It is difficult, however, to look at Iraq from an expatriate's perspective. How do we know what values to prioritize. For example, Bush has emphasized freedom and democracy. But, as an article in Foreign Affairs points out, what about justice, both juridical and economic? Do we elevate democracy above the rights of women, for example?

I honestly don't know what the United States should do. It's an incredibly complex situation. The fact is democracy, freedom, and social responsibility are not necessarily the same thing. When we talk about democracy in the west, what we really mean is constitutionalism with incorporated rights for minorities. But that's not what most groups in the Middle East think, IMO.

The problem is also that doing what's right might not be in our best interests. For example, if we insist on Iraq protecting rights for women, do we become simple imperialists (as if we are not already) in the eyes of the Iraqi public? Does this simply inflame anti-Americanism even more?

I think Hitchens' broad point is absolutely correct: the various rights groups in the US should, instead of focusing on the shortcomings of US policy around the world (which is easy and doesn't require any real committment), to look at, now that we are there, how do we come up with the best possible outcome. But it's not going to happen because these groups are far too concerned with not validating Bush's approach. Frankly, I can understand their concern with appearing to help a policy with which they disagree. But it's time to get beyond that.

Posted by: MWS at August 9, 2005 02:09 PM

I think simply put, it's difficult to organize an "American human rights" campaign for a country whose American presence is not endorsed by those who would be organizing it. At the moment, the louder voice from the left is the one that is rallying against U.S. involvement. I also believe that the comments made earlier about the difficulty the pro-human rights activists would face in opposition to intolerable governments was accurate. If protesting and rallying will not do the job..then how else can it be done? Besides, different countries and different cultures hold different standards regarding "human rights".

Posted by: todd at August 9, 2005 02:44 PM

"But (and maybe I don't read enough) isn't the logical outcome of the current left side of the argument that we should have left Saddam in charge? That such a status quo would be more beneficial to human rights than otherwise?"

I think that grossly misrepresents the thinking of those of us that opposed the war. You are creating a dichotomy in which the only two options are supporting Saddam or supporting the war. Saying that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq is not the same as saying that Saddam Hussein would have been better for human rights. Obviously, him being out of power is a benefit, but the question is whether, overall, the invasion was just and worthwhile. Leaving Saddam in power would have clearly resulted in continuing human rights violations, but war itself violates human rights--eg, the civilians who were killed.

I find it annoying that those favoring the war offer such a simplistic view of the world as if every time we find something bad going on, we should invade the country. The question is, regardless of the human rights situation in a particular place, when does a single country have the right to determine that war is a legitimate instrument to advance human rights. Few are saying that human rights would be furthered by having Saddam Hussein in power, but that doesn't mean that war was the appropriate response. Frankly, I find it sort of amazing at how cavalierly people look at war--maybe it's because few people serve in the military and we have this high tech that promises relatively few casualties. But war is an extreme policy and it's not enough, IMO, to say that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy so we are going to take him out even if it involves killing some civilians.

(I'm using Marc from now on instead of MWS.)

Posted by: Marc at August 9, 2005 03:11 PM

Loved both your points. It's never been that the stauts quo was better. It has been about whether the reward justified the cost (and I am NOT just talking about a budget line item)and if it was justified to invade what was a sovereign nation. I also agree that human rights organizations need to get involved and to help improve conditions there even if it appears to further the military solution, which is counter to their position.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 9, 2005 04:29 PM

Suppose we grant that, Marc. Then at bare minimum, doesn't this at least suggest a responsibility on the part of critics (of the left in this case)to outline what their "better solution" is?

Suppose, for the sake of discussion, we take both invasion and MYOB off the table. What's left? I mean, in discussion, I try to look at it as trying to explore what my fellow thinkers believe to be true and think makes sense. So what are you saying here?

Let's do consider this notion, that the logical conclusion of the current left side of the argument is that we should have left Saddam in charge. Suppose, as you say, that it's not necessarily so, that there is some other available logical conclusion. If THAT is so, then I'm immediately led to wonder whether the remaining argument must therefore simply be incomplete, that it maybe includes an insight, but doesn't include any sort of prescriptive stand-taking. [Perhaps because it wants to declare that avoiding war is the highest good, I dunno. Let's leave that aside.] I have a problem with criticism that is composed only of a single insight based on a simple valuation scheme.

That's what I find so continually troubling. I see a real world where the actors have a limited number of unpalatable options, one of which is always , of course, not choosing. Which of course is really an option with consequences just like the rest of the options. Each of the options has substantial human, economic, and political costs. Whats so frustrating to me is when it feels like the person I'm conversing with wants so hard to believe that there is an option which avoids these substantial costs, but can't articulate it beyond platitudes. _AND_ has the hubris to crucify whoever decided to make a choice from the pereceived available options instead of hunting endlessly for the magic solution no one seems able to enunciate.

In my graduate studies into critical thinking, I found that this is a truly crucial insight, that you come up with some time frame for outlining the available options and then making a difficult choice.

So i guess my point is this: If the logical outcome of the current left side of the argument is NOT that we should have left Saddam in charge, then it feels to me like the implied alternative which has fewer costs and more benefits has been unstated beyond platitudes. I am not willing to grant that those not in power deserve the intellectual luxury of only criticizing, without being prescriptive. On multiple occasions when I have engaged in such discussions, I've repeatedly run into the assertion that those not in power need not be prescriptive because this is the domain of those in power. That's not good enough for me. IMO, the very act of criticism implies a committment to shared responsibility to some problem-solving goal. In other words, are you just complaining about the hole, or are you going to grab a shovel and try to help fill it in?

My favorite platitude that sums this up is "get off the cross, we need the wood for the fire."

Posted by: bk at August 9, 2005 04:34 PM

Marc,

I think equating advocacy against the war with support for Hussein is terribly unfair. Nevertheless, rejecting millitary intervention IS a de-facto acceptance of leaving Husseins regieme in power in Iraq.... because it is abundantly that the regieme wasn't going to disappear on it's own anytime soon without external millitary intervention. The anti-war activists who also claim to be pro-human rights activists do need to acknolwledge that fact.

The question is, which is the lesser of two evils?
Millitary intevention does indeed cause human suffering (as you point out). The question (which we are all trying to answer) in the long run, which will cause less? I don't think, by any stretch of the imagination, that it's a forgone conclusion leaving Husseins regime in power would have resulted in less tragedy (given it's track record).

"when does a single country have the right to determine that war is a legitimate instrument to advance human rights. "

I hear this alot from the Left and it puzzles me.
I'm not sure how having numbers on your side makes a particular action any more or less "legitimate" (effective maybe, but that's a seperate arguement). I'm pretty sure (at least I hope) that most of the people making those sort of statements would "unilateraly intervene" if they saw a group of men in white hoods lynching a black man in the south of the 1960's.....they wouldn't insist on waiting for the police to say it was ok, especialy if the knew that most of the police had hoods of thier own in thier closets.

Was it realistic to expect China, Russia and North Korea would support millitary intervention against one of thier trading partners over human rights abuses with thier own track records? Was it realistic to expect that Turkey would support intervention to protect Iraq's Kurdish population from massacre? What sort of "legitimacy" were we waiting for?

Posted by: cengel at August 9, 2005 05:00 PM

I'd like to say that I wasn't equating an anti-war position with support for Saddam. I only asked the question - which would be better for human rights? bk says this better than I do.

And I don't automatically react with raised saber shouting "Charge!" when I come across a human rights violation - I was opposed to our intervention in Bosnia, for example. I thought it was a regional problem, and that the regional heavyweights (France, Germany, GB et al) should be able to deal with it themselves. But they declined to do so.

In fact, I think most of our military interventions since WWII were bad decisions.

I like the fact that we insist that China and Japan be at the table for our talks with NK. They have a larger and more immediate stake in a nuked-up NK than we do.

I also thoroughly support the invasion of Iraq. For me the issue is not any connection with 9/11, that's strictly a police matter. The issue is whether a region (for whatever reason) supports dangerous behavior by one or more of its participants (they did). Since we were already at war with Iraq (and we were), they were the logical target. I will bet that we will still have a significant military presence there in 2050, and that they are all constitutional democracies by then. I think that all of these things are good things.

For the record, I am a veteran. Didn't serve in a combat zone, but I was bombed by terrorists. Don't worry - I lived.

Posted by: Literally Retarded at August 9, 2005 05:23 PM

I think all of these points are good ones. Like Brian, I don't think this should devolve into a rant on the left, but I do think the problem the left (or at least the more radical left)has is dealing with the reality of power. They are so averse to the idea of using power, especially US military power, that they are simply incapable of dealing with situations that, as Cengel notes, require more than holding a rally.

I think this is exactly right. During the run-up to the war, I tried repeatedly to bring around the (very liberal) message board community I was posting in at the time to the reality that the policy was a good idea. You might call this excercise in futility "banging your head against a brick wall", but brick walls are considerably more reasonable than a liberal in full war cry. But anyway, the point is, once we'd dispensed with the Tom Clancy scenario (i.e., "we just use 'special forces'", yawn), I asked them repeatedly: "so what other mechanism do you suggest to remove Saddam Hussein?". And none of them ever offered one.

Sure, they offered more sanctions (despite the fact that sanctions had been doing such a good job for over a decade), they offered weapons inspections (despite the fact that I made it clear that I had no interest in the WMD claim, and didn't consider it germaine to the issue of removing a ghastly tyrant whom we had once supported), they offered liberal blather about how we had no right, since we'd previously supported him (despite my pointing out that this could also be called a moral imperative to rectify that error), but they had nothing to offer about alternative means. So I said "so you want Saddam to stay in power then?", and they said "no, I won't want saddam to stay in power, stop twisting my words". I didn't feel like I was making much headway. "So you have no alternatives to offer for how Saddam should be removed, but you don't support him, and you don't want him to stay?" - "yes". "But, if you get your way, and we don't go into Iraq, by your own admission, Saddam will remain in power. So how is supporting a policy which will result in Saddam still being in power not supporting Saddam remaining in power? How is opposing the only way by which he's going to be removed not opposing his removal from power?". Never did get a coherent answer, you know.

Posted by: Simon at August 9, 2005 05:55 PM

Brian:

I see a real world where the actors have a limited number of unpalatable options, one of which is always, of course, not choosing. Which of course is really an option with consequences just like the rest of the options.

I'm never comfortable with that statement. Not because it is fundamentally incorrect, because it seems to imply an outcome with is impossible. Whenever a binary choice is presented to the citizenry (or the actors, if you like), one outcome or the other will always result. I don't think that "not choosing" is a valid option, because it suggests that one is almost pooh-poohing the choice and therefore disclaiming the result. The choice will be made, with or without my participation; recusing myself from the process of making it therefore seems foolish.

Posted by: Simon at August 9, 2005 06:13 PM

I don't know if I agree with the premise of some of these posts. I am a liberal but prefer to get my news from center and center right news and websites. I do that because my social life consists of mostly of "leftys" and you can only effectively understand the political landscape unless you hear both sides.

Of my 20 left wing friends that I hang out w/ all but one called for the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11. The one exception was the most conservative of my friends was opposed because of the he was concerned about the military history of Afghanistan and how it has defeated invaders. He felt that it might be better to arm the warlords that were fighting the Taliban and shower the people with food and aid. I did not agree but was prepared for an invasion that would be long and difficult because of their military history. But unlike David Adams said, none distrusted Bush or his motives in the invasion of Afghanistan.

find the hundreds of thousands of "missing" Iraqis, to support Iraqi women's battle against fundamentalists, to assist in the recuperation of the marsh Arab wetlands, and to underwrite the struggle of the Kurds, the largest stateless people in the Middle East?

As far as the complaints that the ignoring the human rights abuses that are currently going on in Iraq, my 20 or so liberal friends have discussed each of them. Have we started organizations to do something about them, no but they are a concern. We discuss Darfur more often, do we send money and volunteer time to stop the Darfur genocide, yes. We also donate time and money to the victims of the Tsunami, to AIDS research, to an orphanage in Mexico, and to literally hundreds of liberal “do-gooder” organizations with the goal of making the world a slightly better place. I cannot speak for my friends but at the end of the year I do not believe that efforts have really made much difference. (Yes, I am one of those rare liberal pessimists).

Iraq is the issue that has frustrated me and other liberals the most. All of my friends hate Hussein, as we hate the Iranian Clerics, the religious police that brutally enforce religious standards in Saudi, and the dictators of N. Korea, Pakistan, China, Liberia, Eritrea and other govt. that horrible human rights records.

The human rights arguments that are used in hindsight to justify for the invasion of Iraq could be used to invade 90% of the countries in Africa. I do not believe that we should invade all of those countries but that does not mean I support their leaders or the horrible things that are happing there.

I admit that I have strong “anti-Bush” feeling, but they are more of a feeling of “betrayal” than hatred. I supported him after 9/11, I hoped that he would use the unity to and out pouring of support make difficult decisions that would really make the country better and the world better (deficit spending, lack of health care, the eradication of polio or malaria). I did not know how that would happen but I know that the invasion of Iraq was not the answer. I expected our president to ask the nation as a whole to sacrifice for the greater good, but instead he suggested that we go to a war (Iraq) without calling Amercians to enlist, for the people at home to ration anything for the good of the armed forces. If you disagree with Bush or his priorities you the neo-cons say you “hate Amercia”, “don’t support the troops” or “helping the terrorists”.

I am tired of right wingers that listen to talking heads and believe everything that they tell them about these horrible liberals. We do not hate religion we do not pray that all babies are aborted or that gays convert all children to homosexuality.

Posted by: Wisconsin Liberal at August 9, 2005 06:37 PM

Simon,

I have a question for you:

You argue that if we had not invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. I agree. You go on to reason that by opposing the invasion of Iraq, antiwar liberals were "allowing" Saddam to remain in power, in that he wasn't likely to go away on his own. Again, I agree.

On the other hand, I argue that it is virtually impossible to bomb a city of 5 million people and not have innocent civlians die. From this, I further argue that by supporting the bombing of Baghdad, proponents of the war were "allowing" the deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians.

So here's my question to you: How is supporting a war that will virtually assure the deaths of innocent civilians a more justified position that opposing a war that will virtually assure the removal of a dictator?

You offer up the standard line that Sean Hannity used to demonize liberals in the months leading up to the war. Anti-war liberals are somehow cupable for Saddam Hussein's sins because they refused to act against him, and yet war supporters are completely guiltless for supporting a policy which they KNEW would lead to the deaths of innocent civilians.

It's a ridiculous argument. Sean Hannity was a vocal opponent of the war in Kosovo. Was he somehow culpable for Milosevic's crimes simply because he opposed the war? Are you willing to to condemn people like Sean Hannity, Neil Boortz, Oliver North, Joseph Farrah, and all the other conservatives who opposed the war in Kosovo
or is your condemnation limited only to antiwar liberals? Isn't it interesting how some of the harshest critics of the war in Kosovo are now some of the most ardent supporters of the war in Iraq? Did 9/11 cause all of these conservatives to re-evaluate their positions on foreign intervention and become true believers in pre-emptive war, nation building, and other foreign policies that they once eschewed? Or is it possible that their change of heart is more due to the fact that the commander in chief was a Democrat then and is a Republican now?

Your logic is flawed, Simon. It is flawed because it assumes that refusing to support a government program (which, afterall, is what war is) means that one is unsympathetic towards the goals that the government is purportedly working to achieve. It is flawed because it ignores that fact that people will often oppose a government policy, not because they disagree with the goals of the policy, but because they concluded that the benefits of said policy were not worth the costs. And even the stauchest war supporter would have to admit that the Iraq War had its costs--costs that were measured not only in taxpayer dollars but in lives--both American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

I am not "the left." I have no need for partisan shananigans of Michael Moore or Moveon.org. I was never a Bush-hater, nor was I ever a Kerry-supporter (I voted for Badnarik). I, like your friend, am a individual who opposed the Iraq War. I am not culpable IN ANY WAY for the hundreds of thousands of deaths that Saddam Hussein caused before the war, and I would not be any more culpable for the deaths that Saddam Hussein would cause were he still in power today, any more than you are responsible for deaths that tyrants across the globe are causing today.

You saw injustice in the world and searched for a way solve this injustice. That's very commendable. But consider what your solution was to this problem. You supported the government taking MY taxpayer money and YOURS to support a policy that led to the deaths of thousands of innocent people. You supported a government program that--while ostensibly was meant to make America safer--may in fact make American more prone to terrorists attacks. Me, my family, my friends--we're all subsidizing a government program that I personally feel will ultimately make us all less safe . . .

and I should be happy about this???

So all those leftist organizations that support democracy, freedom, and women's rights . . . were they being hypocritical in opposing a policy that is working to achieve such things?

My answer: not unless those organizations support the killing of innocent civilians to achieve those objectives.

Posted by: nicrivera at August 9, 2005 11:00 PM

Nic,
All valid points as ever. I think that, at bottom, it all ties into this question:

So here's my question to you: How is supporting a war that will virtually assure the deaths of innocent civilians a more justified position that opposing a war that will virtually assure the removal of a dictator?

The answer to this question is that: because, while a website like IraqBodyCount.net does a superb job of tracking every death since we took action, they fail to account for those who died under Saddam's rule, and they cannot account for those who would have died had he been left in situ. That's the bottom line, for me: this was not a "death neutral" operation; leaving Saddam in place was not saving lives, and removing him would cost lives. Neither option could be quantified at anything more than the most speculative level.

I don't attempt to escape moral culpability. I believe very strongly that those of us who supported this war - tacitly or vocally - carry with us a moral responsibility for every person who dies, solider or civilian. But I would rather carry that, than carry knowing that this country could have stopped it and didn't.

You offer up the standard line that Sean Hannity used to demonize liberals in the months leading up to the war. Anti-war liberals are somehow cupable for Saddam Hussein's sins because they refused to act against him, and yet war supporters are completely guiltless for supporting a policy which they KNEW would lead to the deaths of innocent civilians.

Well, I don't watch Sean's show, but that's not actually what I'm saying. Suggesting that "Anti-war liberals are somehow culpable for Saddam Hussein's sins" is preposterous, especially since the same people who bandy that charge are the same folks who say "the Reagan administration did nothing wrong vis-a-vis Saddam's regime". I call bullshit on both statements. My point isn't that liberals are responsible for Saddam's regime, merely that - as you readily yield - by opposing the invasion of Iraq, antiwar liberals were "allowing" Saddam to remain in power. I believe that policy cannot be justified, on a practical or moral level, I think it had to change, I think that PNAC was right to demand regime change, I think that President Clinton was right to get on board (even if he didn't do too much about it), and I welcomed President Bush into the fold when he decided to do something about it.

Did 9/11 cause all of these conservatives to re-evaluate their positions on foreign intervention and become true believers in pre-emptive war, nation building, and other foreign policies that they once eschewed?

Actually, I think it's a fair statement that 9/11 did create a sea-change, whether people admit it or not. It obliterated the pretense of "fortress america", this idea that America could hide behind the oceans and somehow avoid the violence and tensions that other western nations have had to deal with. However, I also think that you're right that the sudden change of heart had a great deal to do with who was giving the orders.

Are you willing to to condemn people like Sean Hannity, Neil Boortz, Oliver North, Joseph Farrah, and all the other conservatives who opposed the war in Kosovo?

Yes, I am. That is was necessary is evidence of the failed, half-hearted isolationism of the Clinton administration and the Republican Congress, that tried desperately to turn a blind eye to the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina after the collapse of Yugoslavia, and reaped what it had sown by the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. There is a running theme here: if you leave a malignant tumour alone, in the hope that it will shrivel up and quit bugging you, it will just get worse and worse, and your options for dealing with it will become narrower and narrower. This is why I'm really not sure that I want to resubscribe to Pat Buchanan's magazine - I agree with him on trade, I kinda agree with him on immigration, but I flat-out disagree with him on foreign policy, no matter how eloquent his book may be (and it is a very good book).

Posted by: Simon at August 10, 2005 12:30 AM

The two main options in Vietnam after 1968: stay and fight, or leave (and accept genocide).
The anti-war Left wanted the US to leave; we left; the evil commies committed genocide -- as predicted and expected by the pro-war commie-haters.

The Left that demands pro-war folk accept responsibility for inevitable deaths in war (yes, thousands of Iraqis and US soldiers are being killed) refuses to accept any responsibility for deaths that occur when their policy is followed.

Unreal Perfection is not an option.

War, peace; and semi-war sanctions -- the three main nation-nation relationship options.

In 1994, the Rwanda choice was war or accept genocide -- Clinton, faced with a hostile Rep Congress, preferred genocide acceptance to asking for war. Where were the humanitarian orgs complaining about inaction then? "Doing something" meant war to stop Hutu murderers. It wasn't even an issue in 1996.

The anti-war/ isolationist Right had some points in opposing action/ war by Clinton. Yet it's sad that Dem & Rep partisans focus more on "who" is the White House, rather than the policy. At least Reps have the excuse of 9/11 to use in changing their minds.

From 1991-2003, the choice in Iraq was war, then armistice (NOT peace) with sanctions (eg parole). And the Left was mostly against sanctions, along with being against the Taliban.

The Left is UNWILLING to call for war. Kerry even voted against Gulf War I, after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Nation building is long and hard. Had the US stayed in Vietnam only 15 more years, 74-89, the "free market" folk would have won. Wouldn't that have been better than accepting genocide? How many US soldier lives lost is it worth to stop genocide? Apparently not 50 000; perhaps not even 5 000? Perhaps not even 500, not 50, not 5?

The Left has no standards for their complaints -- what would a "good job" look like. In Iraq, in Sudan, in Iran, Syria, North Korea, in Zimbabwe, in Uzbekistan.

Right, the US can't invade them all; so war with all is not an option. But war against one or two of the worst makes all the other options much stronger (aid, trade, cultural exchange) with those violating the main Human Rights: Free Religion, Free speech, rule of law. And private property if one wants a modern civilization for the country.

The Bush-hating Left is in a cycle of destructive criticism, and it's terrible. Not least because in their shouting about silly critiques (Bush lied! Halliburton steals!), the more important issues don't have credible alternate voices to Bush's plan (is "one Iraq" really better than three? Why not impose a minority rights protecting constitution? How to stop religious fanatics from using crony capitalism to entrench kleptocracy).

The Left, now, needs to get beyond Bush-bashing about going into Iraq, and look at how best to create a Human Rights respecting democracy there.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at August 10, 2005 05:10 AM

I supported him after 9/11, I hoped that he would use the unity to and out pouring of support make difficult decisions that would really make the country better and the world better (deficit spending, lack of health care, the eradication of polio or malaria). I did not know how that would happen but I know that the invasion of Iraq was not the answer.

WisLib, this viewpoint is sort of what I was referring to when i said this:

.... I'm immediately led to wonder whether the remaining argument must therefore simply be incomplete, that it maybe includes an insight, but doesn't include any sort of prescriptive stand-taking.

You're sure that the approach the president took was wrong, but you are unable or unwilling to describe what you view to be the "right" approach. Can you cast you mind back to the time when the decisions were being made, describe what you saw as the available options, sketch the likely outcomes, and make a case for some other choice, and describe the ways in which you're pretty sure we'd be better off now? And in doing so, can you also acknowlede the ways in which we might be worse off if we had chosen this path?

If you can't, then all of your criticism amounts to little more your faith/insight that this war was wrong. What I'm talking about here is inviting responsible liberals to take a seat at the problem-solving table, review the pluses and minuses of the available options, and at least describe which path they'd make the hard choice to follow. And not in the fom of nice sounding platitudes about things no one likes (like war, poverty, oppression), but using details. I'm challenging you not to spit the bit.

Posted by: bk at August 10, 2005 08:57 AM

BK: I see a real world where the actors have a limited number of unpalatable options, one of which is always, of course, not choosing. Which of course is really an option with consequences just like the rest of the options.

Simon: I'm never comfortable with that statement. Not because it is fundamentally incorrect, because it seems to imply an outcome with is impossible. Whenever a binary choice is presented to the citizenry (or the actors, if you like), one outcome or the other will always result. I don't think that "not choosing" is a valid option, because it suggests that one is almost pooh-poohing the choice and therefore disclaiming the result. The choice will be made, with or without my participation; recusing myself from the process of making it therefore seems foolish.

Well, it wasn't a statement made for comfort. :-) While I think the point is still valid in regard to elections or binary choices, it's not what i was thinking about. I was thinking about the variety of things we could have possibly chosen to tether together as our policy response(s) to 9/11. We could have chosen to do nothing about Afghanistan, but it would have been a choice with consequences. And we could have chosen not to invade Iraq, but it would have been a choice with consequences.

And this really gets to the heart of what I'm objecting to here abou criticism that may include insight and judgement and make valid points about the downside of policy choices, but fails to take the next step and be prescriptive, to give any detailed input as to which of the available options is best, or least bad.

So to follow up on your last point, Simon, you can recuse yourself or opt out, and you can declare that you've disavowed yourself of any responsibility for the outcome, but it's still a decision that has consequences, and declare that you are not responsibly doesn't really make the responsibility go away, it just makes one feel better.

Posted by: bk at August 10, 2005 09:09 AM

Yeah, I, uh, phrased that last point badly, Brian. ;) I meant to say, "I'm never comfortable with that statement. Not because I think it's fundamentally incorrect (which I don't, and it isn't), but rather, because it seems to imply an outcome with is impossible."

So if it's a choice, it's not a great one. No-one gets to play Pontius Pilate any more. ;)

Posted by: Simon at August 10, 2005 09:26 AM

To the extent that people oppose the Iraq War, I disagree that they have an obligation to come up with a better policy. Their alternative was simply not to have invaded. I would agree if Bush's only alternatives were to invade or do some other equally dangerous action. But in this case, what he did was purely elective. He didn't have to invade. I agree, however, that now that we are there, people need to develop constructive alternatives rather than continuing to criticize the original decision to go to war. That's water past the bridge and the issue should be what's the best thing to do for Iraq and the US.

I agree that the anti-war left is often reflexively opposed to force, even to stop clear human rights violations. They are so uncomfortable with power that they can't accept the use of it even for valid purposes. But that doesn't mean that you can't criticize a particular war for being an inappropriate way of achieving those goals. Are we locked in to supporting anything that Bush does? Any wars anywhere? That seems to be the logic of the arguments here.

Someone said, what difference does it make if the US makes the decision alone and then compared the invasion of Iraq to saving blacks from lynching. To me, that's a completely inappost analogy. First, one of the values, it seems to me, that the US should endorse is the idea that might doesn't make right; ie, that just because we have the power to do something doesn't mean we should just ignore the rest of the international community. The value of collective security is important, even if, as I certainly concede, it's valued more in the breach than in practice. It just is not the United States' place to decide on its own that it will invade a country.

As for the rest of the analogy, comparing intervening as an individual to a country invading another country just doesn't make sense. The consequences of invasion are so much greater than stopping violence against an individual. And you can be pretty much sure that the individual favors your intervention; you can't be sure that the Iraqis favored our invading the country.

Tom Grey,

Are you seriously suggesting that the United States should have stayed in Viet Nam for another 15 years? Wow! Somehow, I don't think that policy would have garnered a lot of support.

At some point, we have to accept there are limitations on our power and, perhaps more importantly, on our right to intervene. It's one thing to say that the West should intervene to prevent genocide in given circumstances. It's another thing to say that the US should intervene unilaterally in whatever particular conflict we decide is important enough to us to bother with.

Posted by: MWS at August 10, 2005 09:54 AM

I knew I would forget what name I was using. Anyway, let me make another point. It's very easy to get worked up about genocide and dictatorship and to say that we should go in and stop those bastards. I have the same feeling.

But there is another issue here relating to how the international system works. I know many people here have nothing but contempt for the UN and for the often craven European governments. But I think you have to be concerned with how the US uses its power. It seems to me that accepting NO constraints on our power does two things; first, it obligates us to intervene everywhere and, since we obviously aren't going to do that, opens us up to the charge of being hypocrites. Second, it establishes the principle that anyone with enough power can do whatever they want. That's not a principle that I think the US wants to endorse. You have to get away from the idea that we only intervene in righteous causes. Whether or not that's correct, the rest of the world sees us as asserting a right to do whatever we want whenever we want to. If that's the case, why shouldn't China assert the same right? Or Russia? Eventually, you are going to create a system where great powers feel no restraints on their actions and do whatever they think is in their interest.

Although there has been much debate about this, it's at least arguable that the United States, by entwining itself into a system of multilateral institutions after WW II, obligated itself to respect those constraints. Sure, the constraints were more theoretical than real because the US could, and often did, do things unilaterally. But at least we acknowledged the idea of restraint. And I think that had a positive impact on the international system. What's happening now, with Bush's policy, is just the opposite--we recognize no constraints on our freedom of action (although, in fairness, Bush has started to tone down the unilaterlism after seeing its limits).

Posted by: Marc at August 10, 2005 10:05 AM

BK,

Appropriate responses, IMHO, after 9/11-
-Invade Afghanistan. That had to happen, their support of the terorists was blatant.
-Fix the immigration problem. It is unacceptable that people are here on expired visas for YEARS- and we only notice when they bomb NYC. So, regretfully, we need to keep track of those who enter our country. Make it impossible to stay here if you're not legal. This also involves changing the immigration laws to make it easier for some people to immigrate here legally. These moves would have also been costly and unpopular. But I feel they would have done more for the immediate objective- making America safe.

I remain unconvinced that Saddam was the worst oppressor in the world today. I'm not against military action per se, and I do understand that we can't get involved everywhere. The question I have yet to have answered is what made Iraq WORSE than Iran, Syria, North Korea, Sundan...show me they were the absolute worse dictator on the block and you might have more of my support. Otherwise, military intervention should be used sparingly, and, in a non emergency situation (which this was) be well planned (this was not). If we can't target ALL the bad guys, we should reserve using our troops only for the worse.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 10, 2005 10:45 AM

Marc,

"it obligates us to intervene everywhere and, since we obviously aren't going to do that, opens us up to the charge of being hypocrites."

Hypocrites in the same fasion as every other nation on the face of the globe. We intervene when it meets our narrow self-interest to do so and when it is within our capabilities without being cost-prohibitive. The only things that are different about us is that our capabilities vastly outreach those of most other nations and we are at least limited by some self-imposed ethical considerations (i.e. we wont invade a peacefull neighboring nation in order to appropriate thier resources simply because we can.... unlike say China). Therefore I really don't mind the charge of hypocracy because we can simply point the mirror at just about every other major power making it and see that the image fits.

"Second, it establishes the principle that anyone with enough power can do whatever they want."

That principle doesn't need to be established. It's been in existance since the first human walked upright. If you have an arguement here it's an arguement with REALITY. You may not like it but the simple fact of the matter is that anyone with enough power CAN do whatever they want. It's just the way things are. I see this as kinda like arguing against GRAVITY.

"Whether or not that's correct, the rest of the world sees us as asserting a right to do whatever we want whenever we want to. If that's the case, why shouldn't China assert the same right? Or Russia?"

Marc, have you been living in a cave for the last thousand years? China ALREADY does whatever it wants to do. Russia ALREADY does whatever it wants to do. The only thing that constrains them is the millitary power of other nations which might object. China and Russia and 90% of the rest of the world will continue to behave in that fashion NO MATTER HOW SCRUPIOUSLY WE ADHERE TO PRINCIPLE. They simply don't care if Koffi Annan sends them a letter telling them they've been bad..... nor do they care very much whether you call them hypocrits or not.

Look, in this country rule of law works because there is a social contract that the vast majority of us agree to live under and we can reasonably expect that our nieghbors will be mutualy bound by the same rules we are. In the community of nations that expectation doesn't exist. The vast majority of nations and the vast majority of diplomats at the U.N. have no intention to allow themselves to be bound by anything.... they'll pretend to pay lip service to agreements in so far as they can use those agreements to gain advantage over other nations.... but the second those agreements work to thier disadvantage or hinder their momentary desires at all they'll breach them faster then you can blink.

If the nature of the vast majority of nations were different, I might agree with you about adhereing to international regulations more strictly.... but it's simply not.... and constraining ourselves won't change that.... it simply places us at at a disadvantage that no one else would be willing to accept.

Finaly, I should clarify something. I am NOT a human rights activist. I support human rights issues and I think they are important but in the arena of international politics it's our own self interests that guide my thinking. I supported the Iraq war because I believed it served our long term interests ( I still do, though I no longer believe it required the immediacy of attention that we gave it). The fact that Hussein was a human rights violater and we would be furthering the cause of human rights more then we harmed it justified Hussein as a legitimate target in my mind. It wasn't the reason for millitary intervention - that was our own self-intrest - but it made such action an ethicaly acceptable choice. It might serve our narrow self-interests to invade Canada....but I wouldn't support it because the government of Canada isn't brutal dictatorship which oppresses it's own people. We would be ethicaly constrained from doing so.

However, when we can further our long term interests AND further the cause of human rights at the same time and do so at a cost that's worth it (which is always a matter of debate) then I've got no objections.

This thread wasn't about me however. It was about people who profess that human rights is thier paramount concern. For THOSE people it does strike me as incongrous that there would be so much opposition to an operation that has removed a severely oppressive regime from power.

Posted by: cengel at August 10, 2005 11:47 AM

Cengel,

I acknowledge much of what you say. I agree that the world operates on self-interest and power. Powerful countries do what they will weak countries suffer what the must. But the United States tried to establish a system after WW II that mitigated this to some extent by creating a system of unilateral institutions. Sure, they were largely based on American power, but they established a principle that countries had some accountability to the international system. And it worked to some extent. China is now enmeshing itself in similar institutions and, to some extent, restraining itself. Russia feels some constraints from the international community. No major power is going to cede its policy making to supranational bodies and, like the US, they will take what actions they think are necessary for their self-interest, but I think the principle of accountability at least lessens (not eliminate)the unconstrained struggle for power.

My point was really in response to other comments (not yours so much) that suggested the US should intervene when we think it is appropriate and should not take the concerns of the international community into account. I was trying to say that, however lame this community often is, it is in our interest to strengthen, not weaken, it.

As for the human rights organizations, I agree that there is a lot of hypocrisy on their part in wanting to advance human rights, but not wanting to get their hands dirty in doing so. But, like you, I think advancing human rights throughout the world should be an important factor, but not the paramount driving force in US foreign policy. But I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to support human rights but oppose war as an instrument of doing so.

Posted by: Marc at August 10, 2005 12:20 PM

To the extent that people oppose the Iraq War, I disagree that they have an obligation to come up with a better policy. Their alternative was simply not to have invaded. I would agree if Bush's only alternatives were to invade or do some other equally dangerous action. But in this case, what he did was purely elective. He didn't have to invade.

Marc, choosing NOT to invade is every bit as "purely" elective. It's a choice, and it leads to consequences just like invading does. Passivity just doesn't have any inherent superiority to activity, and the dichotomy is in fact imperfect. Choosing to remain passive is in fact a type of action, isn't it?

Tom Grey, I'm also curious about your views on Vietnam. I am far from expert, but I do know that Vietnam has a long cultural history of continually overcoming and expelling foreign occupying forces. My sense is that we chose to leave Vietnam because we had lost the pragmatic tolerance of many of the Vietnamese people for our continued presence. They had no hope that our promises were going to ever happen.They had reached a point where they just wanted us to leave so they could establish some form of stability and move on. Do you really think that we could have stayed and won over Vietnam to a functioning democracy? If so, at what cost?

Stephanie,
I agree with the notion that our haphazard immigration policies require major reform.

Persoinally, I don't think we chose to invade Iraq because Hussein was the worst oppressor, but he was regarded as the biggest threat from among those we thought we could invade (IMO, NK's nuke capability automatically excludes them from invasion consideration. YMMV). I've always thought that Afghanistan was the expected proportional response to 9/11. For that reason, the Bush admin asked "is it enough of a response?" And they decided the answer was NO, it's not enough, we have to do more. They decided we needed to set an example, against oppressive tyranny, agianst using the Un to jerk us around, and FOR a democratic model in the middle east. Iraq was then chosen on the basis of being the best candidate for going the next step based on a variety of criteria.

If I'm right, then it seems to me that they utterly failed to articulate this vision. Maybe, that's their bad, but I think it's at least arguable that they may have felt that this path was both crucially important and publicly unmarketable. That's a huge conundrum for any leader to face. If I were president and I felt strongly that some policy action was both crucially important and publicly unmarketable, I'd do what I felt I had under cover of whatever rationale was most plausible and acceptable, and then I'd accept history's judgement. Maybe someday we'll find out. I'm just guessing.

Posted by: bk at August 10, 2005 01:12 PM

Stephanie,

I'm not sure how productive it is to get into an excersize of who is the worst violater or how you would go about quantitatively measuring it. I think it's safe to say that Hussein was bad enough, whether or not he was the absolute worst. Nor do I think human rights violations were the prime motivater for intervention... they just made it an ethicaly justified action.

Leaving all that aside, however, there are some entirely practical factors that differentiate Iraq from the above countries you mention. A pretty good arguement could be forwarded that Kim Jung Il is one of the worst human rights violaters on the planet....He also has access to a VAST army, nuclear weapons and delivery systems supposedly capable of reaching the West Coast of the United States (ICBM's and launch capable subs) and certainly capable of reaching Japan. North Korea also enjoys very rugged defensive terrain. We would also need the support of South Korea in any such action and I'm not sure how eager they would be to throw thier populace in front of such a potential meat grinder.

The Sudan also has pretty bad human rights crisis going on right now in Darfur. Their millitary capabilities are pretty modest (as I understand it) but they also happen to be surrounded by nations which we couldn't use as basis.... either due to poor relations or because they have thier own problems going on which would mean a seabrone invasion along it's narrow Red Sea coast which is on the exact opposite side of the country from the troubled region (Darfur). It'd also probably put a fairly sizable strain on our relations with Sudan's neighbor to the North, Egypt and possibly destabilize pretty fragile situations in some of Sudans other neighbors (Eritrea, Ethiopia, Congo and Central African Republic) and then there is always the possibility of drawing Libyian forces (another neighbor) into the situation. In other words we could go in trying to resolve one crisis and very well find 3 or 4 others on our hands with little or no support from anyone else in the region.

I'm not sure exactly how bad Syria's human rights record is but I know they've got problems in that regard. I'm no expert but Syria's millitary seems pretty well regarded as far Arab forces goes.... certainly better then what Iraq had when we intervened. Also I think it's government enjoys far broader support among the general populace. Furthermore, while Syria certainly has had it's disputes with it's neighbors it isn't quite the piriah in the Arab world that Iraq was. Finaly any move against Syria has the potential to complicate the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

I don't know enough about Iran to comment but I suspect there are similar complications. Furthermore there seems like there is a real possibility of moderation of Iran's regime in future without millitary intervention.... which really wasn't the case in Iraq.

Posted by: cengel at August 10, 2005 01:19 PM

To the extent that people oppose the Iraq War, I disagree that they have an obligation to come up with a better policy. Their alternative was simply not to have invaded. I would agree if Bush's only alternatives were to invade or do some other equally dangerous action. But in this case, what he did was purely elective. He didn't have to invade.

That is true to the extent that Saddam posed no clear and present danger to the United States. None-the-less, it seems to me that our only alternatives were to liberate by force of arms, or to leave Saddam's regime in place, the latter option being dangerous to the Iraqi population. And that's the point. Contra Michael Moore, Iraq was not a shiny happy disney kingdom ruled - contra George Galloway - by a benevolent dictator. It was a brutal regime where the population lived in fear of their lives and routinely lost them. It is hard to construct an accurate death toll inflicted by Saddam, and impossible to foresee what it would have been had we not invaded, but there was a consequence of not acting, even if that cost would be born not by Americans but by Iraqis.

In other words, I just don't accept that this was a zero sum equation. Either way, people were going to die. The difference is, now there is an end in sight.

The question I have yet to have answered is what made Iraq WORSE than Iran, Syria, North Korea, Sundan

From my point of view: very little, but you've got to start somewhere. I am very strongly oppposed to military intervention in Iran, but I think that to the list you suggested above, you could easily add Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, many other countries, all of whom are immimnent candidates for the "reform or be reformed" stick. I suppose the only thing that made Saddam so much more deserving a candidate, in my view, was that we had materially assisted him to such a degree in the 1980s and after the Gulk War, and thus had a moral duty to remove him, by way of atoning.

If we can't target ALL the bad guys, we should reserve using our troops only for the worse.

We should use military power where most effective and most necessary, and where it can best be used as an example to others to "reform or be reformed". Posted by: Simon at August 10, 2005 04:27 PM

If not, I may find myself willing to play thread cop, though it's a role I abhor and have never taken.

First of all, that's BS. I've seen you take the role of thread cop. You may abhor it. But, you've done it.

Secondly, the conservatives have set up counter-groups for virtually all of the liberal special interest groups cited. These counter groups oppose most of the action goals of the original groups whilst framing themselves as being motivated by the same or similiar ideals. How many of these counter-groups are trying to find missing Iraqi's, support Iraqi woman, rehabilitate the marshes or help the Kurds?

The answer is probably the same reason that the "other side" isn't doing more - they're focused on domestic politics and furthering their own agenda.

Calling out only one side is patently partisan. Which is fine as far as it goes. But, be honest about it.

Posted by: Kevin at August 10, 2005 05:12 PM

And doesn't leaving Iraq alone also mean leaving the rest of the Middle East alone? I think we had greater justification to invade Iraq than any of the other countries in the region.

And if we had left the Middle East alone, were we doing all we could to keep the US safe?

Bush, like Truman before him, was faced with one of those historic moments for which he would be second-guessed forever, but which would have been worse had he not acted the way he did.

Posted by: Literally Retarded at August 10, 2005 06:17 PM

Simon,

We could go on for days trying to justify our positions on Iraq and probably not get anywhere convincing each other to change our minds. But I'd like to touch upon some very basic premises that underlie the Iraq War debate--premises that are all to often ignored in favor of emotionally-charged rhetoric.

I asked you:

How is supporting a war that will virtually assure the deaths of innocent civilians a more justified position that opposing a war that will virtually assure the removal of a dictator?

Your answer was:

The answer to this question is that: because, while a website like IraqBodyCount.net does a superb job of tracking every death since we took action, they fail to account for those who died under Saddam's rule, and they cannot account for those who would have died had he been left in situ. That's the bottom line, for me: this was not a "death neutral" operation; leaving Saddam in place was not saving lives, and removing him would cost lives. Neither option could be quantified at anything more than the most speculative level.

So let me get this straight. You concede that the deaths of Iraqi civilians was an inevitable result invading Iraq. On the other hand, you counter this by arguing that the deaths if Iraqi civilians was also an inevitable result had we failed to invade Iraq. Your conclusion is that, either way, Iraqi civilians would have died.

Assuming that I understand you correctly, I will more or less concede that avoiding war with Iraq would not have necessarily resulted in any less Iraqi civilian deaths that we have as a result of the war. But how in the world do you justify a policy aimed at saving the LIVES of thousands of Iraqi civilians if such a policy inevitably results in the DEATHS of thousands of Iraqi civilians? Are you arguing that killing THOUSANDS of Iraqi civilians in the present is justified if the policy ends up saving the lives of TENS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqi civilians in the future? Or is the vague promise of liberty for the Iraqis enough of a justification for the thousands of Iraqi civilians that our government has killed as a result of this war?

I understand that you believe that the benefits of this war outweight the costs. But there is no way for any us to know for sure what the lasting benefits or costs of the Iraq war shall be. So again, I ask you, how is your position more justified that mine?

I argue that Iraqi civilian deaths were an inevitable result of invading Iraq. You argue that Iraqi civilian deaths would have been an inevitable result of failing to invade to Iraq. Yet the difference in our positions is that you supported a policy that YOU KNEW would CAUSE civilian deaths, while my position (if it had been followed) would not have CAUSED the death of a single civilian. My refusal to remove Saddam Hussein from power would not be the CAUSE of his continued killing and repression of his people any more than my refusal to remove Kim Jong II, Moammar Gadhafi, Fidel Castro, or Robert Mugabe makes me the CAUSE of their continued killing and/or oppression of their people.

The way I look at it, the killing of innocent civilians is wrong regardless of who is doing the killing. As individuals, we do not bear responsibility for failing to prevent third world dictators from killing innocent civilians. We do, however, bear responsibility to for actively supporting a government that kills innocent civilians--particularly if that government is our own.

Posted by: nicrivera at August 10, 2005 07:31 PM

The United States is awash in human rights groups, feminist organizations, ecological foundations, and committees for the rights of minorities. How come there is not a huge voluntary effort to help and to publicize the efforts to find the hundreds of thousands of "missing" Iraqis, to support Iraqi women's battle against fundamentalists, to assist in the recuperation of the marsh Arab wetlands, and to underwrite the struggle of the Kurds, the largest stateless people in the Middle East?

With the possible exception of the battle of women in the Middle East, I don't think a lot of people in the US are aware of the things Hitchens is citing. People here have had years to generate organizations that address specific causes in the US.

And then there's the fact that at least half of the people don't trust that they're being told the truth about what's going on over there.

Posted by: carla at August 10, 2005 10:38 PM

Nic,

Let me give you an analogy. You're walking by a lake and there is a drowning child. There is no life guard on duty and while there are other bystanders near the lake NONE of them are going in to help the child. At best, a few are shouting encouragement to the child but no one is going in the water. You are by FAR, the strongest swimmer in the lake and you KNOW the child isn't going to make it on his own. You also KNOW that there is some risk to you entering the water and you KNOW that you are going to injure the child (possibly badly) in getting them out but it's the only chance they have to get out of the water.

Your position seems to be that the moraly superior choice is to standby and watch the child drown because A) You won't have caused any injury to the child yourself and B) The childs drowning wasn't your fault in the first place.

Simon's position seems to be that the moraly superior choice is to jump in and pull the child out because A) He won't have ignored some-one in need when he had the capability to help B) He caused more good then harm to the child and C) Even though he injured the child himself, it was the ONLY way to save the child and even severe injury is better then death.

That's the way I see it.

Posted by: cengel at August 11, 2005 10:13 AM

BK: If not, I may find myself willing to play thread cop, though it's a role I abhor and have never taken.

Kevin: First of all, that's BS. I've seen you take the role of thread cop. You may abhor it. But, you've done it.

Fair enough, Kevin, I was insufficiently specific. What I should have siad more explicitly is that I MIGHT be willing to erase any posts to my thread that I felt were not within the requested spirit. I am almost certain I have never done this before. If you want to include policing via argument within the concept of thread cop, that's fine. But it's not what I meant. I see persuasion and even forceful argument as distinct from enforcement. That's what I had in mind when I said "cop." I have my doubts as to whether you accord me enough respect to believe I'm telling the truth as opposed to shimmying and backtracking, but there you have it. That's what I meant...deleting posts.

Calling out only one side is patently partisan. Which is fine as far as it goes. But, be honest about it.

Kevin, it's a thread related to the notion of those people who consider themselves ex-patriates of liberalism in large part due to the liberal response to 9/11. You seem to think it's inappropriate and partisan of me to constrain the discussion as suggested.

Oh well, it's my thread, and I feel I was very open and honest about it. I absolutely am not interested in another pissing contest about which side is worse. I simply loath the cycle wherein each partisan side feels that the others sins and excesses permit and indeed forgive their own. I'm really baffled as to what other things I could have done here to "at least be honest." I am regularly declared a righty partisan when I criticize the faults of liberalism, and I'm just as regularly viewed as a liberal shill when I take the Bush admin to task. I'll admit that this latter happens more often when I post elsewhere. But I consider it a badge of honor to have been accused often of being a partisan for both the left AND for the right.

I know where I stand. Call me a centrist partisan if you want, but I'm no righty partisan, that's for certain.

Posted by: bk at August 11, 2005 10:59 AM

I argue that Iraqi civilian deaths were an inevitable result of invading Iraq. You argue that Iraqi civilian deaths would have been an inevitable result of failing to invade to Iraq. Yet the difference in our positions is that you supported a policy that YOU KNEW would CAUSE civilian deaths, while my position (if it had been followed) would not have CAUSED the death of a single civilian. My refusal to remove Saddam Hussein from power would not be the CAUSE of his continued killing and repression of his people any more than my refusal to remove Kim Jong II, Moammar Gadhafi, Fidel Castro, or Robert Mugabe makes me the CAUSE of their continued killing and/or oppression of their people.

This is exactly the argument that privileges passivity, that suggests that one may remain morally cleaner by doing nothing.

Someone once said that all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. So Nic, what do you say to my contention that doing nothing is a choice with consequences, and that responsible humans should take responsibility for the consequences of their actions? Do you really believe, in your heart, that one can truly choose to do nothing, stay out of it, and actually be morally clean of any responsibility for the ensuing results of their passivity?

Posted by: bk at August 11, 2005 11:05 AM

I think these analogies may do more to muddy the waters than clarify them. There are too many implicit assumptions involved with the moralizations of individual human beings as applied to the actions of nations. A more apt analogy to the Iraq war might be, what if there were ten children drowning? Who would you save first? And that analogy really doesn't make things clearer.

The real question in my mind is, what is the purpose of our military within the context of the American system of government? I don't know the answer to that, or if there even is one, but I think it's the question that needs to be, or attempted to be, answered first.

I see war as something you engage in because you have no choice. There is no cost-to-benfit ratio that can be applied. If you have no choice, there is no cost too great.

Of course, this has nothing to do with the point of the original post, but that's how these things go sometimes.

Posted by: WHQ at August 11, 2005 01:19 PM

I see war as something you engage in because you have no choice. There is no cost-to-benefit ratio that can be applied.

This feel so tempting to assume, but isn't the devil in the details? Don't you almost always have some choice? After all, one can choose to perish, right? If that's so, then what we really mean when we say "we have no choice" what we really mean is that we had no other more reasonable acceptable choice. That puts us right back measuring the cost-benefit ratio which you deny can be applied.

Most narrowly construed when it comes to violent actions like war, our culture generally applies "we had no other more reasonable acceptable choice" as the right to self-defense.

I'd like to suggest that the fundamental question regarding the rectitude of invading Iraq is this: "how narrowly or broadly is it reasonable to construe self-defense?" The liberal view is currently "only very narrowly" and the current administration's (which is fairly viewed as the legitimate proxy for conservatives, IMO) view is "as broadly as necessary in order to maximize national security."

Posted by: bk at August 11, 2005 04:11 PM

I absolutely am not interested in another pissing contest about which side is worse. I simply loath the cycle wherein each partisan side feels that the others sins and excesses permit and indeed forgive their own.

Brian;
Let me help you out a little.
"the left is morally bankrupt"

"Bush is evil and its all about oil."

"Bush/Hussein = Hitler and should be deposed/impeached!"

OK now we've gotten it out of our system. Now back to our regular programming ;-)

Posted by: c3 at August 11, 2005 04:56 PM

The most prominent group fighting for women's rights in Iraq is the The Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI). They are working with Amnesty International, which has been very vocal in the fight for a constitution that respects human rights in Iraq. Human Rights Watch has shown significant concern over the issue of preserving women's rights in the country. The Association for Women's Rights in Development has made the issue one of it's chief concerns. The National Organization for Women has been fighting for women's rights across the globe just as it has always done.

So there's a whole lot of effort being put into fighting for women's rights in Iraq. I think the reason Hitch feels he can put up such a straw man argument is because people are too lazy to run a quick google search to see if he's telling the truth. Instead, he knew the faithful partisans would swallow it uncritically and post left-bashing rhetoric like a bunch of automatons.

The people who work at the above cited organizations deserve respect and admiration, when we blithely ignore their efforts to defend the liberties of others, then we are the ones guilty of ignoring the cause of women's rights in Iraq.

Posted by: Ryan Somma at August 11, 2005 05:06 PM

BK,

Ryan, thanks so much for pointing out these groups. I don't think anyone thought that NO ONE was working on these issues. It's good to know who is. You seem to know a lot about this. What specifically is NOW doing to support efforts for women's rights in Iraq in particular, as opposed to the general
"we support women's rights worldwide"?

I wonder, would you grant that the people working specifically on these issues have not been especially conspicuous here in the united states, especially in comparison to, say, anti-war protesters? Do you klnow whether NOW or any of these groups have recently helped to finance or otherwise support domestic protests against the lack of women's rights in middle eastern nations?

My take is that hitch's point is that some American liberals are so reflexively opposed to the President that they don't seem to have demonstrated much willingness either to work with him where ther'e common ground, or give the admin any credit whatsoever for any parts of our efforts in Iraq which might be regarded as meritorious. On this point, I agree with him. And further, I think most sensible people can see quite clearly that such a dynamic is a function of overly partisan politics. And befoe you leap to claim that's liberal bashing, be aware that the majority of us here are quick to assign equal blame for overly partisan politics to BOTH sides.

Posted by: bk at August 12, 2005 09:35 AM

This feel so tempting to assume, but isn't the devil in the details? Don't you almost always have some choice? After all, one can choose to perish, right? If that's so, then what we really mean when we say "we have no choice" what we really mean is that we had no other more reasonable acceptable choice. That puts us right back measuring the cost-benefit ratio which you deny can be applied.

I have to admint, bk, that I had generally the same thoughts after posting my comment, particularly regarding choosing to perish. So I guess I just have a more liberal (politcally speaking) interpretation of what constitutes justification for war (in the more general sense, it's actually more conservative).

I'm still not sure that I agree with the cost-to-benefit ratio part, at least not in initially deciding to go to war. I don't want to be so pig-headed as to say that once you've decided to go to war, that no cost is too high. But I do think that is the assumption you have to make before going. Perhaps that's where my politically liberal line is drawn. If you're not willing to give it your all, the cause isn't justified. Once you're engaged and circumstances change or new information comes to light, you may re-evaluate the need to continue.

And I do recognize distinctions between war and military aid, police actions, etc. That's why we have standards in our system of governement for going to war that are distinct from other military (and other) actions. So I don't buy into the "war or inaction" dichotomy. Perhaps the cost-to-benefit ratio applies to these other actions. That makes more sense to me.

Posted by: WHQ at August 12, 2005 09:38 AM

In my estimation, nothing should operate outside of cost-benefit ratios, broadly construed. While principles can be useful heuristics, I am always troubled by a reliance on them instead of the actual consequences of the action.

To me the only moral way to decide whether we ought to have invaded depends on the costs and benefits to all parties involved. IOW, we need to consider BOTH the potential damage to our international standing and international relations as well as things like the effect that a free Iraq would have on the Middle East. All effects both short-term and long-term need to considered.

I am totally fine with someone who opposed the war because they felt that the costs outweighed the benefits, but this analysis must include the well-being of the Iraqi people and the region as well, and not just our self-interest. (I think it is fine to more heavily weight our interests--here's the realist in me--but it morally objectionable,in my view, to provide an extreme weight to them.)

I saw Paul Hackett on Hardball and he asked questions such as (paraphrasing), "Who appointed us the moral guardians of the world?" He also refused to answer whether the action was better for the world, and said he only focused on what was best for America. Now, I honor this man's service, but that to me seems like abject selfishness.

To me, as the most powerful nation in the world, we have a moral responsibility to help those who we can. As I said, if people opposed the war because they felt more harm would come than good, that is fine, and maybe I could be convinced of their position. But if they insist trying to act as if "sins of omission" do not exist (come on people think of the holocaust and rwanda) or rely on abstract principles alone, that just seems wrong. I can agree that we need to think carefully about invading "sovereign" nations and should be circumspect in our use of power, but we should never put slavish adherence to "principle" above the good of the world.

Michael Stickings, in his last post, discussed the position of "moral interventionism," a view which he stated both the left and the right could hold. I guess that's what I am. (Which is a relief: I'm too young to be a conservative! :))

Posted by: Adam at August 12, 2005 11:32 AM

Adam,

I would say that your analysis begs the question in that it implicitly assumes that the only options are war or not war. It doesn't take into account the other options having outcomes that would justify their costs.

As far a applying a cost-to-benefit ratio in deciding to go to war, that isn't the same as looking at all of the consequences. I agree that you have to look at all of the consequences, be they for your own best interest or otherwise. But doing so is not mutually exclusive with the principle that you don't start a war if, at that point, you aren't willing to expend all of your resources to fight it. The things your suggesting be taken into account are the very things that would determine that willingness, that is, if you were to follow the principle I am suggesting.

I guess, with all that said, I'm not totally sure we disagree, at least not entirely.

Posted by: WHQ at August 12, 2005 12:01 PM

I don't think we disagree either. I ought to have clarified that it wasn't specifically vis-a-vis you. We need to take into account all of our options; we could for instance have forced Saddam to allow monitors and not have just invaded so precipitiously; we could have fiddled with sanctions. But at the end of the day, we ought to choose the option that gives us, broadly defined, the best outcome. And I definitely agree that we shouldn't go to war unless we're committed to it, but that's really because usually the consequences are quite bad. It just seemed that people were invoking abstract principles to avoid making hard choices . . .

And I agree that doing this cost-benefit analysis is very difficult and often subjective. People will weight different values and goals differently. How many lives are worth sacrificing for this goal? How likely are good results? How likely are bad, etc. . .
But I think it has to be done in good faith.

Posted by: Adam at August 12, 2005 01:02 PM