Centerfield

As one of the commenters pointed out, I think you can be against war generally, but still accept that force is necessary at times to stop human rights abuses. There is also a difference between intervention in a limited way to stop genocide, done pursuant to international consensus and unilateral intervention as we did in Iraq. I don't say that all actions have to be pure, but it's pretty obvious that stopping Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses was really a secondary consideration, at best, in invading Iraq.

I agree that a lot of leftists end up tying themselves in knots in trying to be against war under any circumstances and also being against genocide. Much of this comes from the belief (more of an article of faith) that anything the US does has to be bad and has to have an ulterior motive.

Marc, what about when the UN refuses to intervene to stop genocide, as has happened repeatedly in Darfur? What happens when one side or the other (or both) in the genocide believes that the intervenors (American or otherwise) are "interfering" in their local affairs, trying to set up a government which will be dominated by the currently suppressed minority, whom the current folks in power rightly suspect will then repress them as soon as the foreign powers leave?

War is messy. It's always messy. It's always bloody. There are always factions struggling for power, generally through violence. One can't simply intervene to "stop the genocide." The side who has been doing the killing will then take actions against the foreign soldiers, because they're being balked at what they wanted to accomplish, and are now afraid of being executed as war criminals or, worse, being taken prisoner by a new government made up of the formerly oppressed.

This is why I'm always demanding of the Iraq critics to specify what they would have done differently. It's breathtakingly easy to say, "well, that would be different." But it wouldn't.

Pat, I don't really understand your argument. The US isn't doing anymore really about Darfur than the UN is other than talking a lot. It's obvious that if Darfur was more strategic we would be more likely to intervene. But, I think you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying that US action is always wrong (that's the leftist argument). I think the intervention in Kosovo was correct and I agree that it is naive and unrealistic to expect the UN to lead the way without the US. But, Iraq was not the same kind of immediate humanitarian emergency as Kosovo, where you had ongoing ethnic cleansing occuring, if not genocide. You didn't have that in Iraq and, in fact, Bush never really tried to make the case to the UN or anyone else that the invasion was justified due to a humanitarian emergency. The fact is, if Iraq had been in Africa, there would have been no invasion and, while the invasion could arguable be justified on the basis of human rights abuses, it's not unreasonable, IMO, for people to be uncomfortable about the US unilaterally resorting to force to solve these problems. Clinton, after all, bombed Kosovo under the auspices of NATA and while it clearly would not have happened without US leadership, it was still not the US unilaterally intervening. I'm not trying to defend the leftist Chomskyite position; I'm simply saying it's not inconsistent to be at least uncomfortable with unilateral intervention (which may be disguising other motives)and also be against genocide.

Marc, I guess I was mostly focusing on your statement: "There is also a difference between intervention in a limited way to stop genocide, done pursuant to international consensus and unilateral intervention as we did in Iraq."

My point is mostly that if "limited intervention" succeeds, it is only by luck, and that it's quite easy to get bogged down in things. "Limited war" is very easy to say at the outset, very hard, or impossible, to stick to as matters progress. Perhaps Kosovo is an example of limited intervention where we lucked out, or President Clinton just got it right. I'm not familiar enough with the facts on the ground there now to offer an opinion.

President Bush did make the case that there were very many good reasons to invade Iraq. WMD was most certainly one of them, but if you go back and look at the speeches the President and Vice-President gave, as well as the AUMF language, and you will see reference to a great many humanitarian factors, including the severely negative impact of the economic sanctions (imposed by the UN, not the US alone) on regular people, especially kids, in Iraq (thanks to Saddam diverting Oil-for-Food into his own pocket).

It's true that the U.S. has not unilaterally invaded Darfur. But we were about alone in the U.N. trying to call attention to the genocide there for a long time. By its very nature, the UN cannot act in weeks, but only in months or, usually, years. Their subsidiary agencies like the WHO do some very good things, but the general assembly itself is an utterly impotent body, and a vast waste of time and money.

Pat is right on this one. I can just imagine what the world would say now if we DO invade Darfur unilaterally. Bush is there it steal Sundan's oil.....

I think Brendan has really nailed this one (and you laid it out well too, Pat). One cannot oppose war on principle, and yet take a stand against genocide, without running into the problem of the former being sometimes neccessary to end the latter.

The humanitraian case for Iraq is undisputed. Saddam was a mass murderer of his own people, much like Slobo and the slavers in Darfur. It's one thing to oppose the specific war on policy, or the prosecution of the war. It is certainly true that hypocrites have had shifting justifications for war throughout history. The fact is though, if you're going to commit yourself to being against all genocide, and to policies that end genocide, you cannot be "anti-war in principle" at the same time, and expect to see results. Diplomacy is great, but sometimes those who have no respect for life must be met with force, or at least the real threat of force.

What if you really do have to send troops into Darfur? With the anti-war crowd stand up then? And if so, what's different about Iraq?

In fact, the African Union HAS sent troops into Darfur. A small number of fools are against that action simply because Bush and Blair are for it. There are also a fair number of people who were against the Iraq War who do back the AU's intervention, though.

The force appears to be at most middlingly effective, though.

I agree that it's nonsensical to oppose war under ANY circumstance without consideration to particular circumstances. I read a comment in WW II magazine by Andy Rooney (I'm paraphrasing because I can't remember the exact quote) that it is not true that any peace is better than any war.

However, I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be against both war and genocide. It's a matter of ends/means. You could argue, for example, that genocide is bad but that military intervention is worse. You and I might disagree, but it's not inconsistent. Or you can argue--as most leftists would, I think--that intervention has pernicious consequences in the long run, even if it benefits the population in the short run. Again, we might disagree, but it's not an inconsistent or hypocritical position.

That was my point, Pat, which I probably did not make too well. I think you can argue that, at least in some cases (and, obviously, you can argue about specific instances, such as Iraq), an unrestrained intervention might be worse than human rights abuses.It's certainly true, Pat, as you point out, that any kind of military intervention can get messy and I think that's the point. At what point are the abuses serious enough to make military intervention better than the potential for destabilization? How about Cuba? I think it is unreasonable for people to be EQUALLY against war (or, more accurately, use of force) and against protection against genocide because clearly there are some situations where force is the only answer; in other words, you can't say, I am against war under ANY circumstances and I am against genocide under ANY circumstances because clearly there are situations where force is the only way to stop genocide. But there is also the question of how much force; it's one thing to send peacekeepers to Sudan, for example, and another thing to topple the regime.

I do agree with your general point, Marc. Don't mind me, I was a bit crotchety when I woke up this morning...

I would only add that it's really impossible to tell, before hand, how any given conflict is going to come out. My general point in response to your last statement is that sending in "peacekeepers to Sudan" may seem different on the surface from "regime change" in Iraq, but it has every bit as much potential to either suck us in very deep or backfire horribly. Much of what needs to be done to stop genocide is the part we've been not very good at in Iraq, disarming the local militias and so forth.

I may have mentioned this before but I beleive the country's sentiments regarding this issue became more positive after "Saving Private Ryan" and that we've now become much less enthusiastic after "Mission Accomplished!"

Meh. the pacifist viewpoint is what it is. It's largely based on hope, faith, and perseverence in nonviolent protest as being the only viable tools. Notably for the point expressed in the main post, pacisfism includes accepting that "we shall overcome" implies "maybe not today but someday."

You certainly CAN be against genocide and against war. As Loy and others have pointed out, many non-pacificts question its efficacy. But there really isn't an entirely illogical disconnect. Faith has its own logic. People who are not pacifists insist that sometimes the answer must be force. Pacifists say the answer is faith and perseverance. They know that this doesn't always work, especially in the short-term. They accept this, but not as a judgement upon themselves. They accept it as an expected and even perennial test of faith.

I'm not a pacifist myself, and I'm sure not holding my breath waiting for the meek to inherit Earth, but I don't think pacifism is incoherent, unless you want to classify its faith-based component as a form of incoherence. Personally, I don't, not really. As I said, faith has its own logic.

Pacificism, in the sense of "use of force is always wrong, and I will have no part of it" requires one of two prerequisite assumptions:
1) human nature is such that nobody will behave violently unless someone else is violent first. The empirical evidence does not obviously support this assumption.
Or,
2) someone else will use force to protect me, thus allowing me to be morally superior to them without suffering from the existence of violent people in the world. The one word label for this is hypocrisy.

Pacificism, in the sense of “I will not attack others who have not attacked me,” is slightly better. All it requires is a willingness to let others suffer as long as the pacificist is not personally attacked. The superior morality of this is not obvious to me, but perhaps I am merely too stupid to understand my betters.

I don't know, wj. I think pacifism only requires the belief that violence is immoral regardless the actions of others. You take your beating and you let others you otherwise could help take theirs. I think it's that simple. It's not for me, but I think it's that simple.

Ok, WHQ, I will concede that in _some_ few cases it may be that simple. But, from the pacificists that I have dealt with, that is usually not the case. Else they would not be demanding that the government (or the UN, or someone) take steps to address some wrong that they see in the world.

You can be a pacificist in the sense that you suggest and still protest against a wrong. But you really cannot demand that someone else "do something" when that "something" will only be effective if there is violence, or at least the credible threat of violence, involved. At least, not and be that kind of pacificist.

I'm with you on that. I thought you were speaking strictly to the philosophical requirements for pacifism. If you're advocating violence by others, you're not really a pacifist. (I live in the part of the country having the highest concentration of Quakers. I'll dig one up and ask him to verify that.)

Well, if you're a pacifist, "do something" is usually code for "get everyone to adopt pacifism." Ultimately, it's the only "solution" they have to offer.

Oh, and maybe I'll threaten to beat him up while I'm at it!

I expect we're all influenced by our neighbors. Quakers would certainly give you a different perspective than I get from being just over the hill from Berkeley. Agree with them or not, at least the Quakers are sincere and consistent in their beliefs, and act accordingly.