When do you expect we’ll invade Pakistan, then?
Uh, never? You might try actually reading my message. I’ll repeat the relevant part for you:
In other words, the sovereignity of a dictatorship per se is not a valid reason to oppose a war. There may be plenty of other reasons - the dictator may be better than the destruction of a war, it may cost too much both in money and lives, it may not be in the interest of the U.S., etc. Pakistan probably fits all those categories.
But I would like an answer to the question - what gives a dictator the right to be treated as a sovereign power?
What gives any government the right to be treated as a sovereign power?
Consent of the governed.
I agree with everything you said above. How’s that for a debate?
Spiritus:
Well yes, and I suppose blowing somebody’s brains out the back of their head is technically a side effect of putting a gun to their forhead and pulling the trigger.
Neither of those things are necessities of the causes you attribute. Not removing Saddam from power on the other hand yields the immediate consequence that Saddam is not removed from power. Hardly a side-effect, n’est ce pas?
Tell me about it.
That’s not my argument. Never has been. The war opposition seems to be doing a good job of completely and totally ignoring the human rights issues of Saddam’s regime with few notable exceptions. I am wondering how the address the fundamental difficulty that the action that is more humane than the alternative.
Yes. It does. I learned my industry buzzwords, and I’m gonna use 'em and if you don’t like it you can go synergize in a vlaue-added fashion with somebody else.
Occasionally things are an either or proposition. This one is a pretty strong case.
You honk out quotation marks at my use of “disconnect,” and you park a load like “leverage international support?” What does this mean and how are we going to do it? How do you propose we force other countries and independant businessmen and gunnrunner types hungry for a profit from capitalizing? Why do you think it will work when to date the people that suffered from the sanctions were the Iraqi people? Why is causing them more suffering and repression a humane solution?
This one appears to me more sensible than the last, but it still has fundamental problems. The first of which is that this is basically Saddam’s game, this is what he’s hoping for. This is what he did the last time. He cooperates for a time, and then stops cooperating. Even with the constant threat of war this last round, he was still playing games, disallowing this, pushing, testing his limits. He can afford to wait it out. We can’t. We have a huge military commitment of force over there. We can’t just leave them hanging out there for another ten to twelve years, and as soon as we pull them back we no longer have a brick over Saddam’s head to force him to cooperate. Then there’s the weather. We can only pull this off effectively at certain times. Then there’s international support. Building up this support and keeping it is not an easy thing. Let too much time go by and the urgency goes away and people stop caring… like they did the last time. Finally, there’s the problem that allowing Saddam more time allows him to chose alternatives. It’s stupid to give an enemy free moves and more time to prepare. It will cost human lives if and when we do invade. he will have more time to prepare. While I said finally, there’s still another problem which is that certain countries have promised to oppose force under any circumstances.
To make this a valid solution you will need to explain how you overcome these problems. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but…
An interesting idea, but doesn’t address the timing problem, or the fact that the last time we tried something like this, a bunch of Kurds paid the price.
But this is a fallacy. Economic damage does not directly follow as a consequence of free markets.
Your right. The regime is not currently engaging in genocide. I don’t really see how this furthers your argument because it is occuring in much the same fashion that if you are physically restraining a man, sitting on his back, holding his arms he is then not currently in the processing of strangling anybody. The fact that Saddam’s regime is currently not committing genocide is attributable to the fact that we have a large military force physically preventing him from doing so and have had that force in place making a continual effort in the form of enforcing no-fly zones and such.
You can’t sit on a man’s back forever. It’s not a solution.
Actually the phrase is “past performance is no guarrantee of future returns.” Past performance used professionally and responsibly is an excellent predictor, and in fact is the cornerstone of Modern Portfolio Theory, Asset Allocation, and Financial Planning. Legal concerns prevent me from yielding more infor about my knowledge in this area, but feel free to email me, or take my professional word that you are dead wrong on this one.
Nothing in real life is “assured.” Likelihood is all we really ever have to work with. Surety is for theorists and textbooks.
A valid concern. And, one that needs to be addressed. All courses of action entail risk. It goes with the fact there is no certainty. The presence of risk occurs in whatever we do, and even if we do nothing. The region is unstable. There is the risk that it may further destabilize if we do nothing. Nobody knows for sure which is the greater risk or how to measure them. You simply do your best.
Some people just hate us. That’s why there are terrorists now. Terrorists are the enemy. We’re going to face them down and destroy them at some point. They’re not going away. It’s tough to kill a hornet’s nest without pissing off the hornets.
Yes, and we can argue semantics all day, but there is a difference between reasonable expectations weighed against risks and simple pronouncements that we “will destabilize the region.” It is a reasonable and likely expectation that we can end the atrocities in Iraq pretty effectively. Because this is technically hypothetical, it is not reasonable to assume that all bad things that can possibly happen will happen.
I disagree. More importantly those in power in our country and those with access to more sophisticated information and analysis also disagree.
It depends on when you consider the mobilization to have started. If we say that the mobiliation started with the institution of the no-fly zones than the answer is he was committing genocide on the kurds. If we say it was after, the answer is none because we were physically restraining him with our military force.
Nor necessarily do I. All considerations need to be addressed, but you have to look at the micro as well the macro and draw your lines somewhere.
Granted, but you can’t guarrantee that if we don’t invade Iraq he won’t smuggle a nuclear bomb into NYC and set it off. You can’t guarrantee that he won’t invade Saudi Arabia the moment our troops leave the region. We’re not talking about guarrantees though, we’re talking about likelihood’s and there really is no reason whatsoever to believe that Saddam will magically create a benevolent regime if we just let him.
Not really, and it’s a good analogy for this war. We are not making war on the corpus of Iraq. We are making war on the sickness of the regime in order to remove it. In doing so, a degree of damage to the corpus is unavoidable, but one seeks to minimize it. This is a fair analogy for the type of war we are waging, IMO.
I was using it like the generic “one.”
Agreed.
I disagree. Hindsight is 20/20 but even with the benefit of hindsight I’ve agreed and considered most of the moves that we’ve made to be either pretty smart or unavoidable.
Nor does one just consider the consequences. I agree with you, here, but it seems to me that the majority of the protestors and those who oppose the war consider only potential consequences while ignoring the benefits. In truth I do not lump you, or some of the other careful and thoughtful responders such as Mr. Svinlesha into this category, and my inquiries are not really directed at you. It is a very interesting discussion that we are having though, and I don’t mind the evolving course of the thread.
It’s not simply another hypothetical. One assigns weights and likelihoods to possible outcomes. You seem to have already agreed that the likely outcome is not another Hussein.
When have he ever had guarrantees? You’re a smart guy. You’ve kicked my ass in many an argument. Why are asking for guarrantees or assuming that the lack of them is a valid argument in these circumstances? There are no guarrantees.
I disagree. The language of a hypothetical is “maybe this will cause this.” A hypothetical is an is a bald guess. They differ from reasonable expectations.
No. But it seems fair and accurate to say that the humanitarian equation is being considered only from on-side in the overwhelming majority of protest situations. The humanitarian atrocities of the Iraqi regime have been almost completely and totally ignored by the protestors. They do not address them, they do not discuss them. They seem to be simply bypassed among the anti-war crowd. My “disconnect” is founded on the (I think very defensible) proposition that the issue is not being addressed on both sides by those who oppose the war (as a general rule.) Ignoring that half of the humanitarian equation does not produce a logical or defensible answer.
Thanks.
And it is reasonable and likely to expect that the way we are going about this will cause widespread international resentment, both in the Middle East and among countries that have traditionally (at least over the last 50 years) been considered allies of the United States. I say that this is likely not because we are invading Iraq - as you note, there is near total disapproval of Hussein’s regime in the international community. Instead, it is the way we are invading Iraq, and the perceptions that go along with that. Do you honestly believe that declaring the wishes of the rest of the world “irrelevant” and unilaterally launching an invasion of a sovereign state (setting aside the debate about the sovereignty of a dictator) in a war that is widely perceived to be about either religion or oil will not inflame people against the United States? I’m outraged by our actions, and I’m a citizen of the United States. How do you expect the citizens of the countries that we dismissed to react?
Yes, but hornets aren’t created in the same way that terrorists are. I contend that the actions of the United States are bound to bring more recruits to existing terrorist organizations and to inspire (for lack of a better term) new terrorist groups. President Bush’s dismissal of diplomacy, refusal to discuss other options, with us or against us rhetoric, and constant invocation of God are incredibly inflammatory statements anywhere in the world, and especially in the Middle East.
I agree that the ending of Saddam Hussein’s regime will be a positive thing, and I agree that this positive result will not come about without the use of force in Iraq. I think we start to diverge when we consider the circumstances that led up to our present situation. Your assertion that diplomacy didn’t work is (kind of) true, but only because we didn’t practice anything close to diplomacy. Diplomacy hinges on presenting a logical, coherent argument as to the necessity of war. Even if you’ve already decided that you’re going to invade Iraq, diplomacy demands that you act as if others’ opinions are important to you and you want them to support you. If you approach diplomacy saying, “well, what you say doesn’t matter, and this what we’re gonna do, so how’s about you legitimize it for us,” it’ll never work.
But it will make the claim that diplomacy didn’t work laughable.
Enginerd:
This is what I consider to be the terrorist fallacy. We do not create terrorists. They are responsible for their own actions. They create themselves.
There is resentment against the U.S. and there will continue to be no matter what we do. Terrorists may get recruits for things we don’t do, as well as things we do.
Doing or not doing something because we are afraid it will provoke terrorsists is dangerously close to pandering to them, IMO.
Mr. Svinlesha:
Your post deserves a serious and careful response, and I’ll try to give it my best shot tomorrow.
scylla
I’ll take some time and reread your response tomorrow, but at first reading it seems that you have decided to ground your position on the twin planks of:
[ul][li]My expectations are reasonable and considered[/li][li]Those who disagree are engaged in wild flights of fancy.[/ul][/li]Suffice to say that I do not find this a compelling argument.
I would be more likely to agree if we were only talking about terrorists. In this case, however, we’ve managed to alienate a large part of the world, including countries who have historically supported our efforts.
If first tried to resolve this situation diplomatically, then acted as though we respected the opinions and aims of other countries, and then been forced to resort to war as a last course of action, I believe that I’d support the invasion and there would be little for me to take issue with in your argument. Certainly there would be some resentment of our actions, and it’s likely that some terrorists would oppose the US. In that case, I would fully agree with you.
But I believe we’re acting in a manner so far outside the realm of acceptable statesmanship that we’re engendering significantly more resentment than we have to. That is the root of my objection to this war.
Enginerd:
I beleive that is an accurate description of what we actualy did.
A diplomatic attempt began with the cessation of the first gulf war. Hussein did not live up to the standards of that agreement. Various diplomatic solutions were tried; inspectors, sanctions, threats, cajoling. In that time all the atrocities I have described occured. A diplomatic solution was attempted recently within the UN, and largely succeeded. A direct mandate for war was stillborn because of disagreement among a portion of our allies.
I’m not sure how we should be respecting France’s opinion. It seems to me that France’s blanket promise to veto the use of force under any circumstance was an example of a country not respecting the aims of other nations. I think it in actuality forced the issue. Once that promise of veto was issued it essentially took the teeth out of any ongoing diplomatic efforts backed by the threat of force and only left to alternatives. The first would be to back off, and see a return to the status quo, and the second would be to proceed with the invasion. At that time though our hand was forced, IMO.
Spiritus:
That’s not a fair interpretation of what I said or meant.
All propositions and possibilities are not created equal, but have to be considered withing the framework of their credibility and likelihood.
I think that it is a reasonable stance to think that the likelihood that Saddam’s regime can be replaced with one absent the horribly egregious human atrocities is a reasonable one with a very high degree of likelihood or being attainable.
Destabilizing the region, while a serious risk that needs to be considered and mitigated does not share the same likelihood.
In much the same way I imagine that my likelihood of driving to work succesfully tomorrow is a reasonable expectation.
I understand that there is the possibility that I may get into an accident or experience a mechanical failure, but I think that if I am careful that it is a possiblity that I can discount.
In any case the possibility that there will be an accident is not enough to seriously deter me from the attempt tomorrow.
In much the same way, many of the objections raised are possibilities that can be discounted to a large degree, and are not direct consequences of regime replacement.
While I cannot guarrantee a new regime will be better, or that we will not destabilize the region, your own arguments work against you. You cannot guarrantee that the the region will not destabilize if we don’t interfere. You can’t guarrantee that Saddam’s regime won’t be much worse than it has been if we do not act.
Absent guarrantees one works to the best of their ability to impose the best solution they can.
Being against the war accepts the reality of a terrible and horrible situation, and argues to preserve that status quo for fear of making it worse by interference (if I understand your viewpoint, and if that’s a fair summary.)
Replacing the regime on the other hand is a progressive solution in that it seeks to improve the status quo. Indeed, you seem to concede that our chances for success in the immediate situation concerning Iraq are good.
Why then consider this course of action a mistake? Should it not be supported, and incorporated into a framework that garners even more progressive gains?
Because we do not have the right to decide the fate of another country.
We should never have used Saddam as a weapon against Iran. We should never have sold him chemical and biological weapons. We shouldn’t have tried to use Iraq as a tool to shape the Mideast.
One might dub this sort of thing a Scyllagism I certainly wouldn’t, of course, but one might.
Scylla:
I look forward to your reply, but in the meantime I hope you don’t mind if I inflict this thread with a few more of my reflections on this question. I sense that this discussion contains several different dimensions which we need to tease apart. I’m not a philosopher, though, so take the following for what it’s worth, which probably ain’t that much.
It seems to me that at one level, your argument appeals to the sphere of morality and ethics in the dimension of interpersonal relations. At this level you seem to be arguing that a moral agent, who wishes to be good, must act to prevent another agent from performing evil, when at all possible. In this vein you’ve deployed arguments, for example, regarding a neighbor shooting his wife, or the felt moral imperative of one person to rescue someone else who is drowning. It also seems to me that you are arguing that an agent who does not act “shares,” as it were, moral responsibility for the evil outcome perpetrated by another. Thus, by your argument, if someone points a gun at my friend with the intent to kill him, and I fail to do anything to prevent that act, then I share in the moral responsibility for my friend’s death.
If we follow this line of reasoning to its bitter end, however, we find that it leads to some pretty serious complications. It implies, for example, that if Saddam tortures someone in Iraq, and you are aware of it but do nothing concrete to prevent it, then you are also, in some small way, morally responsible for this heinous crime. Since the world if full of heinous crimes, and heinous criminals, this means that you are under a moral imperative to spend every waking hour of your life in a non-stop war to eradicate them. And that, in turn, leads inevitably to a kind of moral imperative to enforce your particular system of values upon the world, with violence if necessary.
However, if we assume individual free will (which seem to be necessary assumptions for a discussion of moral responsibility), then the argument above appears illogical to me. If you, I, and Saddam Hussein are morally free agents, then no matter what Saddam chooses to do, neither you nor I can be held morally responsible for his actions. You may choose to do nothing; as far as I can tell however, that does not implicate you in any way, even if, “in effect,” your complacence exerts no constraining influence on Saddam. At the end of the day, Saddam’s decision to torture and then execute Achmed is his own.
You might argue that it is a good thing to do something about Saddam’s regime because of the evil he has perpetrated, and I might be inclined to agree with you, as far as that goes; but if you say, “I think we should go to war,” and I say, “No, that’s too far over the top,” this does not imply that I suddenly have a share in the moral responsibility for the atrocities committed by that regime. At the very least, it would not be immoral for me to oppose such an action, i.e., war, if I felt there were other issues at stake which complicate the situation. From my perspective it might be morally good to topple Saddam’s regime, but it isn’t a moral imperative; and so I have to weigh the good with the bad.
And one of the things that strikes me in the process of weighing this question is the fact that I cannot simply transfer your moral argument from the sphere of interpersonal relations, in which morality is conceived of in terms of individual actors relating to each other, to the level of international politics. At that level, sovereignty is absolutely vital to the existence of the nation-state system. Nation-states are supposed to be sovereign, whether we like it or not, and within their borders, the laws of the state reign. That system should not be jettisoned so lightly, Sam Stone’s arguments notwithstanding. As an example of what I mean, consider the fact that there is no death penalty in Sweden, and that most Swedes consider such a penalty barbaric. Does this provide Sweden with a moral pretext for invading the US, do you think? Who gets to pass judgement? Well, that’s not an easy question to answer, but the current system starts with a mutual respect for the sovereignty of nation-states, despite their many flaws. And for what it’s worth, the US explicitly agreed to that system when it signed the UN Charter – which, by the way, it is currently in gross violation of.
Thus, this point comes back to your earlier question regarding the purpose served by opposing the war. I dislike metaphors, but I’ll risk one now; in a sense, opposing the current US war in Iraq is similar to opposing vigilantism. A vigilante might choose his victim with care, and shoot down a murderer, even a serial killer; it’s still vigilantism, no? No matter how you might evaluate the isolated act, we must oppose it on principle; otherwise, the rule of law would break down completely, and society would fall into chaos, while vigilantes stalked the street, shooting people as they saw fit.
In addition, there’s another problem, one which involves the role of the US military in world affairs. As I see it, the US has a military to protect itself from outside attack. I do not see the role of the US military to be that of ousting inhumane dictatorships. (In this context it is worth remembering that “preemptive self-defense,” rather than humanitarian intervention, was the primary argument employed by the administration to justify the war before it started; and it is only afterwards, when few WMDs have been discovered, that the emphasis has shifted to that of “liberation.”) It is possible that an international body, such as the UN Security Council, should have the role of intervening during humanitarian crises, and if so, then the US should be a part of that; but at the national level, as far as I know, the US military is exclusively reserved for self-defence. And I am sincerely against using the US military unilaterally for the achievement other goals, however noble they may or may not be. I submit that such use is a dangerous precedent, and that it can lead to unexpected consequences.
Finally: I do not mean to deny that, in one sense, the anti-war camp faces a serious moral dilemma. On the one hand, many of us who oppose war do so on the basis of the values you mentioned in your OP; we do want to see the world become a better place. On the other hand, we are naturally suspicious the sort of American military adventurism that has characterized the history of US relations with so many other areas of the world, particularly Latin America. In particular, if you argue that “Past performance used professionally and responsibly is an excellent predictor, and in fact is the cornerstone of Modern Portfolio Theory, Asset Allocation, and Financial Planning” (as you pointed out to Spiritus, above), then I suggest that you take a moment to reflect upon the past performance of the US in the sphere of “regime change” and “nation building,” as a predictor of what will happen in Iraq. The US government has a lousy reputation for living up to its ideological commitments in such ventures, historically, so I find very little reason to concur with your optimistic prognosis on the basis of past US performance, myself – quite the opposite. In fact, I submit that that the anti-war faction has every right in the world to be dubious of the claims made by the current administration regarding the “democratic” future of Iraq, and that in this regard we are reacting in a completely rational manner.
But this is a good thread, and you ask a serious question, one that I’m still struggling with, in all honesty. We can at least hope, now that the war is on, that it will lead to a better world in the future; but please pardon me if I remain highly skeptical.
Dear war supporters, here is a possible answer to your question: Why were
antiwar protesters seemingly reluctant to call for an end to the now
(hopefully) defunct regime of the Ba’ath party? Or, to be precise, of
“Saddam’s regime”?
The question is one of perspective. I will, for the time being, ignore
people who support war because they have brought into the western
propaganda of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” and “Terrorism” for which
there is little evidence, or the ones who are suffering from a bout of
“Patriotism”. With them, there is no reasoning, and no ratiocination. Let us only choose from the set of war proponents the people who support war because they see themselves as humanitarians. We will then examine the viewpoints of both anti-war and pro-war people.
The pro-war Junta see and know little about Iraq beyond Saddam Hussein. It is very likely that few, if any of the war proponents can even identify other members of the Baathi party (with the possible exception of “Chemical Ali”), who would have been actually responsible for designing and carrying out the regime’s nefarious activities. The image of Iraq and Iraqi people in the minds of the pro-war Junta is thus that of a repressed, devastated stretch of humanity, in desperate need of liberation from a ruthless dictator.
Thus, even proponents of war who were not sucked by accusations about the possession of illegal “Weapons of mass destruction” and “support of Terrorism” saw themselves as supporting a means by which an oppressive regime, personified by one “Saddam Hussein”, would be destroyed and/or held accountable for it’s crimes. The soldiers fighting for Iraq are, from this viewpoint, “Saddam loyalists” and hence mere cannon fodder. War, especially one in which the attacking coalition will lose little, is seen as noble and heroic task, and to oppose it become tantamount to denying Iraqis human rights and liberty.
You know what? The anti-war people also see Iraqis as an oppressed,
devastated stretch of humanity, awaiting liberation. Beyond this however, the perspective changes drastically. From the viewpoint of the anti-war movement, the lot of the common people demands much more attention than the possible fate of “Saddam Hussein”, (i.e. the regime of Mr. Hussein). In fact, it would be fair to say that the anti-war protesters are only as focussed on the safety and survival Iraqis, as the pro-war protesters are on the task of removing a “Dictatorship”. But why should the two perspectives be so different
if the end is to be the same?
The reason, quite simply, is that ruthless art of warfare does not
discriminate between the oppressor and the oppressed among its victims. Simply put, you are as likely to murder a victim of the Ba’athi regime, as you are to kill an official. In fact, the former is even more probable, because common people have little or no access to the protection that is extended to the the latter. Witness the > 5000 people wounded in Iraq, and the approx. 1200 civilians murdered by the coalition forces in Baghdad and Basra alone. I assume that the graphic images of the dead and dying in Iraqi hospitals are familiar to all. If death is liberation, then they are
indeed liberated. But perhaps this is not the liberation that the
humanitarians among the pro-war Junta had in mind? And what of the
wounded? These are not little scratches and cuts, but nasty, gut and
limb-ripping wounds that may make all but the most masochist amongst us opt for Death instead. And several thousands more have been rendered homeless, and their property destroyed beyond all redemption… you get the idea. Not exactly the best way to liberate people, it would seem.
For a moment, let us include the patriots among the pro-war. There is
then question of the number (>4000) of Iraqi soldiers who died in this
operation. It is easy to dismiss them as “Saddam loyalists” and hence
deserving of their fate. Bullshit. Even among Iraqis, there is a sense of patriotism, and a sense of duty towards their nation, culture and fellow human beings, which goes beyond and is independent of any loyalty towards the ruling party. The simple truth is that these too are human beings, dying in the defense of their country. Against an unprovoked, unjustified war.
If the pro-war junta can appreciate and deify the “heroism” of their own, efficiently armed and well protected forces, then why is it so difficult to honor the true heroism of the poorly equipped and severely restricted soldiers of the Iraqi army? Is it because the pro-war junta is so blinded
by the “patriots” among them they have lost sight of their own lofty
ideals? Or is it the sense of arrogance that is inherent to the wealthy and unjust, when they are called upon to provide a moral justification for
their actions? This is a question for the pro-war people to answer – here I am truly at a loss.
But this is mere rhetoric, you will argue. Aren’t the Iraqis cheering now
that Mr. Hussein and co. have departed? Of course they are. Besides the
obvious factor, viz. the demise of Hussein and co., there are also other,
equally important factors to be accounted for. These people lived not only
under an oppressive regime, but also under even more oppressive sanctions
which, by UN estimates, have killed almost 500,000 children in Iraq. The
depleted Uranium weapons which were used by the US during the first gulf
war have caused congenital deformities amongst countless others. In
effect, this is not a 21 day war that Iraqis had been fighting, but 12
year and 21 day war. And casualties number not >1200, but >501200.
Additionally, there has been ceaseless and indiscriminate bombing during
the last few days. All, I might add, in the name of liberation by that
self-proclaimed bastion of liberty and democracy – the United States of
America. Aided and abetted by its faithful lap-dog, The United Kingdom.
No wonder then, that the people are so happy that the war has ended, and are expending their pent up frustrations by rioting, looting and stocking on the essentials that they had been denied for so long. Note that ordinary Iraqis had a pretty high standard of living, even by western standards, before the sanctions. For an “Islamic” nation, pre-sanction Iraqis had the universal right to education and health care. A misogynist society this was not. The present oppressive Sharia law came into effect after the sanctions were imposed and enforced by the U.S. under the guise of UN. If you lived in a country where the trivialest essentials of life
had been rationed, restricted or unavailable for 12 years, you would
likely react in the same way too! Under those conditions, it would little
matter who liberated them, as long as they had been “liberated”… right? Of course, right!
Yes, “Saddam Hussein” was responsible for their fate, but in equal measure
so are the capricious, self-serving, Western Powers who propped up his
regime, and saw it fit to topple him by punishing his people.
I think the question that really begs an answer here is: Why did the
pro-war people chant “Support our troops” and “Remove Saddam”, and not
“Help Iraqis” or “No aggression without provocation”? Is is because they
realise that war is not a justifiable method, even for the lofty ideal of
liberation? Or because even the pro-war clique recognise that is no moral
or ethical stand here? Or… because of what? You tell me. You are
pro-war people.
To summarise, the rational among the pro-war say “Remove Saddam first”,
and while the anti-war say “take care of the Iraqi people first”. Its just
a question of what comes first, “Liberation” or Humanity?
Fair warning, I am going to seek through your long post and try to find every occurence in which you evaluate your expectations or the expectations of the “anti-war” side. I am going to place them in isolation in the hope that it will make clear whether what I posted was a fair interpretation.
ANTI-WAR
[ul][li]Yes, and we can argue semantics all day, but there is a difference between reasonable expectations weighed against risks and simple pronouncements that we “will destabilize the region.” [/li][li]it is not reasonable to assume that all bad things that can possibly happen will happen.[/li][li]All courses of action entail risk. It goes with the fact there is no certainty. The presence of risk occurs in whatever we do, and even if we do nothing. The region is unstable. There is the risk that it may further destabilize if we do nothing. Nobody knows for sure which is the greater risk or how to measure them. [/li][li][on the concern of increasing recruitment by terrorist organizations] Some people just hate us. That’s why there are terrorists now. Terrorists are the enemy. We’re going to face them down and destroy them at some point. They’re not going away. [/li][li][On whether things can “get worse”] Granted, but you can’t guarrantee that if we don’t invade Iraq he won’t smuggle a nuclear bomb into NYC and set it off. [/li][li][On whether things can “get worse”] You can’t guarrantee that he won’t invade Saudi Arabia the moment our troops leave the region. [/li][li][On whether things can “get worse”] We’re not talking about guarrantees though, we’re talking about likelihood’s and there really is no reason whatsoever to believe that Saddam will magically create a benevolent regime if we just let him.[/li][li][On concerns whether a stable Iraqi government will result from this war] Why are asking for guarrantees or assuming that the lack of them is a valid argument in these circumstances? There are no guarrantees.[/li][/ul]
SCYLLA
[ul][li]Past performance used professionally and responsibly is an excellent predictor, and in fact is the cornerstone of Modern Portfolio Theory, Asset Allocation, and Financial Planning. [/li][li]It is a reasonable and likely expectation that we can end the atrocities in Iraq pretty effectively. [/li][li]I disagree [that we could do worse for Iraq, for the region, and for our national interests]. More importantly those in power in our country and those with access to more sophisticated information and analysis also disagree[/li][li][on whether the administrations actions have been “very smart” with regard to diplomatic concerns] Hindsight is 20/20 but even with the benefit of hindsight I’ve agreed and considered most of the moves that we’ve made to be either pretty smart or unavoidable.[/li][li]It’s not simply another hypothetical. One assigns weights and likelihoods to possible outcomes. You seem to have already agreed that the likely outcome is not another Hussein.[/li][li][On whether scylla’s expectations should be considered on a par with protester’s hypotheticals.] I disagree. The language of a hypothetical is “maybe this will cause this.” A hypothetical is an is a bald guess. They differ from reasonable expectations.[/li][/ul]
So, was my first impression well-founded? I’m not certain.
The perception that you are dismissive of most concerns over consequenes from the anti-war side does seem accurate. It also seems an acurate perception that you have near-absolute faith in the consequences that you presonally envision from the removal of Saddam Hussein, but this might simply be a side-effect of the point at which you stop your analysis, which seems to be at teh instant Saddam Hussein leaves power.
On consideration, I think that the phrase “wild flights of fancy” is too strong, though, as a general description of how you treat the anti-war concerns. Also, after looking over your post I think it is too strong to characteize this evaluation of hypotheticals as the ground for your arguments. So, allow me to rephrase:
Scylla, upon a second-reading, I think that your analysis of consequences can be characterized as:
[ul][li]My expectations are reasonable and considered[/li][li]Those who disagree are worrying to much about results that cannot be reasonably expected to happen.[/li][/ul]
Now, since the heart of your larger argument is a consequentialist analysis of moral outcomes, I think it is very fair to say that those who disagree with your personal evaluation of likely consequences will not share your sense of a “moral disconnect”.
I disagree with your evaluation of likely consequences.
I agree with your points. I’m not sure you addressed the specific instance of Basra. However, IMO, Lewis overclaimed the importance of the media, while ignoring the importance of the fedayeen thugs and the US having left the Shiites to be slaughtered last time.
By the time I saw your post the UK was nice enough to liberate the town, thus excusing the protesters from any and all liability. 
Svinlesha, beautifully put, at the risk of sounding like a toady :).
Scylla, I pretty regularly run into ethical situation where you answer a question in a manner I find baffling. I consider my bafflement, and I mean this seriously, as a personal failing: you’re obviously smart, and you obviously consider matters rationally, and I should therefore be able to imagine the steps you’ve taken to reach your ethical stance. But I am unable to do so.
When you say that
I’m baffled.
Yes, terrorists are responsible for their own actions. Yes, we do not “create” them.
On the other hand, we may engage in actions that make terrorist recruiting easier. Do you agree with this? And if we do, then our actions may indirectly result in more folks joining terrorist groups. Do you agree with this? And if they do, then our actions may indirectly result in more terrorists. And if they do, then our actions may indirectly result in more terrorist acts. And if they do, then our actions may indirectly result in more people being killed by terrorists. And if they do, then our actions may indirectly result in more people being killed by terrorists than would have been killed by Hussein’s regime.
Do you disagree with my logic anywhere in that paragraph? If so, which part? If not, shouldn’t we consider the potential deaths by terrorists just as surely as we consider the potential deaths by Hussein? If not, why not?
I ask sincerely, because I cannot see how the “more terrorist” argument is anything approaching a fallacy.
Daniel