Scylla, I think the disconnect is more in your perception than in our arguing. Nobody (that I know) argues in favor of preserving the regime as is. The argument is (was) against one particular action that we believe will have more negative than positive consequences.
**
I don’t think that these are valid objections to rescuing the poor schmuck.
**
Maybe. But I don’t think that anybody’s arguing that the regime would go away or change absent the use of force. Diplomatic pressure and limited force has been in use for the last 12 years, what with the sanctions and the no-fly zones. The latter were hurting the Iraqi people more than the regime and the former were not stopping the atrocities.
I suppose that it’s possible that if we tried something else, some other tactic Saddam might have capitulated and turned into a nice guy and we all could have just gotten along. It’s not impossible. It doesn’t seem like a particularly realistic asessment though. We tried everything but saying “pretty please with sugar on top.”
The stance that history and present efforts have shown that nothing absent force will change things is I beleive a pretty realistic asessment.
Nor really did I hear any protests of Saddam’s regime or peaceful ways to end the atrocities proposed.
This regime being such an irredemable enemy to those who support human rights and think genocide is a bad idea, I have a problem reconciling the vehemence with which this action that will end these atrocities is being so roundly and wholly condemned.
**
But again, this is administrative stuff, is it not. These concerns do not merit the vehement denouncements of the removal of this evil evil guy, do they?
Why isn’t the regime and its actions being denounced? Issues on the manner in which we are removing the regime may well be valid, but the removal itself is a huge boon to human rights.
**
But we really did try. For twelve years. No fly zones. Sanctions. Maybe we could have tried more. I don’t know. But we did try.
**
Maybe Bush could have done better. I don’t this either. I do know that nobody else was doing anything. If Bush hadn’t made a big stink about it, nobody would be addressing the Iraq situation, and nothing would be stopping the atrocities.
Maybe the net effect could have been more completely positive, but there is a net positive here that would not have existed without Bush’s intervention. That is that the regime will change. The atrocities and violations will end.
Scylla: As others have already pointed out and I will re-emphasize—one of the reasons why motivations matter here more than in your analogies is that many of us worry that the fact that we did not have the best motivations will, in this case, have negative consequences on the results of an already perilous undertaking. I.e., even with the best of intentions, the idea of overthrowing repressive governments by force and instituting democracies seems frought with danger.
However, in this case, the fact that our motivations were not so altruistic and pure will, I fear, mean that:
(1) We will make a lot of poor decisions in the post-war phase that will not be made with the best interests of the Iraqi people foremost at heart.
(2) The Iraqis and others will not trust our intentions and this will have negative consequences for the reconstruction.
(3) We are sowing sow other seeds that will be very destructive in terms of international terrorism, political instability, and international rule of law.
Maybe I am being entirely too pessimistic and 10 or 20 years from now I will come back and say, “You know, Scylla, it looks like you were right about the whole Iraq thing.” However, at the moment, I wouldn’t bet on it.
P.S.–I do appreciate your defense of the bravery and dedication of some of the anti-war folks in the face of newcrasher’s statements.
**
Like the Kurds?
Or those townspeople that rose up and rebelled during the first gulf war only to be slaughtered when we didn’t follow through and liberate them?
**
It’s tough to ask 500,000 or so dead Kurds. It’s tough to ask somebody who’s been shredded in a plastic shredder. It’s tough to ask a child who’se been tortured so their parents will talk.
It now seems that we did not receive the support and uprising we expected at least in part due to the widespread presence of Saddam’s guerrilla fighters, The Fedayeem Saddam and such, and also because quite rightly they did not trust us to do the job this time and feared reprisal like when towns uprose popularly during the gulf war and were slaughtered by the tens of thousands for doing so. Our support and aid seems to be rising.
It was reportedly an anonymous Iraqi that passed a note to a Marine that told us where Lynch was. The Iraqi people are now reportedly helping us ferret out the guerrillas. It looks like we have support.
I make no arguments as to our intentions. I argue the results. The deposing of probably the most repressive regime on the planet is quite a result.
Not having a crystal ball I don’t feel as comfortable as you making such definitive prognostications.
By the way, I’m sure I don’t speak for everyone (maybe not even the majority?) who was against us starting this war, but my personal answer to this would be “No”.
At this point, I think that would probably leave us in the worst of all possible worlds…i.e., worse than if we had never started the war and worse than if we now finish it. This is one reason why I have chosen not to actively protest at this point…However, I will continue to say that I believe the decision to go to war was a mistake and to argue that this new policy of “preventative” wars (a more accurate name than “pre-emptive” which implies there was something imminent that we had to pre-emp) is a dangerous one which we will likely regret and that I will continue to fight politically to change.
**
Which is why I’ve repeatedly and specifically said “in effect.”
I’ve seen absolutely no serious proposals for ending the human rights atrocities from the protest contingent, only denouncements of the action that will end them.
What other arguments for changing the status quo vis a vis human rights in Iraq have been proposed by the protestors?
Replacing the only solution with nothing is in effect arguing to preserve the status quo.
It’s true (I’m assuming) that the regime will change, and it’s also true in my mind that that event is a positive. It’s also likely that the atrocities will end, and that’s also a positive. There’s no arguing that this invasion has some positive effects.
In the process of changing the regime, we’ve shown that the United States considers the opinions of the international community irrelevant, that we’re willing to bend the truth (to put it kindly) in order to do what we want to, and that we’re incapable of understanding positions contrary to our own. We are, as jshore pointed out, sowing the seeds of international terrorism by creating widespread resentment of our country, thereby endangering the lives of American citizens both within and outside of our country. We’ve also declared ourselves the arbiters of what is and is not an acceptable government of other countries. I believe that, on the whole, the net effect of our actions is negative.
**
I don’t have a crystal ball and I don’t share your certainty. I don’t know what the future brings, and neither do you.
I do know that the immediate net effect seems to be inarguably positive, and your concerns while they may be valid are still hypothetical. It doesn’t seem to follow directly that changing the regime will bring these things to pass. Therefore I don’t it makes sense to categorically denounce it on those grounds.
It seems to me that the human rights benefits and gains should be enough to earn if not a glowing endorsement at least grudging acceptance of the action against Iraq.
I hope.
I stongly object to some of the blanket mischaracterizations that get thrown against Conservatives, Republicans SUV owners and pig fuckers (groups with which I strongly identify.)
Having been rubbed raw in this area it strikes a nerve even when not directed at me.
**
That’s just not true. We have quite a few countries on our side. In fact I think we have more in favor than against. Yes. France, China, and Russia are against our decision, but Germany seems to be coming around, and we have what? 40 countries expressing moral support in our “coalition.”
The world is divided on this. But it’s by no means us versus the world.
Even if every did disagree with us, that doesn’t necessarily make us wrong, just unpopular. I’d still think it’s a good idea to jump in the lake and save the guy even if my buddies disagreed. I’d like to think I’d do it anyway.
**
That’s a guess, or a fear. You don’t know that, and can’t say it worth certainty. When you jump in to save the guy in the lake you might catch pneumonia, but you can’t state definitively that you will. You don’t know. It’s a risk. Yes.
I don’t think anybody’s disagreeing with us in this though. I don’t think anybody’s argued anywhere that Iraq is an acceptable government. 1441 pretty much suggests that were not stating what is and isn’t acceptable. The world is in near unanimous agreement with us on the unnacceptablity issue.
What to do about an unnacceptable government is where the disagreement arises.
[
I agree with this statement, but I don’t believe that it applies in this case. My problem is with your characterization of the war as “the only solution.” Right now, it is - I agree with jshore that the best thing we can do is finish it as quickly as possible.
But going back to the UN sanctions, resolutions and weapons inspectors, I think other solutions were possible. It was the administration’s position that eliminated these possibilities, and I think that it was the wrong course of action. I think that the US, with the help of the allies that are in Iraq with us now, could have pushed the UN into further enforcement actions if we had approached the issue differently. All hindsight now, and pretty much irrelevant to what we do from here.
My point, though, is that you can’t make a valid claim of “last resort” if you did everything you could to eliminate other options without actually trying them.
And, on preview…
While I think the hypothetical future consequences of these actions are bad, they’re not the entire basis for my opposition. The concrete, past actions of the administration, especially the outright dismissal of the concerns of the international community, are the basis for my position.
I think this is the preconception (an inaccurate one) that makes your question in the OP a somewhat unfair question. Not completely unfair, but there’s an assumption inherent in it that doesn’t reflect the anti-war movement at all.
Specifically, and to the point: ther anti-war movement is not arguing for the preservation of Hussein. Not implicity, and certainly not explicitly. In fact, if we suspected that such efforts would have any effect, we would be protesting Hussein’s regime just as stridently as we are protesting the Bush Administration’s push for war. However, the facts being what they are, Hussein is a dictator, and his country anything but a democracy. Efforts of protest against his atrocities are completely wasted.
So, we choose to protest those things we have the possibility – and the mandate – to effect change upon. For Americans, that’s the Bush Administration. What good would Americans protesting against Hussein do? None at all. What good could Americans protesting the acts of an American President that they feel is misguided do? Potentially, quite a bit. So, we choose to change what we can, if we can.
Also, the idea that the anti-war movement would prefer to see Hussein’s regime in power is plainly false. We protest the war because we don’t believe that a “pre-emptive” war is the best solution for the problems in Iraq, or in the Middle East in general.
See, for us it’s not as simple as a choice between war or the preservation of a dictatorial regime. For us there is a third option, that of a more diplomatic, less aggressive end to the regime of Saddam Hussein. We would prefer that third option, and so we are against this war.
To put it simply, much of the anti-war movement is not against all war, it is against this war, simply because we do not feel it is the best way to solve the problems in Iraq. It’s not that we don’t want the problems solved, just that we feel that war is not the best way to do it.
Your initial question is unfair because it does not even acknowledge the existence of that third option. Whether you agree or disagree that this third option is viable is the subject of a different debate, but your question is poorly-phrased because it ignores the third option entirely.
I have a second problem with your OP, and its subsequent defense. You’ve said this sort of thing several times in this thread:
You’re spending a lot of time assuming a desirable end here, when that end has not yet come. What has happened is a war which has gotten increasingly violent, in which the cost of life, both military and civilian, is mounting more and more rapidly. At what point does the cost outweigh your laudable goal?
You’ve assumed that the end of this conflict will be desirable, for both the people of Iraq and for us. That remains to be seen. While you may be taking the Bush Administration at their word that they are going to rebuild Iraq fairly and justly when they’re done with it, many of us in the anti-war movement find a great many reasons to doubt this.
The Bush Administration has changed its story several times while leading up to this war. It has relied on bad information, falsified information, and information whose sources are… shall we say, questionable, to support their bid for war. They have ignored the many voice, both within America and around the world, who see good reason to avoid conflict at this time.
Whether the end will be as rosy as you paint it remains to be seen, Scylla, but I am loathe to assume that it will be until it’s already done.
So, another reason your question is unfair is that it assumes that the conclusion of this war will be a positive one. A goodly portion of the anti-war movement is against war precisely because they do not agree with this assumption.
I hope that helped you better understand where we’re coming from, and perhaps to change your preconceptions of the anti-war movement and those who follow it.
I stress that I can’t speak for the anti-war protesters, and am responding to this thread from the position of holding a relatively informed global view rather than giving vent to some visceral anti- or pro-war reaction as we see no shortage of fools doing these days.
That’s false; it is no hard matter to perceive the evident radicalization of the ‘Arab street’, and the work-in-progress on the “Muslim street” beyond the borders of the Arab world. Let’s not ignore facts and trends please. It’s possible that some events after the war may cushion the impact of the damage already done, but that is the hypothetical right now – and not one I will speculate on needlessly or twist and hammer into unsuitable dumb-down analogies.
Scylla, I hope you are making a narrow, isolated point for the benefit of career anti-war protesters here, because as a general interpretation the above is a reduction to absurd levels. The majority of people agree with the concept of bringing to an end an evil regime, but that is not the issue or the problem with this war. A few threads where the above has been discussed to my knowledge:
War with Iraq - a “just” war? – this is essentially the same question asked in this thread
Will the war unleash more Terrorism, or will it decrease it?
Tony Blair’s Speech to His Parliament – discussion bridging the start of the attack, covers a few important issues concerning this war
Lounsbury on Iraq & MENA: War, Politics, Economy & Related Questions — several pages of informed answers
The threads quoted above also happen to be threads in which I have posted. Although I am unwilling to repeat myself over and over, the links are not intended as self-reference, rather it is because I posted in those threads that I was able to recall their contents when searching for them briefly. I don’t have time to read the majority of this message board, but I am sure there is plenty of other good material to look at when asking questions that have already been addressed, mostly.
Again, I can’t speak for anti-war protesters but I must flag up the responses from errata and Enginerd: it sounds like the problem is in your perception of the situation (or in your characterization, at any rate).
Interestingly, perception is the greatest problem with the war right now. It brings me back to the strong propaganda efforts coming from Bush and morons for well over a year to generate this misadvised war.
I see on preview that there are half a dozen new posts, ah well, I was forced to take a pause in writing.
The Kurds speak for themselves and those in the north have enjoyed a fair amount of autonomy since the Gulf War.
Maybe. But that was then, and that was their decision, not ours.
As if you tried. All of this reasoning sounds great when your house isn’t being bombed.
If more Iraqi civilians die from this war than US soldiers I won’t be surprised. This war is not being fought on our soil. We have far less to lose than anyone in Iraq.It’s fine and dandy for us to make stands on freedom and democracy from our living rooms. What do we care?
I watched a tv interview an Iraqi known to oppose the Saddam regime in Baghdad. I will paraphrase as best I can remember:
Peter Jennings:“Do you feel that bombing the regime headquarters represented an attack on the Saddam regime and not the Iraqi people?”
Wamiz (sp?):“How would you feel if we bombed the White House?”
Peter:“I suppose we would view that as an attack on the whole US.”
Wamiz:“That is how we feel. We want Saddam out, but not this way. It is our problem. We must resolve it internally”
Okay, and if that was possible, groovy and I agree with you. But… it’s not very helpful to say “effect change diplomatically” if you can’t provide suggestions on how this is to be done.
That is to say, protesting because “there must be a better way” assumes that there is a better way, and it would be of inestimably more use if you might possibly suggest it, rather than merely claiming its existence. Fair?
Very interesting, then we did right in waiting for Hitler and Japan to build up their military. Hitler had sanctions against him building weapons of war in large numbers, but he did it anyway.
So waiting for them to get up to speed cost millions of lives more than stopping them early. Yes, I get your logic. I think.
I just don’t agree with it.
People STILL don’t seem to be listening to poor ol’ Maximum C.
There are arguments for and against war in Iraq. Neither side is going to win over the other by shouting insults or making ridiculous claims (Peace protesters arn’t dying for their cause so they are pussies! Warmongers are killing babies!). What must be recognized is that all the benefits and harms of war can be added up and measured, in a sort of organic way. Then the course of action that creates the most good for the most people in the long term should be chosen.
I’ve yet to see a SINGLE OP in this debate forum that actually goes about doing this, weighing BOTH sides and then making a judgment based on all of the factors. Each thread seems to be about one little aspect of the equation, or worse, about the mentality of the people on the “other side”.
-C
As a matter of principle the above is interesting and may find applications in somewhat less sweeping, involving, and unpredictable situations than the war against Iraq. As commentary or caveat on the current situation it is not very useful, since it is hardly rooted in the real world but in a place where it is possible to quantify everything and anything.
How do we calculate the most good for the most people on which side and which part of the world? By which standards? We have a polarized situation here, and it’s only getting worse (I am referring to the global outlook, not the discussions on this board).
The method you suggest above is utilitarian in nature, and hardly conclusive in all respects. Actions that are utilitarian can still be immoral, or “wrong”, or lead to short-term good for the many and long-term ill for the even more.
Scylla
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but the gist of your query seems to be summed up in the following question:
Why don’t the peace protestors support the action in Iraq if it can bring about some positive changes?
Am I correct? If so, I’d say the short answer would be that’s not the message they’re trying to get out. Many oppose the war for various reasons. But I doubt anyone would in the protest camp opposes a decent future for citizens of any country.
The problem is that your view towards the action in Iraq leads you to believe…
Those who understand the region a bit more in depthly would respond with a resounding no. In fact, one can refer to the previous regime change implemented in Iraq’s eastwardly neighbor as an example of how it did not create a favorable environment for its citizens.
Even if the previous actions intentions never were to implement democracy as the pro war camp is suggesting this action is, the idea still does not hold any historical basis in fact. I have heard the argument that it did work in Germany and Japan, but as other posters have already pointed out in the various related threads, Iraq bears no resemblence to either of those countries or cultures.
So in effect, the peace camp isn’t there to protest the war in spite of the “one possible positive thing that seems contrary to their general aims”, they’re there because they don’t give a shit about Iraqis and want their sons and daughters home and their home free from potential future attacks caused by the hordes of currently brewing pissed off Arabs. Or, they simply know the region better and realize the pro war camp can paint this butt nugget yellow and try to sell it as a canary all they want, but they ain’t buyin’ it.
**
A frequent claim, but one not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
You’re saying Saddam is immortal? You’re saying that someone HAS to be the US?
Where was your arguing for the removal of Saddam when hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were butchered because the US failed to deliver promised support for a US-incited insurrection?
Saddam would be hard pressed, short of using WMDs, to cause as many dead in as little a frame of time.
Removing the regime will not immediately improve lives. It will not eliminate human rights abuses. It will not end the ethnic cleansing. Sorry, but your claims have all been proven wrong already. Intervening in Kosovo did not stop ethnic cleansing. It merely made the perpetrators victims of the backlash.
No one does.
Thrusting even more people into misery and bringing the world on the brink of world-war scale conflagration is a worthy thing to do?
It doesn’t argue for that at all. It argues that neither the people nor the method for removing Saddam are the right ones. All this operation achieves is more dead, not less, more misery, not less. Your claim, by this point in time, amounts to ‘The Iraqi opposition does not want Saddam to be removed’, because Iraqi refugees sure as heck are against THIS war. They feel, once again, betrayed by the US. Is that a worthy thing to do, to increase the distrust in and hatred for the US?
(/delurk)
I’ll try to voice the opinion of some of the European anti-war people here (as far as I can speak for anyone else of course)
To take your example of the drowning man: let’s assume that there are designated lifeguards … in general they have done a great job saving drowning people in the past. However, due to bad organization, they have indeed failed in some drowning accidents. Let’s assume that as you prepare to dive in they call on you to wait for the speedboat/rescue chopper they’d call in…
You ignore their warnings and dive in … you heroically save the drowning person… As a result, people start thinking that having lifeguards isn’t a good idea; after all, Scylla will save all the drowning people… But Scylla is not going to dedicate his entire life to save drowning people of course, he just acted on what he believed to be the right thing to do… (and it was right).
Basically what I’m trying to say is that I was against the US acting unilaterally, not because the act of removing Sadam is wrong, but because it undermines the authority of the UN.
Now the war has started I want the coalition to win it and to do so with the least loss of lives on either side.
I’d also like for the UN to be revamped to fit the needs of current global situations.
Final point is this one:
I honestly believe that there is big majority of people that were (and are) against the war as it is being conducted. But that does not imply that they want to see dictators in charge of countries, nor that they hate the USA or your way of life. But as with all protests, it’s only a small minority that actually hit the streets. And that minority is often infiltrated by people with an hidden agenda that hurt the cause more than it does good.