"I do know that people are dying."

So says a Jordanian woman interviewed on CNN when asked whether Jordanians understand what the War in Iraq is all about. “I wish I knew what it is about,” she says. “I do know that people are dying.” Her comment is followed by the obligatory furrowed brow and sympathetic nod from her interviewer.

I’ve seen and heard plenty of arguments against the war. The argument I make is the standard libertarian principle that the American government has no business interfering in the affairs of Iraq. Some say that the motivations of the US are suspect, that Americans are after oil or territory. Some say that war will increase instability in the Middle East. Others say the the US aggression has circumvented UN protocol. And so on.

But of all the arguments I have heard, far and away the weakest in my opinion is the one offered by the Jordanian woman and shared by many others: the war is wrong because innocent Iraqis are dying.

Don’t misunderstand me. It is certainly a moral and ethical aberration to kill innocent people. That activity is wrong per se and in vacuo. It is wrong with or without war. But invoking that principle to condemn the War in Iraq is frankly bizarre.

Suppose we take for granted the number given by Iraq’s (former) Information Minister, Muhammad Sa’id al-Sahhaf — the same man who told us that Hollywood was wagging the dog with studio footage of American marines taking the Baghdad airport — of a couple of thousand civilians killed expressly by coalition bombs. Even with that number killed in three weeks, and given numbers provided by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, it would take coalition forces many, many years at the same rate to kill as many innocent civilians as Saddam himself has already killed.

Torture, rape, murder, disfigurement, dismemberment, ghoulish Mengelean experiments on animals and people, imprisoned children, families held hostage, and in general a ubiquitous and complete disregard for human rights and dignity have permeated Iraqi society for decades. Saddam’s Gestapo, the Fedayeen, even used women and children as shields as it fired on coalition troops. It stored its munitions and weapons in schools, hospitals, and mosques. It has been a regime whose disregard for human life is legendary.

To argue that the war is bad because innocent people are dying is utterly Neanderthal. Innocent people have undergone a kind of oppression in Iraq that the Jordanian woman either cannot conceive, is ignorant of, or else condones. Perhaps if she had her tongue cut out for what she said, or if her daughter was raped in front of her, or if her toddler son were put in prison for failing to call Saddam “Uncle Saddam”, or if her husband were sexually mutilated and hoisted on a pole for everyone to see — perhaps then she would see what is obvious: people have been dying anyway. By the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions. All at the hands of a man who would have killed her and fed her to dogs just to entertain his sons.

People are dying? Yes. And they have been dying for more than twenty years. But if the war is successful, the deaths will cease. At least, they will decrease significantly. There won’t be ten thousand Kurdish villagers dying slowly in the streets from nerve gas. There won’t be Gestapo police pushing people through shredders feet-first while goons laugh at their screams. There won’t be one-in-five children dying from starvation while a dictator builds a hundred palaces.

There are plenty of reasons why this war is morally wrong. But if all you know is that people are dying, then you don’t know much of anything at all.

Well, I can see you absorbed a great deal in the past two weeks.

Abstracting away from the rant, I believe I have fairly clearly outlined in my thread the hows and whys locals here do not trust that the war aims at what the US claims it aims at.

The |if you note in your rant continues to presumption I thought I had disabused you of that the Arabs are seeing things in the manner you are.

Her statement rather collapses down to general Arab cynicsm about the motives for the war and its results, given as I have noted elsewhere, the sudden tender regard for Arab/Iraqi lives under Sadaam – good amigo of the 1980s, fine anti-communist of the 1960s – or others rings hollow in the region.

Or as someone here put it to me, ‘This democracy is something you punish your enemies with, and for your friends you keep dictators.’ I doubt it was original to him, but gets the sentiment right.

Clear enough this time?

Ah. Your thread. Yes, I remember it.

It was the thread you said you would not stray from. It was the thread where you admitted that you hadn’t even seen the live footage of Saddam’s Gestapo terrorists clutching little girls to absorb bullets. It was the thread that should have ended all debate about the war because, well, because you had spoken.

But now you’re here. In this thread. This thread is arguing that a “people are dying” argument is weak. Perhaps you’d care to descend long enough to address it. Or perhaps you’d like to continue your attempt to derail it by calling it a “rant” or calling me an “old man” as you did in Your Thread ™. Or perhaps you would like to continue pretending that you are my teacher and I am your student with your “clear enough this time?” cartoonish condescension.

Whatever you decide to do, I’m sure it will entertain much and edify little. This isn’t the place for you to teach me, oh massuh. Debate the point. Or get out.

So the argument is (I think … ), this US victory is worth the price the Iraqi people are paying ?

I guess it depends on who you speak to but, as a general broad brush premise, it doesn’t sound unreasonable to me.

The argument is:

I think the argument is that less people are dying in this war than would otherwise have died in Saddam’s continuing regime, which is doubtless correct, so the fact that people are dying is not sufficient proof that the war is wrong.

I suppose first of all some people, including myself, believe that the war could have an overall good outcome, but still not have been the appropriate or correct thing to do. For example, the vigilante mob which lynches a serial killer in the street. A happy outcome for all of us, but not necessarily a commendable action on the part of the mob.

Secondly if one opposes the war for reasons other than mere loss of life, one feels that any loss of life is made more grievous by the fact that it was the inevitable outcome of an already unjust action. So if the coalition forces had somehow managed to ensure that not a single civilian were killed or injured, many of us who opposed this war would probably have agreed that it hadn’t been such a bad thing after all. (At least I would have.)

Thirdly, one of my reasons for opposing this war was my fear that it would lead to an increase in anti-American sentiment. I fear that the greater the civilian casualties, the more pictures of burned and maimed Iraqi children, the more anger and hatred that will inspire in certain factions among whom America is already unpopular to say the least.

So in some sense the fact that “people are dying” does increase my opposition to the war… or at least does nothing to weaken it. But I suppose that for some, including your Jordanian woman, it is a rather simplistic form of reasoning.

Well Lib my man, there is a lot of footage to be seen on a lot of different channels, so I really don’t see what the fuck you’re getting at, other than swinging around emotionally charged words.

I would also say that your characterization of the thread is a bit off, but well, what can I say?

Yes, I am. That is true. And?

Well it strikes me as more of a rant than anything else as I hardly see the interview of one random Jordanian woman as something to debate.

Understanding what is behind that view, a comment that really contains something more than here single expression, well that might be informative. All I see is you using charged words to attack a woman’s less-than-felicitious turn of phrase expressing her emotional position. On her expression, what can I say? I understand where she is coming from.

By the way, Lib, old man (I have no idea what your age is) is one of my random britishism - I never thought of it as an insult so why not chill a bit.

I did Lib my dear fellow, I did. If you simply want to rant on about the woman and the ‘weakness’ of her emotions, super, have at it.

Lib, do you have a link to figures outlining the number of deaths attributed to SH over the past number of years? How many of the deaths (due to starvation or lack of medical aid) can be attribitued to UN sanctions? This is not an argument, just looking of a source with accurate figures. I’ve never seen them published.

I think your argument is rational inside a certain mindset. It seems familiar to the standard morality play scenarios played out in philosophical circles.
How many deaths do you consider acceptable to prevent greater numbers of deaths at a later date?

But it also seems that the argument about innocent Iraqis dying has a place in the Anti-war camp when you consider the possible alternative options to war prior to beginning the conflict.

There were other viable options available initially and these other avenues could have led to the cessation of SH’s crimes yet not inflicted the casualties of war we are now seeing.
Just a thought.

Well, we had a little of this in the Pit yesterday. It would seem some people are confused by the options and visual images accompanying those options – these represent highly charged emotions fed by highly emotive imagery. For example, on the one hand we have images of a kid without arms (having suffered at the hands of the US) yet, the next minute, there are people celebrating freedom in the streets. This seems to be a dilemma for, primarily, those on the Liberal Left who like to assume the one-dimensional moral high ground at all times – I know because I’m usually first up the hill.

IMHO, the true morality of this war can only be discerned by understanding the realpolitik underlying events. Once that is grasped (reasonably well), the ‘greater good’ argument can take precedence and the high ground is once more assumed, albeit this time via a pleasant multi-dimensional scenic route. This pleases the Leftie in me no end.

It’s not as conveniently simplistic – in the way that trying to understand Bush is more work than some on the Left seem willing to do – but it leads to a more comfortable and panoramic view.

I’m not sure such a vista is available to the manipulated and less well educated masses on all sides.

Yes, Saddam Hussein killing people was bad.

The invasion has (hopefully) stopped Saddam Hussein killing people.

The invasion, on it’s way to the (assumed) greater good has killed yet more people.

But your whole argument falls apart because of the implicit assumption that the only way to save a lot of innocent Iraqi people was to kill some of those same innocent Iraqi people.

I would like to suggest that the Jordanian woman in question has been quoted out of context. She just said that she had no idea why there was a war, that she just knew that people were dying. In the same way that I could say that I have no idea what baseball is all about, I just know that people hit a ball with a bat. It would be a weak argument if it was an argument, but it isn’t. It’s just a statement made to illustrate ignorance on the topic.

And as for the fundamental sentiment of being unhappy that people are being killed, well, I’d be worried by anyone who didn’t feel that way. When you drill right down, this is what the argument about the war is all about: we’re going to kill people, so it had better be for a bloody good, cast iron reason.

For the sake of completeness, I personally think that the reasons may be cast iron, but befinitely not good. However I have also come to the conclusion that it all depends on what people assume to be a good or a bad thing.

Logically, this is true; no other force, inside or outisde Iraq, has enough force to break Saddam’s power withut far more bloodshed. While the Iraqi army was not well trained, led, or supplied by American standards, it was very large by thrid-world standards.

Plus, the Baathist party has a reputation of extreme brutality in response to civil insurrection. So, on the balance, it would have taken years, and almost certainly decades, to eliminate Saddam’s regime by any other means, and would have resulted in far more casualties.

In agreement with Zorro, I would suggest that the woman in question is not setting forth an “argument” as such, merely giving her reaction (simplistic as it might be) as is wont to happen when a university-educated journalist shoves a mic near a “person in the street”. My gran might give a similar answer when questioned about any other war, famine or indeed policy of capital punishment.

As others have said, what this highlights is that if one’s own actions are causing people to die one must be damned confident that what one is doing is the single, sole means of preventing deaths in the long run.

My own view is that there are myriad countries in the world where intervention was more justified, although of course I am thankful that the current action has proceeded almost as well as anyone could expect to date. The true test regarding whether it makes the world a better place begins as of now.

In agreement with Lib, I also feel some frustration at the refusal by some to condemn obvious atrocity. However, it has always been known that there are such people in the world. The real challenge is, by infinite patience and application, to bring them to some kind of reasonable consensus whereby a mutual respect exists in place of hatred and mistrust.

The name ‘Saddam Hussein’ is synonymous with the brutal, grotesque and ignominious slaughter of innocents. The only way to save a lot of innocent Iraqi people would be to engineer a regime change. The heinous actions Saddam has taken over the years (his brutal response to the uprisings immediately following Gulf War I being only one example) make it patently clear to all and sundry that the only way to get him off the throne is to bomb him off.

If you do have a workable alternative to saving the Iraqi people which doesn’t involve war, I’d be interested in hearing it and debating its merits.

You merely repeat Libertarian’s assumption.

Here, you offer a feeble alternative - civil insurrection.

Just because other ways could have been worse doesn’t mean that the method employed was the best.

An assertion that fails to prove its own inevitability. Not the least, however, it would have taken Saddam years to create the same degree of death and misery now created within a few weeks. We don’t just speak about the people who have already died. We speak about the people still dying in hospitals that are overfilled and understocked with doctors from all over the world who have barely slept in days. We speak of people who have no homes and no job anymore, because their homes and their means to make a living have been destroyed.

Sorry, but war isn’t a TV show, and it isn’t as clean cut as you put it.

a)That’s false unless you claim that Saddam is immortal

b)you neglect to mention that the one government responsible for the brutal response to the uprising is based in Washington, D.C.

I too would like to hear exactly how Desmostylus or Aro or others think the regime could have been ended without war.
Previous uprisings have quickly ended in mass slaughter.SH himself despises & ignores all threats.
Also please tell us how many will die if your daring plan goes wrong.
It is not always wrong to kill. Life isnt that simple. Absolutism is just lazy thinking.
Also what is an “innocent” Iraqi? Does conscripting someone make him a morally legit target? IMO all deaths matter, soldiers too. Journalists who ask questions like " how do you feel now your baby has been blown to bits" dont really add much to the debate, just to their paychecks.
Why debate the real issue when there is a bigger audience for emotional thrills?

I agree with Libertarian. There are many excellent reasons for condemning this incredibly stupid war, and this just isn’t one of them. It isn’t even a spectacularly compelling argument against war per se. (There are circumstances under which I’d argue that it is morally right to take action that will kill some innocent people in order to rescue more people from tyranny and coercion).

As a matter of fact, very few of the things that are really wrong about this war even pertain to its effect on Iraq at all. The Iraquis may even be the sole beneficiaries in the long run, although that remains to be seen.

Libertarian, the OP, has apparently chickened out of this thread. diffdam, if you want to start a different argument in another thread, go ahead.