I actually can see how the position stated by the columnist in question could be morally defensible.
An easy victory in Iraq might make Bush more willing to invade another country, such as Syria. Not an unwarranted assumption, although not one I share.
The lives of American soldiers are not inherently more valuable than the lives of foreign soldiers or civilians. This is, in fact, something I personally believe: people are people, no matter where they’re from or what they do for a living.
A higher death toll for American soldiers now might mean a lower death toll globally later. In other words, a bad thing now might prevent a worse thing later. Which, coincidentally enough, was one of the many pretexts offered to support going to war in the first place.
So, I think it’s possible for a decent, moral person to come to the conclusion that it would have been better if the war had been harder, if they follow that chain of logic. I don’t know if that’s the actual basis for the opinion of the columnist in question. Maybe he’s just an asshole.
Also, in case anyone disagrees with my premise here, please note that it is not my opinion. I’m just projecting motives for the opinion brought up by the OP. I supported the war for two reasons: One, nobody should have to live under a psychopath like Hussein, and anyone in a position to stop him has a moral imperative to do so. Two: the last time a president got involved in a quick, easy war in the Mid East while ignoring domestic problems, he got stomped flat in the next election. Here’s to history repeating itself.
Well, I’ll also give you credit for being able to admit this. And this emotion is not that rare, if my experience during the Clinton administration is indicative. During the middle four years of his Presidency I was attending a small, conservative college in the Midwest. How conservative? There had never been a Student Democrats chapter there until my best friend founded one in 1997. (Obviously, he was a dynamic individual. I didn’t share his politics or passion on the subject, but we respected each others’ intellect.)
He told me about, and my own experience confirmed, an amazing amount of vitriol around campus aimed at Democrats in general, and Clinton in particular. And this was mostly before the Lewinsky scandal. The high point? Hearing a student at a chapel meeting stand up and say he didn’t see how anybody could call themselves a Christian and vote for Clinton.
And after Bush was elected this has all seemed to flow the other direction. I remember about a year ago reading a column in the NY Times wherein the author said he had many friends who believed the country was doomed if Bush stayed in power. That’s right: “doomed.”
Personally, I don’t think this level of fanatacism from either side is as far from center as other posters have said it is. And that both scares and upsets me. How can so many people take such complete leave of their senses? Have we so completely lost any sense of the common good? I can understand a person being passionate about their ideals, but how can well-educated, otherwise intelligent people just chuck all sense of objectivity and just consider their own beliefs as completely identical to the nation’s best interests?
If you really think about the logical extension of such one-sided thinking, it should become obvious that it is fundamentally anti-democratic. And where will years of anti-democratic thinking leave us in the long-term?
I’m anti-war, and for me it was a situation where nothing I could hope for had results that were good overall.
Of course I didn’t want American soldiers to die. I wanted them safe at home were they were doing as little dying as possible.If they had to be there, I certainly didn’t want them to die.
Then again, how could I hope for their success? For them to overwhelm the opposition, as they did, they would have to kill a huge number of Iraqi soldiers, who were nowhere near as well armed or well trained as the Americans.
Seeing ragtag Iraqi’s committing suicide by rushing US troops wasn’t pleasant. There could be no satisfactory outcome to be ‘cheering’ for in that case.
There were times that I kind of hoped that things would go badly. Mostly I wished the war would just go away. But that wasn’t going to happen. I never want to see humans- American or Iraqi- die. But I was and still am scared for this whole world.
When we went into this war, I heard a lot of “this’ll be a piece of cake, just like Afghanistan”. And I fully expect that when we get into our next war, I’ll hear “This’ll be a piece of cake, just like Iraq.” And that scares the hell out of me. Because right now we are answerable to no one. We can take out small countries in a month! We’ve proven that we don’t need the world to agree with us. We don’t need to respect the idea of sovereignty or legal structures (like International Courts and the UN). Really there isn’t much of anything that could keep us from doing whatever the heck we want- includeing taking over the whole damn Middle East so it stops bugging us. And nobody sees anything wrong with this as long as it is “easy”.
But absolute power corrupts absolutely. Right now we have absolute power over the world. If we become corrupt, we will be corrupt on the grandest scale possible. And I know that there is nothing special that makes the United States immune from the international insanity that we saw so much of last century. Stable governments turn evil and wierd all the time. We are not an exception. There is nothing particularly compelling keeping us on the side of good.
So a good part of me hoped that we would face resistance. I don’t want us to be unstoppable. I want us to be moderated. To be a part of and answerable to the International community- because a large and diverse group is less likely to go mad than a single entity. We are stepping out of the bounds of human civilization here, and our raw power means that is without consequences. I do not want us to do this. I do not know or trust the governments we will have in our future. And for the sake of the world, I hoped that maybe we wouldn’t be able to make that step.
If you didn’t want Saddam to be overthrown, then you were wishing, willy nilly, that he continue in power, doing the things to the Iraqi people that he has been doing for the last twenty four years. In other words, this is not a wish for the wellbeing of the Iraqis, just a wish that their torture and murder would drop off the front page so we could ignore it.
There is no way rationally to express the thought “We don’t want this to continue, but we oppose the effort to stop it.”
Yes, some on the Left opposed the war, not because it was war but because it was American. They do not wish for success to the US, even if it means that dictators will go on torturing and killing. Same as happened in the Viet Nam era. Why do you think the Left in the US looked the other way when Pol Pot started the killing fields? Some of them didn’t oppose violence, just the US, and they didn’t give a rat’s ass about the people of the region, or human rights or self-determination or any of the rest of the boilerplate they chanted. They just didn’t like the US.
Not all of them, and I suppose I should be thankful that this columnist at least is willing to admit his motives, even if he has troubles carrying them to a logical conclusion. But frankly, I saw at least as much anti-American motivation among the anti-war advocates as I did racism or imperialism among the war’s supporters.
I don’t mean to attack your post in particular, but consider what this means.
Moderated by what? Saddam Hussein? Did you really want his regime to be the one that we cannot overthrow?
That is as bad as wishing for American casualties. Because it is wishing for Iraqi ones, and that they be going on forever.
Yes, some on the Left opposed the war, not because it was war but because it was American. They do not wish for success to the US, even if it means that dictators will go on torturing and killing.
I think you’re on shaky ground, there, Shodan. Better back off. The American right has a long history of supporting right-wing dictators in other countries. Not just not invading their countries and overthrowing them. SUPPORTING them. Dictators who are just as bad as Saddam in terms of torturing and killing their citizens. You try to fling this bit of mud, you will find a lot more of it sticking to you.
Shall we talk about the School of the Americas? Battista? Somoza? The list is long…
In this thread, there are some good points mingled in with the bad points. However, while I do not completely agree with the article in question, I will say that I feel it is much more moral to hope for a few more deaths today in order to prevent more deaths tomorrow. THAT is what the article is about.
And I agree with the idea that the precedent that the United States has set over the past few months is going to cost a lot of lives in the future. However, since I cannot say exactly how many lives will be lost in the future as a result of Supreme Chancellor Bush II’s actions in Iraq, I can’t say I agree with the article.