Is Middle East imperialism necessarily bad? (Sam? Coll?)

Great Debates
41

**

I was talking about using empty accusations like “cynic” and “leftist” to try and give cause for disregarding what I say. I haven’t tried to characterize you as some stereotype. I was talking about limiting this to the argument at hand, rather than random name-calling that would seem to serve personal agendas.

I hate to break it to you, but I am not a leftist. If you have been following my posts as well as you seem to have, you would have noticed that I despise socialism and support gun ownership. I also support reduction of government, although no republican politicians seem to.

If you think that generalized characterization will make you right in your opinions, then you are seriously mistaken.

And I’m not ignoring anything. I’ve painstakingly dissected everything you’ve said and have made a point of not leaving out any point you’ve made. What have I ignored?

**

Rewriting definitions? Let’s see how well I’ve rewritten the definition of “cynic.” I am going to quote verbatim the definition of “cynic” from a Webster’s college dictionary. Note that Webster’s dictionaries are probably the most respected dictionaries behind the big Oxford dictionaries. Here we go…. Ready?

cynic 2. One who believes all people are motivated by selfishness.

Did you catch that? I’ll assert my position one more time. People are inherently motivated to do the right thing. Sometimes when people get confused about what is right they resort to selfishness. Where capitalist doctrine generally uses selfishness as an economic moderator, people can succumb to selfishness out of habit also. The American political system has become such that the self-service is a requisite to success in politics. So successful politicians are almost invariably self-serving. This does not mean that people in general are. This means that a flawed system has failed in bringing true statesman to power. Just because politics attracts self-serving people does not mean that all or even most people are self-serving. In fact it seems to me that the vast majority are far more concerned with serving others than serving themselves.

If you want to continue to discredit yourself, keep throwing unfounded names at me. It means little to me.

[QOUTE]** The cold war was not between the US & USSR (although the USSR did assist the north vietnamese). it was through proxies.
[/QUOTE]
**

Who was it between then? Even involving proxies it is still between two sides. And what definition did I rewrite here? A “cold war” is one marked by economic, diplomatic and military threat that does not result in actual full-scale conflict. What dictionary are you using?

**

Your welcome for repeating it. It pleases me to know that you at least appreciate my efforts in repeating myself. It can become tiresome and it is nice to know I’m appreciated.

But it has everything to do with what you were saying? You asked this:
What would Saddam have needed to do to make the Cynics think war was just?
I answered with what would justify engaging war with Iraq. You tried to carry on with the hackneyed notion that Saddam had to be dealt with because he was a threat and I repeated that it was only valid to fight him when he actually was engaging in aggressions. If he was a threat, use good intel and planning to anticipate his moves and head them off. Invasion because of what he might do is following the line of “guilty until proven innocent.” Do you stand by that philosophy? If not, how do you suppose preemptive invasion is anything but following that philosophy? If you respond to no other comment I’ve made, please respond to that question.

**

The US did nothing to stop Saddam’s apparent atrocities up until the Kuwait invasion. The US did nothing when Iraq picked a fight with Iran. What makes you think they suddenly became all moral when the issue of Kuwait came up. Was the diplomat just plain incompetent in ascertaining Saddam’s objectives or did she give tacit sanction to the idea? If the US didn’t approve the act, they would have had to be grossly negligent in establishing the nature of the situation. Which do you think it was?

Oh, and keep throwing those names out there like a school-kid. It is entertaining. I know you are basing your charge on the assumption that my accusations are unfounded, so let’s play out this scenario and see just how unreasonable my accusations are.

**

See my explanation above and you will see that I don’t have a pessimistic view of human nature. I have a pessimistic view of a political system that cultivates corrupt leaders and special interest-serving policies.

**

So if anyone thinks a particular action or institution is having a negative effect, then they can be characterized as being a cynic? There is a difference between a scornfully negative view of something and being habitually so. If someone was scornfully negative concerning Hitler, would he be a cynic?

Keep ‘em coming. This is fun.

**

So a thesaurus is a source of definitions for a word now? This doesn’t say much for your command of the English language. You find synonyms in a thesaurus. Grab a dictionary and you will see that the definitions of synonyms carry differences, even if only nuances in meaning.

**

Alright so now I’m a detractor as well as a cynic. I haven’t seen name calling like this since school. Is it unfair to criticize the Americans for taking significantly longer to restore power than it took Saddam to do the same after the ‘91 Gulf War?

Let’s see you go without power for weeks on end and see if you don’t think it a human rights abuse. I suspect you would cry foul when you couldn’t watch TV or turn on your computer, much less have hot water or refrigeration or lighting. Stop and think about it for a moment. Your lights don’t work. You can’t preserve food in the fridge. You can’t get hot water form your shower. Your can’t cook food in your oven or on your stovetop. Sound a little primitive? Electricity is somewhat vital to modern life. Okay so the US was trying but couldn’t bring power back fast enough, huh? There seemed to be a priority in securing the Oil Ministry building. There wasn’t too much priority to securing the power stations? The US didn’t foresee that they might need Arabic speaking engineers to restore power? Remember that IQ question concerning the anticipation of fallout and how to deal with it?

**

Your cited efforts are one thing, and results are another. The US invaded. They stripped these basic needs from the people. No, I can’t be satiated after the central atrocity has been perpetrated. If someone steals something, the fact that they bring it back later does not alter the fact that they stole it in the first place—however it is exacerbated with every minute of delay in its return—especially if their priority is in serving their own vested interests first and returning what is mine at their convenience.

**

You use the killing of millions to demonstrate the nobility of your government’s actions? Yes, actions do speak louder than words.

**

Great! You’ve conceded that the US is guilty of human rights abuses. That’s a good start. So while part of the justification for war was Saddam’s human rights abuse, it is okay to commit human right’s abuse to stop someone else from possibly committing further human rights abuses? Now that requires a special brand of double-think.

**

The fact that you’ve taken the definition for a verb and assigned it to a noun is indicative of your ability to grasp the meanings of words. Again, a synonym suffices in defining a word in your book. Your evident lack of comprehension sucks the wind right out of any point you were trying to make even before I point out that contempt or ridicule is not necessarily connected with considering everyone to be motivated by selfishness. Or are you telling me that only cynics are capable of mocking?

**

The US intended to invade Iraq. Unless those orchestrating the move were imitating the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand, they knew what the invasion implied and, as such, intended for that to happen too. So one can commit an act and be responsible for that act, but not be responsible for the inevitable consequences incurred? Bush is directly responsible for those deaths, no matter how you try and sugar-coat it. The only question is the attitude with which the White House approached the situation. Which is it? The US administration were in deep denial about what they were doing, or they are just willing to kill thousands of innocents to attain their ends?

**

So you’re saying that they wanted to look good and cared deeply for the Iraqis? Note, I am not contending this, merely trying to establish what you are saying.

**

Why would the Iraqi gov. shut down their own power? I’d like to hear your theory on this. I can’t comment on the water supply. Do you have some cite that I can look at? As for the oil wells, I heard Iranian reports that they saw American aircraft bombing oil wells. They could’ve been lying through their teeth, yet so could the Pentagon. What inspires your automatic belief in the Pentagon? Their track record for integrity? Is that unfair criticism?

**

I’m glad we’re coming to terms with US bullying tactics. That is a start. If the school bully that relies on other kids’ lunch money to buy food is independent, then I guess the US is independent.

So having a position in an argument is bias? I notice you keep quoting the restoration of power isolated from the other points that I brought up along with it. You afraid to confront those other points of human rights abuse?

**

US planes dropped bombs. Any way you cut it, the US was party to that crap.

Do you even care that genocide claim was all media hype to justify economic interests? Yugoslavia was resisting inclusion in the EU. Seem pertinent?

**

You disagree because I am a cynic? You disagree because of some characterization that you have assembled about me? Does this mean that you would disagree with everything I say because of what you think I am?

If you admit when the US fails, what do you see that they have failed at, and how was it wrong, and what should be changed?

42

….continued……

**

Right…… opposing militaristic, unprovoked invasions = wanting to keep brutal dictators in power. Seems like a corruption of logic to me.

And what exactly do you base this projected increased money per capita on?

**

You don’t know? Or you just don’t want to admit that Bush obviously doesn’t give a crap about the plight of the poor Iraqis and that the drivel about liberating the Iraqi people is only for the cameras?

**

counterpunch.com? I don’t recall ever going to that site. I’ll have to check it out. Okay so the US didn’t have Security Council approval so it must have been in self defense. Self defense? If my neighbor and I don’t see eye to eye and I suspect that he may attack me or my family, am I justified in raiding his apartment and taking him prisoner in self defense?

Although I don’t know a whole load about the scene in Chechnya or Tibet, that they were invaded is deplorable and I am opposed to it. This thread isn’t about those imperialist moves. This thread is about imperialism in the Middle East. That you have compared those two acts to the recent US actions shows a tacit agreement that the US has put themselves among some pretty poor company with their invasion of Iraq. I’m glad we are nudging toward some concurrence on this.

One point of note about Chechnya is the terrorism that Russia is still suffering as a result of that imperialist invasion. And invading Iraq was about curbing or stopping terrorism? I’m reminded of two kids in a school yard. Billy pushes Jimmy. Jimmy punches Billy in the shoulder. Billy punches Billy in the shoulder really hard. Jimmy punches Billy in the stomach. Billy kicks Jimmy in the balls. Neither are innocent. Both are keeping the fight going. This “war on terror” is so similar to a school-yard conflict that it would be humorous if it weren’t so tragic.

**

All right I’m glad that you are acknowledging that American corporations are swooping in like carrion birds to feast on the remains of the nation of Iraq.

Let me ask you this: If it is tolerated that stronger nations can invade weaker ones based on questionable and dubious motives and then gain economic benefit from it, doesn’t that effectively give the green light to imperialism and fascism? Politics in America is governed by big business. If money can be made then human rights don’t matter too much?

**

Facts? Facts that don’t exist yet? Here’s a few facts: America invaded Iraq. American corporations with close ties to the government are going to make a killing out of the invasion.

You don’t think it is a little dangerous to allow invaders to move in and blow up the place and then make a bunch of money rebuilding. What would you think of a tire shop that drove around dropping nails on the road to generate extra business?

A few more facts: The Shiites constitute over 60% of Iraq’s population. There have been massive demonstrations in that part of the country opposing American occupation. Shiites have been calling for an Ayatollah to lead their nation.

I don’t see America letting the majority have their own way—not after all the money they’ve spent on the military effort. The only thing they can do now is dictate who the candidates will be for the Iraqis to vote for and then prattle on about how they instituted democracy in Iraq.

**

You know what. Maybe Iraq’s economy will be helped after some time. But was that the motive. Or was the boost to the American economy the motive? And will any improvement in the economy be only due to the lifting of sanctions that kept the Iraqi economy hobbled for so long.

**

Oh, I see. Israeli military actions and bulldozing of homes is akin to difficulty in marriage guidance counseling? I think I see where you stand now.

**

Splendid work. Your folks must be proud.

**

I sure hope not it won’t be forgotten. I wish I were as confident as you.

Do you really think the international contempt and hatred for the US just spontaneously occurs from nowhere while fictitious justifications are dreamt up to justify it?

[QUOTE]
**the quote is

To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting. [\QUOTE]**

That is the entire sentence, yes. What is behind the semicolon is what I quoted. Do have any point? Is the quote I gave not a thought worth considering in and of itself?

Or are you just stretching really hard to find faults in what I say in any way you can?

**

It is probably referring to……? C’mon. The quote says what it says. You can imagine it to apply to whatever you would like it to if you really want, but it won’t help your cause.

You mean this is the first time you’ve looked up words to make sure you know what you are saying? Son, words have meanings. They are used to convey thoughts. If you don’t stop to ensure what the words you use mean, you’re going to say stuff that conveys distorted meaning. Words can be used in useless name-calling, or they can be used to express clear and useful ideas. Keep that dictionary handy. It is your friend. Oh and I would recommend saving the thesaurus for when you are writing poetry or doing crosswords.

43

Now, now, lander, I’ve noticed Calculus in the last weeks and I must say his approach can be quite insufferable and too reliant on rather silly and obvious ad hominem arguments … but not all his objections are invalid.

For example, I too remember claims early in the war that the Iraqi side had interrupted the water supply to a certain city (or more), but to my knowledge it was never established as what really happened. After a while of searching, I found this story:

I’m not sure what happened there. I don’t rule out the possibility that Iraqi troops cut off the utilities as they were retreating, but as far as I know there’s not been a verdict on what happened. It seems likely that coalition attacks took out the utilities, perhaps by accident, but Iraqi action cannot be ruled out either.

Bombing is hardly something you can fault in a war, and it doesn’t necessarily count as a human rights offence. Despicable to bomb even one civilian or civilian building, yes, but accidents do happen. I think Calculus brought up the example of Vietnam to show how the US human rights record at war has progressed since that conflict.

Progress that, in my opinion, is largely two steps forward and one step backwards. The use of depleted uranium munitions and cluster bombs in Iraq, as well as the flat US rejection of any clean-up as far as DU is concerned, is something I consider more worrying than accidental bombings (which, regrettably, are bound to happen).

BBC: US rejects Iraq DU clean-up

BBC: Depleted uranium still haunts Balkans

Pollute the land and make it somebody else’s problem. DU was also used in Serbia – even though the dangers had already been emphasized years before. Well, it’s still better than Agent Orange, I suppose we ought to be thankful they didn’t pollute one of the most fertile areas of Europe or the cradle of civilization with that.

Now, in the previous Gulf War much was trumpeted about smart bombs and unprecedented accuracy and so forth – then after the war we find out that only a small fraction of bombs used were actually “smart”, and the rest were as dumb and dangerous to civilians as always. Let’s hope something like that doesn’t happen again. So far I don’t think there is reason to suspect a deception, but we’ll see.

Not that there haven’t been enough deceptions on this whole Iraqi matter, of course, and I’m not referring to the Iraqi side. Of particular concern was how armed forces stormed all over Iraq, defeated Iraqi defences, and secured its oil all in admirable manner – and everything else went to shit, lending little credence to the claim that this was not a war about oil. Quite apart from the looting (including of hospitals, which makes the job on the ground that much harder) and the anarchy that the US at first didn’t even consider addressing, look at how poorly, for example, aid and relief logisitics were set up, and how long it took to get them going (they’re still labouring). It seems the only truly well-planned aspects of this war were the military offensive itself and the security of the oil fields.

So there’s plenty to criticize – and if this is what imperialism looks like, I’d say it’s off to the usual bad start.

44

I had to go back to read my actual OP. You guys are SO inhumane.

So far in this thread, I’ll count as a plus that a few of the regular nemeses have found a few points of agreement.

I’m disappointed that it’s become primarily another thread specifically about the Iraq war, Bush, and the motives of the US government.

Was my OP intent unclear, or poorly expressed? Let me try again:

“Stipulating that a great many things can and do ‘go wrong’ when one nation invades another and displaces its extant government: What about the argument that such interventions are sometimes morally justified, in that the mass horrors they prevent are far worse than the mass horrors they produce?”

The Middle East is a vivid current example, but recent history offers many more “horror shows.”

Let us stipulate (and I do not say whether the stipulation is true) that US motives in Iraq, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Panama, Grenada etc etc had no reference at all to displacing governments that, in as objective a sense as humanity can occasionally muster, are violently abusive of those in their charges. (I should make very clear that I do not myself characterize the mentioned governments in that way.) But let us say that some such deplored interventions do, as a matter of fact, remove these bad actors from the scene and (in the long run) produce “better” governments. Maybe not more independent governments; maybe not more representative governments; but governments that at least avoid the most egregious and sadistic forms of mass human rights violations.

Can one then look at certain interventions HOWEVER MOTIVATED and say, “Yes, no one gets points for intention–but the longer-term ameliorative result is sufficient moral justification for it.”

(Interesting test case: Perhaps one should urge China to invade North Korea on these grounds.)

The fact that a given nation picks and chooses its interventions would then be irrelevant. The (simplified and slimmed-down for discussion) position would be: sufficiently abusive tyrany forfeits any claim to national/religious/ethnic “sovereignty.”

If one accepts the basic moral argument, then we have the separate question of who is to play world policeman. Can the UN do it? Can the EU? Thus far they have been unwilling to undertake the aggressive interventions that such policing might require. So the subsidiary question before the house is: given those facts in the real world, why oppose US interventions when they happen to be (under the given standard) properly directed (though not necessarily properly motivated–a different issue)?

(And the proponent goes on:) “I’ll wait for ‘innocent until proven guilty’ if the charged governments allow uninhibited, unannounced, and thorough inspections of evidence of possible violations; but in fact they cry ‘insult to our sovereignty’ and block such investigations. So we are obligated not to wait if we have reports that we judge credible.”

Collounsb. and Sam Stone did address these OP issues rather briefly–and then moved on to the usual point/counterpoint. May I ask for further comment?

45

I think you’re conflating “colonialism” with “intervention.” The moral problems with colonialism (I follow Sam in thinking of this as long-term control and governance) are obvious: Who are"we" to run “their” country?

Intervention is a different thing, implying in and out, make a change, then leave. Yugoslavia was an intervention, Iraq was an intervention. Iraq will become colonialism if large numbers of US forces are still on the ground in 2007 or so.

I think most people would allow “intervention,” at least sometimes. There is a point at which one can say that human rights violations, oppression, etc have gotten so bad that foreign intervention, no matter how badly done, could hardly make things worse. Thus, most people would say that stopping the Nazis was the right thing to do even if they hadn’t been a threat to other countries: no matter how bad Dresden was, it was preferable to Auschwitz.

Of course, calcualtions of national interest, etc. get involved. But I tend to doubt that any realist would say “no never get involved,” nor would they have less than a healthy respect for the Law of Unintended Consequences.

I’m avoiding the thornier problem, which is the types of situations that fall under the definition of “colonialism” that Kimstu uses which, as I understand it, simply means using military-economic power to coerce other nations without actually governing them. The problem here is vagueness:
if the US uses our power as a large wine consumer to demand freindlier trade relations with France is that “colonialism?”

46

furt is right, you are talking about intervention(ism).

You then say:

Implying that the US has done more in this field than the UN.
What utter nonsense.
Well, go on, how many humanitarian interventions has the US done?
True, Bosnia showed that sometimes just wearing a blue helmet is not enough. The peacekeeping mandate won’t hack it at times.
That was the exact reason Kossovo was handed to NATO. The US then proceeded to bomb the crap out of places miles away from where an actual intervention should have taken place. Some intervention.

47

FURT et al–

I probably AM conflating “colonialism/imperialism” with “intervention.” But isn’t a moral argument justifying the latter also (at least somewhat, and in theory) applicable to the former? For example, if the population is breeding a string of tyrants due to endless inter-ethnic or inter-religious civil wars, it would seem the moral course (if it’s moral to get involved at all) would be to stick around for long enough to have some ameliorative effect on the national culture(s).

Thus an argument against intervention might be: Don’t get involved unless you’re ready, willing, and able to run the place.

LATRO–

I don’t follow you when you attribute to me the implication that the US has done more in this “field” than the UN.

Taking the period from the founding of the UN to the present, I’m not sure the US has done jack–if the field is the sort of aggressive-you-forfeit-your-sovereignty humanitarian intervention that this thread contemplates–certainly up to the Yugo intervention. Nor has the UN successfully marshalled an army for that purpose.

If what you mean is that the UN has done a great deal of humanitarian-type work without actual military intervention, while the US has fallen short, I tend to agree.

But this thread is talking about aggressive military action to depose tyrants. I don’t see the UN being willing to do that. Do you?

48

Oh, OK, misunderstood your meaning then.

One problem though, when has a regime past into the realm of tyranny? You would need a damn good definition of under what circumstances intervention is warranted.

Plus another problem with deposing tyrants. I don’t see the USA willing to do that. Do you?

49

Oh, again.

One more question.
Who will guard the guards?

50

With regard to the OP and its subsequent re-emphasis, my assessment seems to be that you are asking whether the end justifies the means and to wit, who has that right ie who shall be the world’s policeman?

Is the professed reason for military intervention have to be unequivocal and undeniable? If the threat of WoMD was contribed, does it erase the discovered and undeniable brutality of the regime? Is the threat of “possible” abuse of colonial power enuf to exlude even its benevolent use?

Unfortunately, none of these questions can be answered purely by itself because there are so many circumstances and issues deeply interwoven into the situation.

But i did just watch the documentary about what really happened in in Somalia in BlackHawk Down. What struck me was the same circumstance that is happenening in Iraq. First they are overjoyed of their “liberation” then when things dont happen as they expect, they become disgruntled, then they are influenced by the same people who have caused their misery previous to their liberation and finally the offer abject and total opposition.

Ironically their fate is that they achieved their soveriegnty, fullfilled their nationalist identity, and are rid of all foreign intervention and are back to where they were before if not worse. They are poor, have no government other than warring clans of warlords and have famine and death and no solution in the immediate future. I am also wondering if nationalism is worth that.

51

Scott, as mentioned above it looks like your OP and follow-up are an excessive elaboration of the simple question “does the end justify the means”?

A very similar question (and similarly dressed up) was asked by Scylla a while ago:
A question for protestors and others against the war

That thread was about the Iraq situation in particular and the justification of objectionable means based on hypothetical moral ends. I suspect that in spite of your protests to keep Iraq out of it, it is the Iraq debacle that prompted you to post the OP.

With a question such as the above, you could go on indefinitely. However, here is a snippet that I wrote over in the linked thread when the OP was distilled into “does the end justify the means?”

You may perhaps find it annoying or distateful, but Iraq is as good an example as any, and I urge you to read Scylla’s thread.

The problem is that it’s difficult to quantify value of any sort without parameters in place. For example, how do you balance economic, political, or environmental damage against, let’s say, removing XXXXX lives from immediate danger and/or duress?

Remember, those XXXXX souls would not necessarily be forfeit without intervention–they could be, but we can’t always tell without recourse to hindsght. How do you properly calculate the worth of XXXX people in danger and integrate it in the bigger picture?

And how do you weigh that worth against the intervention being carried out? What kind of intervention we’re talking about is every bit as important – see the example of bombing Serbia (including civilian infrastructure) to save ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. Was this humane intervention at the behest of a terrorist and criminal outfit worth the almost complete reverse ethnic cleansing that took place (Serbs being chased out of Kosovo)? And under what terms – moral, economic, political, etc.?

And what if an intervention results in solely moral benefits? Is it at all likely to occurr, given that there is no solid incentive for a state to intervene in the first place, investing its energy and time for purely moral purposes?

Of course I am not arguing against intervention as a rule. But it’s all too easy to assume that the end justifies the means, especially, as all too often happens, when we don’t sufficiently scrutinize the means involved (and the ends too, actually).

52

I really like this OP because it nullifies a lot of the partisan crap that gets thrown around here. Fuck right or wrong and “ends don’t justify the means” because even if Saddam set off a nuke in downtown Chicago some people on this board would shout “Collonialism! Imperialism!” just because George W Bush will be listed with an R after his name.

What should be discussed are examples of the United States taking control of smaller countries and the long-term effects of it all. Germany, Japan, and South Korea were invaded and their governments set up by the the United States. They’re nice places to live. The Phillipines, Cuba, and Haiti… bleah yuck I wouldn’t want to live there. The big differences in how they turn out seems to be whether the US can keep its interest in the country when things get rough.

I think the ME would be successfully colonized due to the oil wealth. If a group tried to destabilize things, “justified” or not, the US would still have the political will to see it through.

-k

53

**

True. I must concede that I got a little carried away with dissecting inane comments and lost sight of any useful point.

**

I don’t remember refuting the water-supply issue. I thought I said that I actually couldn’t comment on that one. But perhaps that particular point just blended into the rest of my relentless denunciation of the rest of Calculus’ argument.

**

In itself a fair comment, but for mine, starting a war that leads inevitably to the use of bombs is a human rights abuse.

**

Again, I would argue that to start a war and then say, “Opps! Some civilians got torn up. Didn’t anticipate that one. Sorry ‘bout that. Accident,” just doesn’t cut it. If a man gets drunk and gets in a car and drives home, but on the way he runs a stop sign and kills four people, is it okay to write that one off as an accident? Probably not, eh. It is an issue of responsibility and knowing what results will spawn from your actions. One could even argue that shooting and killing a man is an accident if you say, “I only meant to wound him. It was an accident that the bullet ruptured a main artery, causing him to bleed to death.” If one shoots a man, one knows there is a good chance that it will kill him. One must be held accountable for the inevitable and likely results of one’s actions.

As for the improved human rights record, forgive me if I abstain from applause. When that record has improved to the point of being able to resolve international differences without resorting to war, then I will impressed.

54

Scott:

Getting back to the OP, you do bring up an important point in arguing that if the end result is good, doesn’t that justify imperialism or colonialism.

It could be argued that such isms have resulted in better conditions and improved circumstances in certain parts of the world. But it has also resulted in some poor ones as well. And it can’t be forgotten that it almost invariably invokes human suffering and loss of life to initiate. It would be foolish to reach a conclusion that all imperialist actions will lead to good outcomes and equally foolish to say the opposite. One can only judge based on the merit of any given situation.

With regard to specific situations, hindsight is 20/20. Foresight is a little cloudier. Therefore one ought to look towards the motives of the imperialist because motives usually steer the course of events that lead to the outcome. If one believes the official line on Iraq then one would likely be okay with the recent invasion. If one thinks that the purported motives are merely PR smokescreen to cover real motives, then you might be a little more reluctant. If you, like me, can’t manage to swallow the empty, glib remarks being made by the administration, you might become suspicious of what the actual motivation is.

If the motives are questionable, then the means will likely be perverted, and the result will reflect something very different to the rhetoric being delivered by Bush & Co. It seems to me to be exploitation under the guise of help. Will that mean that the end result will be worse conditions? Yes. Exploitation brings a whole gamut of repercussions that often aren’t seen for a generation or so and terrorism is one of those repercussions. If more help than exploitation occurs then to that degree, the outcome will be positive. I just wouldn’t bet the house on that help factor outweighing the exploitation, not to mention the raw human suffering that has been enacted so as to “help” the Iraqis.

I would think that imperialism is induced out of greed or necessity. Greed in expanding economic territory. Or necessity in saving a foundering economy. It is never about helping the invaded. If improved circumstances in other parts of the world are what you want, then other solutions than war can be found. A foundering economy should always be fixed at home. And greed is just that; never noble, never productive, only apparently self serving. If productive measures can ride into Iraq on the back of imperialism, then great, but it would be doing that, riding its back. That help would not be from the imperialism itself.

55

Good and thoughtful comments, much appreciated.

I do have a concern with the arguments that emphasize caution in military intervention. Obviously it’s both foolish and morally opprobrious to jump in with bombs and bullets on what amounts to a whim. One must investigate; one must get one’s facts straight. In effect, one must be prepared to make a case for intervention that is both honest and plausible (not the same thing, alas!).

Consistent with the concerns of this thread, the intervention must be justified, not in terms of governmental untidiness or incompetence or ‘unrepresentativeness’, but rather by sheer human awfulness. There’s a big and important difference between arresting street demonstrators, forbidding opposition parties, and nationalizing businesses; and gassing ‘suspect’ minorities, rounding up and executing whole classes of people, using torture as the preferred mode of interrogation, financing terrorist activities, and suchlike.

Deification of the Fearless Leader, violently suppressing private religious pactices, forbidding the acquisition and reading of certain “evil” books, enforcing the public abuse and denigration of certain subpopulations (eg, women, homosexuals, persons of “undesired” ancestry or color, etc), accepting mass starvation rather than acquiescing to foreign demands-- these occupy the inevitable twilight zone. The (documented, where documentation is a reasonable expectation) presence of just one or two of these factors seems insufficient cause to loose the dogs of war; but it seems to me that a lot of little bads of this type make a big one.

Er, to get around to my point… The sorts of things that, to my way of thinking, would justify humanitarian intervention (or even quasi-colonization) are things where the evil and abuse are happening today and tomorrow, not a month from next Tuesday. Torture, starvation, and the full complement of jackbootery seems to me a matter of utmost urgency. Patiently getting the consent of the rest of the world seems like–a great idea! But sadly, diplomacy of all stripes seems far more enthused about not upsetting applecarts than undertaking quick actions EVEN WHEN quick action is objectively justified. That’s my point.

I don’t at all object to using Iraq as an example. But (as some have noted) we’ve had a lot of discussion specific to Iraq already; I hope we’ll bring it up primarily in connection with the larger moral and philosophical question.

And–I don’t agree that this is all nothing but “Does the end justify the means?” Very few people are so foolish as to think either that the end always justifies the means, or that no end ever does. It’s a question of establishing rules of thumb for: which ends and what means. I probably should have made that aspect clearer in my OP.

Then there are the many inter-related issues involving the impact of war on innocent civilians. I wonder, somewhat inconclusively, about two relevant premisses here. (1) Are the civilians who demonstrate in the streets against the “invader,” who are supposedly ready and able to “defend the motherland” in the name of God and their tyrant, to be regarded as utterly innocent? Sometimes, yes; other times, there is at least some small degree of moral culpability in their embrace of moral horror over a period of years or decades. Aren’t we past the point where silence is to be regarded as completely exculpatory? We are obligated to do our level best to spare civilians; I’m not so sure the likely risk to civilians should be used to trump justifiable interventions. (2) And it seems to me too often forgotten that just because someone is wearing the uniform of the enemy, that person is not “un-innocent.” People get drafted; people’s families are effectively held hostage; people don’t always have enough information to morally judge their own governments. A soldier’s personal adherence to a given war varies all over the place. “Spare innocent civilians” should not be taken to imply that anything goes in fighting uniformed soldiers.

56

Absolutely. Diplomats are committed to stability above all else, even when upheaval serves their own nations better.
http://denbeste.nu/external/Peters02.html
**
[/QUOTE]

My own rule of thumb for intervention has to do with the question of “how much worse can it get?”

Thus, while. say, Hugo Chavez is, IMO, a bad actor, Venezuela is at least feeding its people, and the current situation is preferable to anarchy in the streets. So long as intervention has even a chance of leading to anarchy, I wouldn’t do it. In Iraq, IMO Saddam was so bad, so oppressive, that virtually anything would have been better. Even if the US fails utterly in reconstruction, the odds are the next dictator won’t be as bad.

Of course, in this we’re isolating the human-rights part of the equation, which is never more than a part. I’d have no problem, as a HR issue, with either an invasion of North Korea or just an assassination and replacement of Kim Jong Il with someone civilized. But in reality, the probability of nuclear weapons, 10,000 artillery tubes aimed at Seoul, and the proximity to China all mean that for now we must cross off military intervention as an option.

57

I don’t think significant military action can happen without a bombing… are you ruling out all interventions as wrong?

Hypothetical Island lies in the South Pacific with no neighbors, allies, enemies, or exploitable resources. The ruler is a genocidal psychopath who is in the process of killing off half of the population. Thousands have died, thousands more will. The populace has no defense against him, but he could easily be defeated by any developed nation. Civilian casualties would be minimal, but real. However, for whatever reason, Security Council member nation X vetoes all resolutions to send in a UN force. Would any nation or group of nations have the right to go in anyway, stop the slaughter, and stick around long enough to help a better government get set up?

If you say “No, they can’t,” you essentially say that national sovereignty always overrules human rights. That’s an extreme, but certainly consistient, position held by many poltical theorists in the past and some today.

But I think what the OP is getting at is that IF you say no, then we’ve agreed that, at least in theory, there is a time and a place for interventionism. And that leads to the (still theoretical) question of where we draw the line.

58

Scott and furt:

You both brought up the issue of intervention. When speaking of intervention, are you speaking of intervening in an international conflict, or a civil situation?

If a US ally came under attack from a nation that initiated aggressions, I would see the US as completely justified in stepping in with overwhelming force. That intervention as seen in WWII is valid and most certainly called for. It’s an issue of standing by one’s allies and the security in forming allies is important to preserve.

However, I would regard almost any national issue invalid terms for invasion. The only exception would be where some action incidentally posed a clear and present danger to a neighbor. I don’t believe threats by one nation against a neighbor are valid justification for intervention. Warfare in modern times is an horrific thing and should be left as an absolute last resort. Only if aggressive action is first made by another country against its neighbor/s should military retaliation be invoked.

In the hypothetical case of the South Pacific island state, if atrocities were being committed, then evacuations should be carried out; not an invasion. Circle the island with navy vessels, keep them in international waters and advertise the availability of asylum to the inhabitants. Defend the asylum seekers trying to reach the navy vessels and warn the dictator that any move against the navy vessels will constitute an act of war and incur a full force retaliation. If the regime is that bad, you will earn a bunch of refugees that you can bring back to America and add further to the economic strength of the US while the island dictator has the life sucked out of his regime as his citizens flee. The island dictator would have few options: 1. Knock off the psychotic behavior and earn the loyalty of his people. 2. Watch as his citizens flee, leaving him with only an army to rule. 3. Attack the navy vessels aiding evacuation and effectively commit suicide. This is how a dictator should be dealt with in the case of simply trying to help the people suffering under his regime.

To repeat, war is the ultimate purveyor of human suffering. To invoke it to prevent human suffering is plain folly. My point is that imperialists and colonialists invoke war to meet their own ends. The objective of an improved nation under tyrannical rule can always be achieved without war if creativity and intelligence is applied to the situation.

I think one of the most damaging misconceptions that the present US administration is promoting is that war is required to remove brutal dictators and that invasion is the only option available when facing a nut like Saddam. It is a corruption of sound reasoning and to the degree that it is accepted determines the degree to which humanity suffers from it.

59

I think we’re looking at something more in the lines of strictly humanitarian interventions. Things like defending an ally sort of go without saying.

Well, that is the consistient position I described above: absolute respect for national soverignty. It’s been for many the cornerstone of Western Foreign Relations since the Treaty of Westphalia. But I think it’s starting to be rethought, in large part because modern warfare is in fact comparatively less horrific. If you look at something like The American Civil War or WWI or Stalingrad or even Vietnam, you realize how different things are.

I’ll operate under the assumption that you are willing to commit a large portion of your naval force to this blockade for a period of years. No nation in the world can actually afford to do this, but leave that aside. Keeping in mind that 10-12 miles is the standard boundary for international waters, your ships set up at that distance.

The dictator forbids leaving the island; anyone caught walking on the beach or owning a boat is shot. Nevertheless, desperate people start building rafts and paddling out to sea. Our dictator has no real navy, but he certainly is capable of mounting a machine gun onto a Boston Whaler, and does so. The patrol boats circle the island and start mowing down the people on rafts. Men, women and children, some of whom who had managed to get within a few hundred yards of that magic internationally-defined 10 mile limit. Your modern navy gets to sit and watch. What now? Any change?

Obviously I’m being melodramatic; I’m trying to make sure you are as absolutist as you say. But bear in mind that events like this have happened; see Srebinica and Rwanda for two recent instances.

No, I can think of worse fates for a nation or a people than war, just as I can think of worse fates for an individual than death. You’re a slave in 1861. I assume you’d rather Abe Lincoln decide not to fight, as a war would definitely be worse for you than slavery?

Agreed, but this has nothing much to do with the question Scott is asking.

That sounds great: “there’s always another way!” Except that sometimes there isn’t, and believing that there must be, if we all just look hard enough, amounts to an article of faith.

You need to listen more carefully. There is a huge, huge, HUGE difference between saying that “war is required” and “war may be required,” or between saying that “invasion is the only option available when facing a nut” and “invasion is an option available when facing a nut.”

If they thought as you claim they do, they’d have support only from the idiot fringe. Bush has done nothing, and likely will do nothing, militarily against Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong Il, Castro, or the leaderhip of Iran or Burma: all of them brutral, repressive thugs. The reasons are that 1) There are always other factors involved, and 2) fundamentally, Bush agrees with you (or you with him, take your pick). He ran in 2000 on a very explicit platform of non-intervention, and in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the clearly and publicly-stated goals of the admin were primarily national security, not humanitarian; freeing oppressed people was, for them, a bonus.

60

NOW we’re getting what I was hoping for: development of those rules of thumb I mentioned.

One thing about the “anything but war” approach: some of those creative alternatives to war are pretty hypothetical. In democracies, or quasi-democracies, or even those who aspire to the illusion of democracy–there can be real problems with “solutions” that demand multi-decade, or even multi-generational, patience; not to mention budget expenditures, reservation of a percentage of the armed forces for long periods of time, etc. It’s too easy for the political opponents of a given administration to seek out the “weak spot” and exploit it, maiing the patient solution political poison, and thus effectively unsustainable. (Note the fate of Woodrow Wilson and American involvement in the League of Nations.) Yes, if it’s very clearly us-versus-them, you might be able to sustain a cold war for a generation or so, with multipartisan support. But we’re talking about cases where our own national interests may not be explicitly involved: deposing bloody tyrannies for its own moral sake. To be blunt, not many people are willing to see their taxes raised in pursuit of such a purpose. (Can I blame them for that attitude? YUP!)

And some of those non-martial alternatives are pretty awful in and of themselves; and unlike war, they go on and on and on. I’m thinking of the Iraq sanctions. (And also, our refusal to aid the rebellions in Iraq that followed the Gulf War–a betrayal that forever shames my country, and George H. W. Bush.)

Speaking as an American not too familiar with all the ins and outs of British politics, I do greatly admire Tony Blair for giving at least the appearance of taking the moral argument seriously; as opposed to “it’s WMD; it’s better for Israel; it’s Sept. 11th; it’s part of the war on terrorism; it’s finishing the job; it’s not looking like we gave in to pressure; OK, whatever, we’re goin’ in.”

I didn’t originally think the following was relevant, but maybe it is. Despite being very pro-war in the sense of wanting it to be a usable option in service to the sort of moral interventions I’ve talked about, I’m closer to the anti-war side in most other cases. Yes, it may be necessary to make war when there is a direct threat to our nation (including the threat of governmentally organized and supported terrorism–an act of war). I’m less disposed toward unilaterally defending our allies (ie, whoever happens to be important to the current administration): the issue in such cases ought to be ILLEGITIMATE acts of cross-border aggression by other nations, and every effort should be made to make the response a “legal” multi-lateral one.

War ought not be justified in terms of vague “national interests” (getting/retaining control of some nation’s resources; making chessboard moves to block or roll-back some relatively inofensive nation’s regional dominance; preventing expropriation of business assets; etc). Here, alternatives to war ought to be thoroughly explored. And here is where I get to exercize my inner Chomsky.