So does it matter to the Antiwar folks if Iraqi citizens thank us?

Great Debates
41

Dare I ask if the following scenario is possible:

  1. Impoverised Iraqis in southern Iraq are hunkering down for a war. They don’t care who’s in charge, they just want to be left alone.

  2. Pre-war Iraqi propaganda machine tells everyone about planned American atrocities, including the legendary “shock and awe” campaign and the MOAB.

  3. War starts. American forces roll into town on big scary fighting machines.

  4. Impoverised Iraqi citizens promptly begin (figuratively) kissing American butt to avoid (real or imagined) atrocities, bombings, and what-have-you.

  5. George W. Bush claims credit.

Well?

42

Nanu

and as soon as the US and Britain gets rid of Saddam, the new govt of Iraq can file just such an application if it wants to. That is perfectly acceptable.

43

Well at least it’s finally clear that opposition to the war has nothing to do with “justice,” despite the empty slogans so often chanted at anti-war demonstrations.

I also find the moral timidity of the modern-day left both amusing and sad. They are now parroting the very arguments that were once used by the right to justify tolerating oppressive regimes. Once upon a time, the left had an internationalist vision. Everyone, everywhere, had a right to “peace and justice” and it was every person’s duty to struggle in that cause.

Now, just when that goal seems to be in reach, it’s being abandoned. Rather than vacuous moral posturing (“Not in my name!”), the left ought to be beside itself with glee at the prospect of “invading” Iraq in the vanguard of a thousand NGOs on a mission to bring “peace and justice” to a people who have seen little of either for twenty years or more.

There are many reasons for a war in Iraq. Some are strategic, some humanitarian. No doubt, some are even nefarious. But, in the good old days, the left would have welcomed an American action designed to eliminate a bloody, brutal dictator who has more regard for used Kleenex than he does for his own people. The smart thing to do is make that action your own and attempt to steer its aftermath.

even sven, do you think the action in Kosovo and Serbia was a “wrong?” Somalia? Do you think the U.S. would have done a good thing had it intervened in Rwanda? All of these would be “wrong” under your criteria.

When we in the West are so comfortable, it is difficult to extend ourselves to take a serious interest in the problems of others. It is hard to imagine what a brutal, nasty place the rest of the world can be. Still, I have nothing but contempt for intellectually and morally lazy anti-war demonstrators who bleat mindless rhetoric from the top of a very tall hobby horse rather than really engage the issues.

Your simplistic analysis is just that: simplistic. The moral and practical issues are much, much more complicated than that. I do not say that, on balance, this war should necessarily have been fought. Now that it is being fought, I recognize that some good will come out of it. Anti-war protesters that actually care – rather than those who just enjoy a good rave-up – should now put their energies into winning the peace rather than stopping the war.

44

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov disagrees:

My opinion is that the invasion of Iraq will not, in fact, turn out to be a political albatross around the neck of America. Given a successful invasion/rebuild of Iraq, I can’t see other nations throwing Iraq in America’s face in the future.

45

Um, what is the difference between “absolute theory” and practice here? Your position is

UNSC approves = legal
UNSC does not approve = illegal

Since the US is a permanent member of the UNSC with veto power, an attack on the US would never be legal under your position, in practice or in theory.

Sua

46

This has been brought up more than once in this thread.

I find it more believable that many (not 100%, but most) Southern Iraqis are genuinely happy for Saddam to be deposed. Naturally, there was likely justified fear of the unknown before the invasion force arrived. But now that liberation of select Iraq territory is a fait accompli, the Southern Iraqis have some observations about the behavior of coalition troops with which to form an opinion. Perhaps they don’t mind the coalition presence after all.

47

I thought this post called for a response.

Last (easier) paragraph first: maybe I haven’t been paying proper attention, but Captain Amazing’s post was the first suggestion I’d seen that America should stay out of Iraq simply due to how it would affect America’s interests.

I don’t think the left has conceded that particular bit of high ground; rather, the further left people are, the more likely they are to claim this war is, in one way or another, really about oil - in effect accusing the Bushies of fighting this war for reasons of Kissingerian realpoliitik.

But over time, I’ve come to believe that there’s something to be said for some sort of enlightened realpolitik. Whatever a nation’s goals are in the world, whether they’re goals of purely selfish interest (e.g. access to trade routes and critical natural resources) or more altruistic ones (e.g. trying to bring about a world where Amnesty International would have nothing to do), the world is still a complicated, messy, and dangerous place, with a lot of people who see the world totally differently from how we see it, and whose goals are very different from (and maybe opposed to) ours. In such a place, many actions may have consequences far different from what we intend.

I guess I’ve come to attach the term realpolitik to the business of being actively cognizant of this complexity and taking care of how one threads one’s way through the diplomatic underbrush, while mentally detaching the term somewhat from the business of goals. And given that understanding, I think that realpolitik is a necessary part of the way the left looks at the world.

But in order for it to even matter, one has to have goals. And this is a real weakness of the Democratic Party right now: it needs an alternative foreign policy of its own, an articulation of what its goals would be in this world and how it would try to progress toward them. Just saying ‘no’ to Iraq just plain isn’t enough.

48

Right, rjung.

A people who have repeatedly risen up against Hussein. A people (the Ma’dan or “swamp Arabs,” in the venacular) who - according to the EU - suffered genocide at the hands of Hussein’s regime.

Yes, your scenario is possible. Of course, it is also possible that The X-Files was actually a documentary.

Sua

49

FWIW, I think you’re right. Although I was unclearbefore the war whethre Iraqi civilians valued their sovereignty more than they hated Hussein, it’s looking like they don’t – that they’d rather see an invading army raise American flags over their country than put up with a murderous regime. And I’m very glad about that.

Were the liberation of Iraqis the only consideration in this war, I’d be all for it. But I think there are other consequences of this war, ones that may result in very real suffering around the world. I think that the liberation of Iraq could have been handled in a way that didn’t result in that suffering.

Daniel

50

TS: …the left ought to be beside itself with glee at the prospect of “invading” Iraq in the vanguard of a thousand NGOs on a mission to bring “peace and justice” to a people who have seen little of either for twenty years or more.

Maybe the reason that prospect doesn’t make us so gleeful is that we’re not as optimistic as you are that this action is really about providing “peace and justice” to Iraqis.

I do not say that, on balance, this war should necessarily have been fought.

Then I don’t see why you’re criticizing antiwar protestors for believing that it shouldn’t have.

51

I don’t think it’s like that.

Also, read the OP here.

52

I find the liberation of the Iraqi people a bonus not a goal. The goal is to get rid of Saddam.

Please sepicfy what other consequences are there to this war and how can they cause worldwide suffering.

53

I disagree. I think the left is being quite consistent on this.

The left was for sanctions and international pressure on Iraq from the 1980s on up, to make Saddam change his ways. The Clinton policy of promoting regime change was part and parcel of that; the idea was clearly that we’d do what we could to aid any Iraqi efforts to oust Saddam.

But the U.S. helped found the U.N., and its charter says things about not invading other countries on your own. So just going in and changing the regime ourselves was not part of the left’s Iraq agenda, just as it wasn’t our goal to militarily oust Somoza or Pinochet or whoever.

Same in Afghanistan, where the most outspoken voices about the Taliban, pre-9/11, were from the feminist left.

The left has been quite consistent, over the decades, about human rights, and about the appropriate means for promoting human rights. We’re for human rights, and we’re for not cutting any slack, diplomatically and economically, to countries that are human rights offenders.

The right, OTOH, is quite happy to either ignore or cuddle up to tyrants all over the world, until the day comes when, for realpolitik reasons (in the standard usage), they see the need to act. Then it’s time to go from “they’re really not so bad” to “they’re the most evil things that have ever walked on two legs”, and from “if those people are suffering, that’s their problem; it’s no concern of ours” to “we’ve gotto rescue those poor oppressed people, since it’ll make us look better while we accomplish our real goals.”

If you define ‘timidity’ as not swinging from one extreme to another like a sufferer of manic-depression, then the left is timid. I personally have no problem with that.

54

You need to pay more attention, RT, a consistent argument raised on these boards has been that war is unjustified because Saddam poses no threat to America.

Yes, that accusation has been consistently made. But that accusation makes no economic sense. If I decided not to contribute to Mother Theresa because I accused her, without evidence, of being a drug dealer, do I have the moral high ground?

But, RT, according to this approach, what Bush is guilty of is incompetence. Under this theory of enlightened realpolitik, does incompetence = evil?

Because the Left has not taken to the streets yelling “Bush is incompetent!” They are yelling “Bush is a murderer/evil/power-mad/blood-thirsty!”

I’m really hoping that incompetence and evil are not synonyms, because if they are, I’m really in trouble. :wink:

55

Will it matter to prowar folks if terrorists, incited by the US behavior in this war, strike out against Americans or Brits?
Of course. But if this is such a concern by the anti-protestors, why do they insist on tieing up our police force and blocking the streets used by fire departments and ambulances in useless protests? And make no mistake about it, all of the protests are useless, they will neither change minds or stop the war.

Will it matter to prowar folks if innocent Iraqi civilians are killed in this war?
Of course. But sometimes (to cop a totally geeky quote) the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few. If we accidentally kill a few Iraqi citizens to save thousands more from the repressive regime of Sadaam, then it is worth it.

Will it matter to prowar folks if the US is isolated by the rest of the world community unable to build alliances in the future because of our current behavior?
Of course. But the world needs us more than we need the world.

Will it matter to prowar folks if Pakistan, for example, strikes preemptively at India, using the new US policy as a model?
Of course. But nuclear weapons make great deterents, especially when the country you are about to nuke is on your border.

Will it matter to prowar folks if the UN security council loses all credibility because the US decided to ignore its most essential function?
Nope, it’s lost credibility long before this. What is one more kick to an asthmatic horse going to do?

56

Yeah, basically, and also because Kissinger’s conception of the “national interest” differs from a lot of the Left.

I’ve personally always been an admirer of Kissinger, but I’m probably a bad example of the American Left when it comes to foreign policy. (I’m not even opposed to war with Iraq, in theory. I just think this administration has pretty badly bungled its foreign policy, and that waging war now the way we’re waging it has hurt our international standing and damaged existing alliances, as well as setting precedent for aggressive nations that are “less well intentioned” than we are.)

57

XSA: Please [specify] what other consequences are there to this war and how can they cause worldwide suffering.

Of course, nobody can know what all the consequences will be until after the war is over. But some of the probable specific negative consequences involving widespread suffering are the following:

  • Hunger and possibly starvation among Iraqis, most of whom are very food-insecure: 60% of the population is dependent on governmental food distribution networks, which can’t function during a military destruction of the government. International aid organizations have warned of severe consequences from war due to inadequate food supplies, as well as polluted drinking water and inadequate sanitation.

  • Conflicts involving the Kurds who expect a post-war independent Kurdistan that would be strongly resisted by Turkey and Iran.

  • Increased fear and hostility towards the US on the part of Middle Eastern countries, in the belief that our real motives are more about strategic regional dominance than about helping out the less fortunate, and corresponding increased support for anti-US terrorism.

  • Justification of aggressive “pre-emptive” attacks and invasions by other states, on the grounds that if it’s okay for the US, it’s okay for others.

  • US overextension in trying to govern the postwar region directly or by proxy, resulting in our having fewer resources (and less international credibility) to help deal with crises or threats elsewhere in the world.

Believe me, I will be extremely happy if none of these consequences actually materialize, and I won’t have any problem with admitting that things turned out better than I feared. But it would be simply stupid for anybody to suggest that we don’t need to be concerned about such possibilities, or that they are insignificant compared to the single goal of getting rid of Hussein.

58

Thunderbug, thanks for answering my questions (even if some of your answers are absurd – protestors should not protest in order to help fight terrorism? What kind of insane troll logic is that?) I hope you understand, then, why I answer the OP with a “Yes, but. . . .”

Yes, it matters if Iraqi citizens thank us for removing Hussein’s government. But, that doesn’t change the long-term damage this war will do to international relations, the campaign of misinformation and propaganda that preceded the war, the people devastated by this war (e.g., Mishtaq Thuwaini, who wasseverely wounded in the bombardment overnight [and who] had suffered horrific burns across most his body. The outer layers had been burned away, and they had peeled away from his body like paper wrapping). And, most importantly, getting rid of Hussein is by itself meaningless: if the US installs a puppet military dictatorship in his place, Iraqi civilians may be no better off.

Yes, getting rid of Hussein is probably a good thing. But the situation is complicated, and I think that it’s being handled in a far from optimum manner.

That said, if there had to be a war (and there didn’t have to be, but if there did), I’ll say that Bush’s team seems to be pursuing it in a pretty ideal manner. I am very relieved that he started by striking directly at Hussein, and that they’re giving ground forces as much opportunity as possible to surrender, given the conscripted nature of Iraq’s army. I’m worried about what’s going on in the current air strikes, worried what we’re going to find out about it. Were i religious, I’d be praying right now that the missile strikes are as pinpoint as the military is claiming, be praying that the buildings were unoccupied, that no neighborhoods were hit.

Daniel

59

I’m going to have to come back to this thread a bit later, but I did want to respond quickly to this.

**
I have nothing but respect for organizatons like RAWA who were on the ground in Afghanistan, fighting the good fight. I have nothing but contempt for people like this Australian group.

If you were walking down the street and saw someone viciously beating a child with a stick you, being a decent person, would take whatever action necessary to stop it immediately, up to and including running the perpetrator over with your car. Sure, you might prefer other, non-violent means, but you would do what you had to do.

The Taliban regime was a festering blot on the face of humanity. It is to the world’s great shame that we let the situation go on for as long as we did. When you see your fellow man being violently abused and degraded, there may be practical reasons that prevent you from intervening. Those practical reasons do not, however, somehow convert your failure to intervene into a morally righteous act.

60

In moral terms, what is the difference?

But it was the Left’s goal (if we take your approach and equate Democratic Presidents with the left) to militarily oust Ho Chi Minh (Kennedy/LBJ), Trujillo (LBJ), Aideed (Clinton), Karadizc (Clinton) and whoever was in charge in Haiti (Clinton). And only for Aideed and Karadizc did the US get UN sanction.

and it was the left that was most outspoken in opposing US military action in Afghanistan, despite UN approval.

So the left’s approach is to punish the victims of a tyrant (that’s what economic sanctions do), and when the tyrant doesn’t give up, say “oh, well”? Consistent or not, a pretty asinine policy.

I don’t disagree. However, the result of the right’s approach is that at least some victims of oppression get rescued. The result of the left’s approach is that none do.

Which is the more moral?

I define “timidity” as “howling about oppression, but doing nothing to end it, and yelling ‘murderer!’ when someone actually acts to end it.” I personally have a problem with that.

Sua