What I like about the Iraq War

Great Debates
1

Recent discussions in a philosophy group have led me to make plain, to myself anyway, what I do in fact like about the current situation.

What stands out for me here is not the “arbitrariness” of overthrowing the Iraqi government, but the manner in which it was done: totally out in the open.

It seems that much of our roles in messing with other governments has been through proxy wars or through CIA operations; that is, more or less covertly taking action against nations “we don’t like,” to put it bluntly.

I still believe the war was fought for shoddy reasons (which is not to say that we cannot find good reasons after-the-fact e.g. “liberation”), but in some ways this war is a mixed blessing. Is it a sign that our nation is really becoming a bully, or that we are starting to at least be open about what has always been the case?

Still, one might say that being a bully in the open isn’t any better than being a bully behind the scenes. On that I disagree quite plainly. Open action means open discourse, discussion at the public level at the dinner table and in the media (to some extent :rolleyes: ). It is in such a position that a democracy can take actions which are palatable to the public. Plain fact, support the war or not, it was not a “mistake” by the electorate’s definition of “mistake”. If it were, we just had a simple mechanism to demonstrate that.

Our government is a powerful government, it has enough power to support dictatorships or help topple them without overt involvement. Unless the involvement is overt, however, we will not be a democracy at all. While I bemoan the course of action we have taken specifically, I am at least mildly pleased that it was done plainly, with public discussion.

There is still room for improvement, but I was more or less charged with finding a happy mushroom in a pile of cow dung and I do believe there is one there.

What else do I like about the war? Well, I don’t like dictators, generally speaking. I believe it was clear that if the Iraqis could, they would have overthrown their government. For much of the same reasons that I would support many “peacekeeping” operations around the world, the actual overthrow of a government is something that should not be frowned upon a priori. If you couple this thought with the previous paragraph, though, it is important that the justifications we use after the war be the same ones that we use before the war, else it is fair to say the war was “a bad idea.” Post hoc rationalization is just that, even if the rationalization could have been a reason prior to involvement, it plainly was not and so the fallacy becomes plain.

But I do believe public discussion and overt action characterize a government that is actually doing what it thinks the people want (i.e. what is “best” by democratic definition). In that respect, I hope this is a sign of future foreign policy.

2

It’s a complex position to take. I think it requires too much thought for the average lefty Doper.

Prepare for a shitstorm of criticism; you just implied that, from a certain point-of-view, the United States is okay, and the war in Iraq has at least one good point.

3

Nah, no difference. The people being suppressed always tend to know who’s doing the suppressing. I’d agree that lack of hypocrisy is a good thing, but the reasons provided for this war were wrong on their face as well, and can be dismissed as just as hypocritical as Reagan’s support of “freedom fighters” in Africa and South America.

It may well be the latter, and that’s depressing. We have indeed often, even usually, stood for liberty and self-determination, but far less so in recent decades to the point where we are damn short of credibility even if we do try.

Then I’m sure you share the hope that they can overthrow the dictatorships, either pan-Iraqi or regional, that many of us see as an inevitable outcome of the current situations. I’m sure you share the regret that our current administration is doing nothing “out in the open” to give anyone assurance that it won’t happen that way.

There you have it. But it’s also important to the country’s people that it be seen as such, and not as an imperialist land/oil grab. Doing it as a true UN operation, not the sham coalition that this operation is, is necessary to that end.

Too late for that. No WMD’s, no link to Bin Laden. Can’t stuff that toothpaste back in the tube.

Then you think that public opinion actually had any influence at all on what actually happened, or will in the future? I’d suggest, strongly, that nothing of the sort happened or will happen.

4

I have to disagree with one of your premises, erislover: I don’t think this war was entirely conducted “in the open”. There was, I think, a deliberate effort by this administration to cloud the rationale for this war by allowing misconceptions to fester. How long did it take this administration to admit that no, Saddam really didn’t have much to do at all with 9/11?

If they had been truly candid and said “Look, we’re knocking over Hussein because we think that’s in our long-term strategical interest”, then we could have had a truly honest discourse in the United States about the war. But a significant portion of the country was convinced the war was payback for an unrelated terrorist attack, and the administration was happy not to disabuse anyone of that notion. I can’t give them points for honesty for that.

Other than that, I think that was an excellent post.

But a backhanded insult to an entire group of dopers takes no thought at all, does it?

5

Orbifold, I guess the matter is that unless we are conducting actions out in the open, meaningful discussion cannot happen. Necessary but not sufficient condition, you know what I mean?

Elvis, “Then you think that public opinion actually had any influence at all on what actually happened, or will in the future?” Not as much as I would like, no, but much better than what has been previously established. The dim cry of patriotism is something I view as a reaction to being exposed. In the long term it seems this means a more honest and accountable government. In the short term… I think “bumpy” is an understatement.

6

One more.

One could probably remark with some justification that they really only even paid lip service to the idea but couched the rest of their remarks as if that were not the case. But deliberate misinformation aside, it was open to inspection in a way that previous efforts really weren’t. I don’t wish to overstate its importance as an underhanded way of providing a post hoc rationalization, but I don’t wish to throw out the baby with the bathwater, as it were.

To be fair, some hints of this reasoning were available prior to the war, they simply did not constitute the thrust of justification. A sign of things to come, or a demonstration of its irrelevance? Hard to say for sure.

Much of the same thing could be said for the “restoring legitimacy to the UNSC” line of argument. One could suggest, with good reason, that our unilateral action further demonstrated the UNSC’s irrelevancy. On the other hand, one could also suggest that, though a dangerous precident was set, the UNSC resolutions might just have some extra weight if it gets someone’s hackles up.

While I do not believe the Iraq war was justified in the way we went about it, are we receiving signals of a better America to come?

7

Oddly enough, the fact that we stepped in and publicly overthrew a government just because we could is one of the main reasons I dislike this war.

8

Your logic isn’t too bad… but the War was anything but open…

False reasons were given… a nice “coalition” in order to mask international dissaproval… the UN was runover but things were supposedely done in its name with resolution 1441… and finally false future objectives (democracy, etc…)

So it wasn’t a CIA black op… but it was a sham. Instead of acting like sneaky burglars they acted as violent muggers. I’d say that is worse in many ways.

9

I don’t think this was masked at all. I thought it was quite clear that many were against the war by all parties.

10

Why would anyone create a coalition with micronesia, palau, and several other mini-countries in order to boost numbers ? The only reason is propaganda for internal (US) consumption.

I don’t think it was at all clear to many americans how much opposition there really was. They tended to focus on France and Germany as the only big oposition. Then they repeated mantra-like “40+ countries”. The fact that most britons and spaniards were against their governments decision was also downplayed constantly. Protestors being “liberals” and whatever.

11

I didn’t believe that was the question I was addressing. Though I believe your reasoning is correct. I don’t believe they were completely successful in that, as I believe many Americans simply didn’t give a rat’s ass about world opinion.

Maybe.

12

I have long taken a similar opinion to the OP.

I was and always have been against the war, with the opinion that there were more effective targets for the Global War on Terror than Saddam Hussein. But, once the war was started, we have an absolute commitment to devote all resources to finishing it properly and acheiving our stated objectives.

Ignoring all realpolitik, there is something to be said about shifting our foreign policy after 9/11. Making it prize human rights and freedom above all, and battling oppressive dictatorships, especially in the Arab world, to dry up the sources of future terrorists. I think that a foreign policy based on human rights is something Carter tried and was promptly run out of office on a rail; after 9/11, the USA was ready for it. The OP accepts this – what the president calls a post-9/11 mentality – as I think the majority of the mainstream Democratic party does as well. It is just that the Republicans keep telling the voters that the Democrats don’t…

Iraq wasn’t the best target (or, now we see, a real target at all). But if we succeed with our stated goal in Iraq: a liberal democracy in the Arab World (again ignore all of the news from the ground and opposition throughout the world and bungling and everything), then it is The Best Thing the United States Has Ever Done, on the level of the Marshall Plan. Converting that region into free, open nations is in fact the exact type of social engineering that worked so well in rebuilding Europe and Japan. If we were (I say were because I now believe it is out of reach) strong, smart, and tenacious, we could do it and make the Middle East a new Europe by the end of this century.

The downside, though (and I believe it is true of the OP’s point of view) is that if America fails, it is The Worst Thing the United States Has Ever Done. We have basically sunk all of our global political capital into an online cat food business. If Iraq fails, we have made the situation worse for ourselves and the world on many levels: Iraq is now a haven for terrorists, there is a new crop of American atrocities for Arab media to play which increases enrollment in fundamentalist madrassas, we are more widely perceived as a force of great evil throughout the world. Which is why I voted for Kerry.

13

The major problem with what is a generally sound response is this: To this day, no-one can say with any certainty, why the US invaded Iraq. The amazement this merits is only equalled by the amazement due to the fact that it is not discussed. Why is the US in Iraq? Who knows?

I believe resonable people afford the ‘Install Democracy’ rationale exactly the same credibility earlier claims of 'threatening the American public with Weapons of Mass Destruction."

So the OP is true to an extent, but not so far that the causes or ultimate aim of the war are found in the public domain.

While the US population has infinite reserves of forgiveness for itself, an objective judgment must be less tolerant. Given the devious ways the unprovoked military agression was justified, it is impossible to believe that the ultimate aims of the US administration are benevolent.

14

The OP seems to assume that the USA choose to attack Irak overtly rather than resorting to secretly topple the regime.

I would say that IMO this wasn’t a choice. They couldn’t overthrow Saddam without a full scale war. So I don’t think it proves the USA changed their methods.

15

Why should the left fail to understand or condemn this position? Stereotype much?

As it happens the ‘left’ were campaigning against Saddam while the US and UK were arming him and denying he gassed anyone. Speaking for myself, I’m all in favour of a codified international process for intervening in other estate’s affairs. A transparent process that is not a strategic grab by one superpower in its own interests disguised as humanitarian, once all the other excuses have worn thin. And fought according to international law without a giant ‘get your snouts in the trough’ handout to political friends at the end.

It is the Right who arm and support these scum - as the USA continues to do elsewhere. So take your absurd stereotyping elsewhere.

16

An interesting argument erislover.

“There is still room for improvement, but I was more or less charged with finding a happy mushroom in a pile of cow dung and I do believe there is one there.”

To use a similar analogy " You cant polish a turd " “:)”

Sin

17

Assuming the OP is correct, doesn’t this merely suggest that the American goverment no longer feels the need to conceal morally ambiguous policies from rivals (there aren’t any now) or it’s own people (a majority of whom seem to be quite happy with the current war).

I don’t see this as a good thing.

18

Or they don’t feel anyone will oppose them…

19

I also like how the administration has deployed black people to do a lot of its lying. This is long overdue in American public life.

After all those soap operas and courtroom dramas where black people are moved and guided by reservoirs of soul denied to whitey, it is good to see the US administration tackling such dreadful racism head-on.

20

Let’s examine the sequence of events:

  • the US announced that Saddam had WMD’s and needed to be stopped urgently
  • other nations protested that sanctions were working, there were inspectors searching and there was no need to invade immediately
  • the US went in to get the weapons
  • they didn’t find any, so they announced they were there on a ‘humanitarian’ mission

Doing things ‘out in the open’ is not a justification.

Indeed. Rather like the CIA putting Saddam Hussein in power.

I am concerned about where this line of thinking takes us. If a dictator announces he is going to invade because he has the best army, is that ‘a blessing’?

Shouldn’t invading other countries should be a matter of international law and treaty?
Does it matter the US doesn’t care about that?
No doubt the German electorate supported Germany starting WW2. That doesn’t make it right.

WIth great power comes great responsibility. Given the collapse of the stated reasons for war, do you trust this Government to invade next time?

Are you saying that the US should decide who to overthrow?
I don’t like the fact the Chinese invaded Tibet.
I think the wars between Ethiopia and Eritrea are a terrible waste of lives and resources.
If the US would support international action to make the World a safer place, that would be great.
But this war was fought all for the wrong reasons.
Invading to control oil and make fake claims of ‘defeating terrorism’ are not something to be proud of.