Sunday, January 08, 2006

Pretty Please

I'm always amazed at those who, in what they appear to think is a very clever riposte, tell pro-war bloggers (like myself) that we should have "asked the Iraqis" first. I'm always curious how the proposed that be done? Should we have commissioned a poll? I'm sure Saddam would have been very receptive to that. Maybe we could have had him run the poll! I can call out the results now:
0% for invasion, 100% for eternal Ba'ath rule. 100% say life in Iraq is "divine", 0% say it is excellent, good, fair, or poor. 98% say Saddam Hussein is God, 2% say he's mortal. Whoops, those 2% got executed--100% for "God." Woohoo! Perfect score!

The odds that we could have gotten a response from the Iraqi people that would have been clear enough to assuage the anti-war left is nil. Besides, it's a disingenuous claim anyway. Even had they made a clear request for a military intervention, I don't think the left would support it. How do I know? Simple: I don't see any DKos post advocating for a US invasion of Myanmar:
For proof of how grim things have become in Myanmar, consider how locals talk about America's invasion of Iraq. There is no griping about violations of Iraqi sovereignty, no carping about the mysterious absence of weapons of mass destruction, no horror at the bloodthirsty insurgency that has ensued. Only one criticism is ever voiced: why hasn't America invaded Myanmar too? A monk, a taxi driver, a student, all shyly ask your correspondent whether America might not be prevailed upon to topple their dictatorial regime next. The country is stuck in such a rut that the prospect of a foreign invasion is a fond hope, not a fear. [The Economist, "The Mess the Army Has Made--Myanmar," 7/23/05]

So let's hear it, folks! I'm waiting for a pro-war march by the left to send our boys back to Southeast Asia. After all, we asked first, and the locals said: go for it.

Incidentally, I've been asked before why, given that I supported the war in Iraq, why I didn't support and/instead a war in North Korea, Sudan, Iran, or any number of other countries. The answer is complex. First and foremost, Iraq is what was on the table. Advocating blindly for an intervention in Sudan that wasn't going to happen would be an exercise in futility. Iraq wasn't. Second, there is at some level a cost-benefit analysis I did--I'll admit it--based on how much good the US could do versus the costs it would inflict on us. Some countries, like North Korea and Iran, could have inflicted catastrophic losses on American forces. Just because I'm an idealist doesn't make me insane--I want to make sure we're being practical in our foreign adventures. An Iraq war, done right and competently from the start, could do amazing good at minimum cost. And in spite of this administration's incompetence, I still believe that it was possible.

In any event, the point is at some level moot. We're there, and we have an obligation not to abandon them now, regardless of whether we had the duty to assist them in the first place. The latter question is an important debate--there is much to be said for both sides. The former, though, is no question. There is no option but victory.

7 comments:

A said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
A said...

David, think of everything you know about war. War doesn't ever "do amazing good at minimum cost." War is a suffering you can't seem to imagine. War is the ending of thousands of lives, like the two children and their family that were killed by a US airstrike last week. War is destruction. The unlikely end of a peaceful and free nation doesn't justify the disgusting and immoral means of war and occupation.

You start by arguing for the Iraq war and occupation are on humanitarian grounds, for the sake of Iraqis (who are now poorer and more subject to violence and Islamic fundamentalism than under Saddam Hussein). But then you say that there's an American cost-benefit analysis involved - so we invade countries to "liberate" people as long it doesn't cost us too much and helps US interests in some way?

Damn David, you're practically a neo-con. Congrats - go join the guys at Powerline.

Your attempt to rebut the "What about what Iraqis want?" question makes no sense. That's the primary question for pro-war "humanitarians" like you. A sensible (anti-war) person knows that all human beings want universal human rights and freedom from oppression, and that it's morally incumbent upon a nation like the US to exercise its powers nonviolently and diplomatically to help reach that goal, whether it be for Iraqis or Myanmarese or the people of Darfur - not just where it suits our interests or with strings attached (in return for economic favors or bases, which has been the policy).

By the way, certainly genocide is the exception. A US intervention to stop the genocide in Darfur, whether unilateral or multilateral, would be a good thing - and your one-sentence dismissal of it is puzzling. I can't take seriously anyone claims to be in favor of the Iraq war/occupation on humanitarian grounds but doesn't advocate for an immediate intervention in Darfur. And, most of the people I know in the "anti-war left" would be okay with an intervention in Darfur. (Though I think an AU peacekeeping force with the full might of international and US backing would be the best, and the Congress just cut $50 million from our aid to the AU.)

Finally, like a Bushite would, you say there is "no option but victory." Victory over who? The Sunni insurgents? The jihadists who weren't there before the war? The Interior ministry's Shiite death squads? The Iran-backed Islamists who control most of the parliament?

Sorry for the long comment, but this was the worst post I've ever seen on this blog, and it's disappointing that a seemingly rational and moral person like you would write it. The first time I tried to publish, it cut off the latter half of my comment.

David Schraub said...

First of all, I do, have always, and will continue to advocate for a US and/or international military intervention in Darfur. What I was trying to say above was that in 2002, the issue wasn't at all on the radar--there was not even a sliver of a chance that we would intervene in Sudan. So it would be non-sensical for me to oppose an Iraq on the grounds that I'm holding out for Sudan--a bird in hand, after all. That unfortunately wasn't made clear in-post--but run a search through my archives and you'll see that this theme is pretty constant in my writings on the subject.

Given that Saddam Hussein had committed genocide in the past (Anfal), and likely would do so in the future were he to be "contained," anti-genocide principles I believe were operative in this case. If we wait for the killing to begin en masse, we're already too late.

The "victory" I speak of (and its distressing that "victory" makes me a "Bushite") is a free, stable, secure, and democratic Iraq. It isn't "over" anyone except those who oppose those ends (whomever they may be). The CBA I advocate is merely to insure that we don't send countless solidiers to their deaths trying to impose democracy, in say, China. Iraq isn't China. The suffering of the Iraq war, though immense even under the most optimistic scenarios, pales in comparison to the type of terror faced by citizens of an oppressive regime as a matter of course. I'd imagine both horrors are, in their most true form, beyond both of our consciousnesses.

Pooh said...

David, your syllogistic support of the war is logically sound, save for the "done well" premise. What on God's green earth has indicated that such competence is forthcoming from this administration?

In the interest of full disclosure, I was ambivalently pro-war in late 2002: Rummy looked like genius for Afghanistan, everyone though Saddam had WMD's, etc. But then, OBL managed to escape in Tora Bora. We managed to piss off the entire international community through sheer arrogance. Anyone who suggested that we either needed more troops or a better post-war plan was summarily taken to the woodshed for 'lack of revolutionairy zeal' or some such.

While in the abstract, I share some of your optimism that it could all turn out 'ok', I've lost all faith that this war will be handled in what can be termed a reality-based manner.

I don't mean to sound harsh to you, because my own anger is directed instead at those who chose politics over competence and completely fubarred the whole damn thing.

David Schraub said...

That's why I'm pissed too: It could have been "done well." It wasn't, and now everything is shot to hell. So we're really on the same page here--an idea that could have worked but didn't because of administrative incompetence.

The probligo said...

David,

Dafur was in fact "on the radar" for about 15 years before it came to "international" prominence. In fact the civil war has been going for about 30 years, but no one was really interested in that at all, including the UN under its policy of "non-interference in internal matters". The "war" between south and north, including the Junjaweed, has been there for a long time...

The question of "nation building" has come up elsewhere - in relation to which I have turned up href="http://www.nationalinterest.org/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications::Article&mid=1ABA92EFCD8348688A4EBEB3D69D33EF&tier=4&id=46FB6DB413A94CA3BA62C68AC0D46181">this interesting piece. One part that caught my eye ...

The Oxymoron of Imposed Democracy

IF A COUNTRY lacks the preconditions for democracy, can this infrastructure be forcefully supplied by an external source? Few would argue in favor of conquering countries simply to make them democratic, but democratic great powers--particularly Great Britain and the United States--have sometimes conquered countries for other reasons and then have struggled to remake them as friendly democracies before withdrawing. Those who are nostalgic for empire view this as a policy with a future. They point to the establishment of courts, a free press and rational public administration in British colonies, without which democracy would probably be scarcer in the developing world today, since most of the postcolonial states that have remained almost continuously democratic--such as India and some West Indian island states--are former British possessions. Still, other former British colonies have failed to achieve democratic stability: Pakistan and Nigeria oscillate between chaotic elected regimes and military dictatorships; Sri Lanka has held elections that stoked the fires of ethnic conflict; and Malaysia has averted ethnic conflict only by limiting democracy. The list contains even more parlous cases, from Burma to Zimbabwe.

Read the whole thing. Oh, and I am a bit pissed that Aus, Canada and particularly NZ do not seem to qualify as "post-colonial states". :evil:

Pooh said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.