Deadlier than war

For those of us who have always supported the push to free the Iraqi people, the arguments against war have always been transparent. I am glad to see the tide turning in some news reporting about the true feelings of many Iraqi's to the war. As they begin to see that the end is near for Saddam's regime, the people of Iraq are increasingly helping our troops identify regime hideouts and arms stores.

Peace and freedom never come without a cost. And I believe this war is a price the people of Iraq are willling to pay for their liberation.

A very pleasant, safe opinion for you to make on the Iraqis' behalves!

I reminded of last week's Onion headline: "Dead Iraqi thinks that democracy would have been good idea."

As for freedom... Well, I and others are doubtful whether the US will meet its post-war obligations and reconstruct Iraq in a shape that in any way resembles an affluent democracy. After all, we do not have a very good record inthis regard.

There is a deep, perverse flaw in your reasoning which is the idiotic implied presumption that the Iraqi people are free to determine their own system of government. This is like standing by with a bucket of water while someone is on fire and saying "perhaps he wants to burn." You may believe it a moral thing to presume that the Iraqi people, unlike all other people throughout the course of history, enjoy living in tyranny, but I view this as an immoral thing.

Clearly there is a cost for freedom and certainly there is a question of whether the Iraqis are willing to pay the cost of this war for their own liberation. We will find out, but there are some indications. First, the US has in fact been welcomed, by people not under threat of Saddam's goons. Second, remember that they rose up in 1991. Finally, as Mead's piece point out, peace has been deadlier than war. All well and good to talk about Iraqi's killed by war, but how in good conscience can you ignore the 100s of thousands who have been killed by Saddam, or the thousands whose lives will be spared by his removal? That Onion quote takes on a different meaning if the dead Iraqi is one of the many, many more Iraqis who have been killed, tortured, raped, etc. by Saddam.

Finally, your last comment is a throw away. The US has a tremendous record of success when it comes to liberating people and enabling democracy. What an idiotic comment, unworthy of your intellect and understanding of history.

I do not doubt that the Iraqis were not able to choose their system of government. I hope we will work with the Iraqie pople to create, over the years, the first functioning Democracy in the Arab World. God willing, as the Muslims say.

But I am skeptical of the motives of imperial adventurers like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Kristol, who justify the invasion of Iraq by the liberation of the Iraqi people, but who in their more sober moments have admitted to quite different reasons. Many of these reasons are arresting--at least to people who are profoundly worried about the security of the Middle East in the 21st century. But I am alarmed and a little disgusted by the disingenuousness of liberation as a causus belli.

Wars are always a great evil; they are never to be chosen, but only to be entered into with profound misgivings and as a last resort. They have unintended consequences that are almost always malign. Governments seldom do anything for altruistic reasons--you should know this better than any one--and while the need to be elected functions as a brake on politicians in governing their own countries, no such brake will function in our occupation of Iraq. We will, I am sure, leave the usual chaos, broken promises, and client authoritarian rulers in our wake when we leave Iraq.

While I want the Iraqis to govern themselves, and think Saddam was a destabilizing influence on the entire region, I am certain that we did exhaust every other means we had for regime change. We wanted to go to War. The Adminstration desired a new campaign in its War on Terror. Certainly, that was how the World interpreted our government's mood in the months that led up to the invasion: Bush manifested a veritable impatience in his desire to get on with the job.

You disparage my throw-away line at the end of my last post about our record in establishing democracy around the World. It has been many years, my friend, since Macarthur ruled Japan, and Marshall fed and reconstructed Europe. We have seen fifty years of cynicism and Imperialism in our foreign policy--and we have little to be proud of or to point to.

You know, sometimes it really is as simple as black and white, good vs. evil. I don't think there are any lines to read between - and I certainly would not characterize the US leadership as "imperial adventurers". Our intentions are clear - to free the people of Iraq. And then we will leave.

Responding to Jason Pontin's latest comment:

I think you miss one of the most profound shifts in American foreign policy since Reagan--and possibly since the beginning of the Cold War. In the Cold War when national security and national values came into conflict it was the former that took precedence. We were less concerned if the dictator was an SOB as long as he was our SOB. The Kissinger realpolitik, balance of power was an extreme and while Carter and Reagan both brought their value systems, security won over.

This continued through Bush I until the end of the Cold War at which time the Clinton administration, lead by a man who seemed wholly uninterested and fairly incapable in the foreign policy realm, decided the big problems in the world were over and embarked on a policy of wishful liberalism. He talked tough about the Bin Ladens, Saddams, and North Koreas of the world, but back up that rhetoric with weak action and often capitulation, appeasement, and accommodation. US displays of force were limited to air campaigns, a cruise missile here and there, and a retreat from Somalia. The Clintons seemed to think they could talk our way out of problems, or perhaps close our ideas and the problems would go away. Clinton knew of these growing problems but chose to punt.

Bush II, who admittedly was differently inclined on the campaign and during his first year in office, was transformed by September 11th. This is something I think many across the world and in the intellectual elites of America have yet to acknowledge or grasp. Clearly there is the shift in our definition of our security interests. We will not allow dangers to gather and will respond to our enemies’ defiance. But perhaps more profound is the union of national security interests and our values.

Bush has said repeatedly that we don’t have to choose between our security and our values—and I think the intellectuals should ponder what this means.

So the driving reason and justification for Iraq may be indeed because he violated the terms of the 1991 cease fire and multiple UN regulations and is a threat to us and the region but ALSO because he probably the most horrible tyrant on the face of the earth today. Liberation is not the causus belli, but it brings justice to the cause.

I think the idea that this is an imperial adventure is, well, eurotrash. I’ve yet to hear even a reasonable articulation of what the possible motivation could be. The oil rationale vanishes in the presence of thought.

As for the lecture on war, that’s very nice. Can’t say I disagree that war is hell. But peace can be hell as well—and the violence in Iraq or the violence Iraq could have unleashed on us with WMD needs to be taken into consideration as well.

To your last point, there are dozens of budding democracies around the world, from Eastern Europe, to Asia, to the Americas, who largely have America to thank for rescuing them from tyranny. Of course we have supported, and still do in some instances, regimes that suppress freedom. But one of the things I think the intellectuals are missing is that this is changing. While we have relationships of convenience with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, for example, it will be interesting to see how those relationships evolve. I think it’s highly likely that we will push harder and harder for reforms in Saudi Arabia, for example. And yes, we prop up dictatorships in the past—a regrettable part of a Cold War battle plan—but note that most of the unfree countries in our sphere have become free while many in the Soviet/Communist sphere are not (compare Chile, Taiwan, Phillipines, and South Korea today vs. Cuba, China, North Korea, etc.)

Democracy takes time, especially when there are cultural and historical impediments, but just because the US can’t overcome those hurdles instantaneously doesn’t mean that we are wrong to get the process started. The alternative is worse.

I am perfectly aware of the change in our foreign policy: It is explictly laid out in the most recent National Secutiry Review. Even if was not, the new doctrone is clear from "The Project for the New American Century" written by Kristol under Wolfowitz's tutelage. (A chilling title by the way to any one but a neoconservative American.)

I am aware of these new doctrines of preemption, an honest acceptance of our imperial responsibilities, and of "values"--and I deplore them. I fear them.

I think preemption is a highly dangerous precedent to set. All very well for us, perhaps, in our self-evident freedom and goodness--but alarming for every one else on the planet, and therefore destablilizing whether we are doing the preempting or some one else is. And as for an empire with values... Well, history suggests that even the most moral and altrusitic empire in history, the British, was often run to enrich a small band of pirates. It was certainly not always run with the interests and values of the subject peoples in mind.

I will give you some motives, other than liberation and WMD, that the administration was quite open about until they began selling the War. All seem credible to me--imperial, but credible. What disgusts me is the false arketing of our motives.

1. That we want a compliant client state in the Middle East, now that the Saudi princes seem more and more likely to loose control of their Wahhabist population.

2. That we needed to do something, anything, in the War on Terror, once we had sold it to the American people.

3. That Wars are good for the Republican Party.

4. That while Saddam Hussein had neither nuclear weapons, nor much in the way of Chemical and Biological, he would do soon, and he entertained notions of being the saviour of the Arab World--and might do something unspeakabley awful to Israel. That if the Israelis responded with nuclear weapons, we would have a major confrontation in the oil producing center of the world.

5. That certain neocons believe that a democratic Iraq might be a model for Syria and Egypt, etc.

Your 2 & 3 points are so silly they don't merit discussion and they belie your paranoia. Your other points center around that fact that an Iraqi democracy would be in the economic and national security interest of the US. This is almost certainly so but you are mixing up cause and effect. If we were worried about oil there were much easier and less costly ways to turn Iraq into a compliant state—notably call of the sanctions and deal with them in the way the French, Germans, and Russians had been. To believe that this was motivated by oil you have to believe that the Bush administration can’t do a simple cost/benefit analysis and that everyone in the administration, such as Colin Powell, buys this justification and is content to hide it from the American people.

Your last two points are closer to the mark (leaving out the oil bit on point 4) which is that Saddam is a danger and his removal might over the long haul be a good thing for the region. I have no doubt this is part of the calculation, but not the driving factor.

The big difference here is that you evidently don’t believe in the doctrine of American exceptionalism. I think that’s the real dividing line here. America, unlike any other country the world has ever seen, was a country built not from geography, religion, or conquest but on the back of an idea: human liberty. Some consider this imperialism and a new empire, though I find that characterization unhelpful because it is confused with the idea of conquest. Americans want to free the world, not conquer it—I’m sure you can appreciate the distinction.

It is little wonder that the rest of the world doesn’t understand us and tends to view situations quite differently. I think you are wrong to believe that our primary motivations are to consolidate power, but it is true that our power moves us to view the world quite differently. If there is a bear in the woods while you are camping the rational course of action differs whether you have a shotgun or not. As no other country has our power, no other country has our idealism. I don’t worry so much about the “precedent” we set because America itself, and nearly everything we do, is unprecedented. We are not the British empire, nor are we a descendant of it.

It is sometimes a lonely task. Clearly regardless of the level of our benevolence we will engender fear, envy, and sometimes hate from those who, well, aren’t us. And while I do think we should be humble and believe that all men and women are created equal, I believe our refusal to submit to international authority has been vindicated. The fear, for example, of signing on to the international criminal court was that small countries would use this as leverage against the US. Is there any doubt given the recent conduct of France, for example, that this would be true?

America is exceptional, not because we are more moral creatures as individuals, but because we were founded and operate on the idea of liberty and see it as our obligation to bring liberty to the world where we can.

You frighten me, Chris. You truly frighten me--or at least if you do if you are represenative of neoconservative US opinion.

Every empire believes that it is exceptional in some regard, and that its adventures are not only in its interests--but in the interests of those regions that it adventures in. Every empire believes that its exceptionalism somehow insulates it from purely self-interested behaviour.

I must say, purely as a side note, that all is talk of American exceptionalism, based on liberty, is ludicrously self-congratulatory given how the Attorney General is cheerfully rolling back our liberties in the the fight on what the president calls the "War on Tirrrr."

BTW, your cost-benefit argument is logically flawed. Of course there were cheaper ways to "get oil" if that was the administration's only concern--but when you add to it their conviction that Saddam was also unstable, and NOT permanently contained, there is no reason to think that oil didn't enter into their calculus. If only in this sense: the oil wealth of Iraq permits its rulers to get up to much mischief.

Working backwards from your last point to your first, of course oil is part of the calculus, and rightly so, but it is still false to say that oil is the hidden motivation for this war.

Your middle point on liberty is truly absurd and shows a complete lack of perspective. How can you compare anything the Attorney General is doing with how Saddam Hussein rules his country (this comparison is implicit in your comment.) I will say that America is not perfect (particularly with our restrictions on economic liberties and political speech) but it is interesting that America alone seems to be held to an impossibly high standard while other countries seem to be held to no standard at all.

To your first point, it may frighten you but I do indeed believe that the world has never seen an "empire" like America--and it is exceptional both today and throughout history. This is a far cry from suggesting that we are infallible or that we never abuse our power--I haven't suggested that. Here's what I believe is the practical difference between those that view America as exceptional and those that do not. The former group is much more willing to assert American will and pursue American values while the latter is much more concerned with Rodney King-like diplomacy: "why can't we all just get along?"

It is alarming to the latter group when many in the world disagree with us and to this group suggests that we should subjugate our interests, and often our sense of purpose and morality, than the general international will. To the exceptionalist, however, global disagreement with our policies often just reaffirms the sense of exceptionalism and abdication of our national interest for the sake of other countries' own interest is in itself immoral. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing and being right is more important than being popular. If the "old" Europeans or the Arabs had a leg to stand on in terms of a history of helping the world, I would be more willing to take their point. But it is less moral, not more, to allow others to dictate your policy when you believe that they are wrong.

If America is exceptional, as you argue, because it is the only nation founded on an idea of liberty (rather than language, or geography, or race, or historical accident), then it should be held to the highest standards ofliberty. The Attorney General is not living up to those ideals. Indeed, our liberties are considerably less protected than the liberties of Swedes: We are locking up citizens without due process, without legal representation, without even telling them why they have been imprisoned. It is Kafka-esque. It is intensely chilling.

Hence, my skepticism about exceptionalism as s pretext for War.

This is a disproportionate and selective view of America. I'm a champion of liberty but let's not get carried away. This is a grey area and one in which the courts will have the final say. I'll be the first to agree that as Americans we could and should freer (especially in the economic realm which effects many, many more than the few who are without due process). But let's not miss the forest for the trees. What have the Swedes ever done for the cause of liberty around the world? We are imperfect because we are compared to the idea of perfection. No other country is ever compared with an ideal--more proof that we are exceptional.

This is a disproportionate and selective view of America. I'm a champion of liberty but let's not get carried away. This is a grey area and one in which the courts will have the final say. I'll be the first to agree that as Americans we could and should freer (especially in the economic realm which effects many, many more than the few who are without due process). But let's not miss the forest for the trees. What have the Swedes ever done for the cause of liberty around the world? We are imperfect because we are compared to the idea of perfection. No other country is ever compared with an ideal--more proof that we are exceptional.