July 18, 2005
From the desk of Jane Galt:Iraq and its consequences
John Quiggin's post on consequentialism and war seems to me to be pretty weak. It arrives at the conclusion that--quel surprise!--Iraq and similar wars are unjustified without even a symbolic nod at the potential weaknesses of such an argument. And when he veers too close to the logical extension of his beliefs to defensive wars--which, in a strict consequentialist view, would be unjustified if you had to kill too many enemy civilians to do it--he suddenly retreats into moralism:
These rights-based considerations are less of a problem in the case of a purely defensive war, since we are morally entitled to defend our own rights. In addition, since willingness to fight defensive wars discourages aggression, it gains support from a rule-consequentialist viewpoint. But this only strengthens the case against wars of choice, where the other side can plausibly present their fight (at least to the soldiers and civilians who are expected to bear the costs) as one of self-defence against an outside aggressor.
But I can make a similar "consequentialist" defense of invasive wars, if I'm allowed one moral principle: "Making the world safe for democracy", "Advancing liberty", "Beating back the godless communists" or, say, "Protecting Christendom". You might not agree with my moral principle, but hey, the invaders may not agree with your right to self defense, so there you are.
But more broadly speaking, most arguments for war are ultimately consequentialist. If fighting the invader results in the Mongol hordes sacking your city, killing everyone in it, and sowing the fields with salt so that
It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.
. . . then most people would probably be against it, no matter how invigorating it may be to fight for freedom. When it comes right down to it, consequentialist arguments are generally arguments about what the consequences are, and how the value of, say, getting rid of a loathesome dictator and his troglodyte descendants compares to the lives of innocents who inevitably die in such invasions. Surely, a good liberal would not argue that merely sustaining life is the only important value; are not freedom, prosperity, security almost as important?
Mind you, I don't say that on such an expanded scale, Iraq would be a good idea; we're doing pretty miserably on the "security" part, and freedom and prosperity look far from secured. But Mr Quiggin's post seems incredibly superficial, for something that purports to be reasoning from first principles, rather than to the pre-determined conclusion. Of course, there may be some deeper philosophical and/or semantic subtleties that I'm missing.
I also think that it is much too early to assess consequences of Iraq--though I freely admit that so far, the signs aren't particularly encouraging. Consider what one of Mr Quiggin's commenters says:
The allied invasions of France and Italy during WWII don’t come close to passing your test—is that what you intend? In 1943-44, the dictatorships (of Mussolini and of Petain) were not killing large numbers of their own citizens, but the invasions did kill enormous numbers of civilians. Certainly at this point in the war, the axis powers would have negotiated a peace treaty. Even the holocaust was largely over (and, in any case, that was not the motivating factor of the war effort). Think what could have been done with not only the money spent on those invasions but ALSO the mind-boggling sums spent rebuilding Europe after the war. The same is true of the island-to-island fighting in the Pacific. The Japanese would certainly have accepted terms long before the end of the war, and 100,000-150,000 civilians on Okinawa ALONE would not have perished.But how does one attempt to put a value on the difference between a post-war world where diminished Nazi and Imperial Japanese governments remain in power vs one where they are expunged from the earth (but at great human and financial cost)?
It seems to me that the requirements that one must know, beforehand, that democracy can be established with minimal loss of life beyond a reasonable doubt establishes a standard that would allow interventions only in the smallest, most inconsequential situations (the U.S. invasion of Greneda, for example).
And there is also a risk of moral hazard—namely that the more that a rogue regime is prepared to indiscriminately kill its own people as a form of “resistance” during or after an invasion, the less justified the war is by your logic. In fact, unless we can be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the regime will NOT go to ground and engage in a terror campaign against it own countrymen (and how could we ever be certain?) no invasion could be justified.
In 1944, on a strict mortality accounting, suing for peace probably looked pretty good. It's only from the safe vantage point of later decades that we can see a consequentialist argument for kicking Nazi butt. So unless you can come up with an account that allows for the vigorous prosecution of World War II by Britain and America (or admits, a la Pat Buchanan, that you'd prefer a world with Nazism to a world with lots of dead Germans, Americans, and European civilians of various nationalities), then Mr Quiggins' argument simply won't do.
Interestingly, much of the recent debate over consequences has focused on anti-war types complaining that we're creating more terrorists, while conservatives tout the success of our "flypaper strategy", in which Iraq becomes a death-trap for the mayhem-minded. I've tenatively assumed that a) we're creating more terrorists and b) they're going to Iraq, with net result unclear. But this Daniel Drezner post suggests that, in fact, Iraq may be bringing us some success in the War on Terror, by undercutting support for suicide bombing in the Muslim world:
Support for suicide bombings has dropped significantly in several predominantly Muslim nations, a worldwide public-opinion survey has found — a positive note at a time concerns have been heightened by terrorist attacks in London, Iraq and Israel.The report by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, released Thursday, also found substantial concern about Islamic extremism not only among Westerners but also in Muslim nations. Three-quarters of those in Morocco and roughly half of those in Pakistan, Turkey and Indonesia said Islamic extremism posed a threat to their countries.
. . .
On the one hand, the numbers are trending in the right direction, and the comparison between the July 2002 numbers and July 2005 numbers in most countries suggests that Iraq hasn't generated thenegative externalitiesgreater sympathy for Al Qaeda and its aims that some Bush critics have predicted. It remains possible that the invasion of Iraq had a negative effect on Muslim attitudes, but these figures suggest that at a minimum this effect was dwarfed by more powerful counter-trends. Indeed, the trend suggests staying the course with the current set of anti-terrorism policies.On the other hand, the numbers for Jordan are not trending in the desired direction at all. This could be due to Iraq, although if that was the case one would have expected a similar trend in Turkey and that hasn't happened. Still, it should disturb policy analysts across the policy spectrum that the one Arab country simultaneously possessing a free trade agreement with the United States and a peace treaty with Israel has a population that is growing more comfortable with radical Islam.
Food for thought. Posted by Jane Galt at July 18, 2005 11:25 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links
I hate the Iraq WW2 comparisons. Democracy was established in Japan and half of Germany on the back of 2 atomic bombs.
I was never for the war in Iraq because it was stupid and corrupt. I don't know what the answer is now. I can't fully support leaving because there is no doubt we will shrink in global opinion. On the other hand, I can't support the death of Americans in what appears with each suicide bombing directed at children, an unattainable goal. One of my big problem is the number of more deserving targets then Iraq, namely Saudi Arabia. If you can give them a pass on 911, can you give them a pass on all the suicide bombers entering Iraq? The hatred and terror their Clerics exported to Spain and England. Radical Islam isn't a cult in SA, its their states religion. I can't give them a pass. When I was in college I never joined a frat, because the only people I'd want to haze would be the people that hazed me. Thats my thinking on Iraq and SA.
Forgot to proof read again. Should be a question mark after England and a s at the end of problem.
> One of my big problem is the number of more deserving targets then Iraq, namely Saudi Arabia.
I've never heard that argument from someone who would have supported the invasion any of said "more deserving targets". Is this the first? Or, would some other consideration trump doing anything in that case too, leading one to the conclusion that the real position is an embarrassed "do nothing".
"Flypaper" can't be viewed in isolation. Pace Steven den Beste, the idea was to come in to the Arab heartland and take something dear to the jihadis by replacing a tryanny (which had provided safe haven, training and material and rhetorical support to terrorists) with a (relatively) liberal democracy, thus offering a better alternative model while reducing the terrorists' freedom of action.
There were two possible outcomes: they let us have it without a fight, or they come and fight on our terms, which is more advantageous than fighting them retail in Manhattan. They took the bait, and while the fighting has been difficult, we may eventually reach both of our objectives. But even if you're skeptical of the strategy, you have to present it as an either-or challenge to the jihadists, rather than as a deliberate attempt to fight an insurgency.
I don't think that the Saudis are out of our minds--but I see Iraq as the first step, and the only one we could have taken at the time. Reasons: they were already violating UN resolutions, the ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda were well established, the world economy wasn't dependent on Iraqi oil, we had "friendly" relations with the Sauds, and we had joint economic ventures (ARAMCO) with the Sauds. But now that we are in Iraq, the Sauds are slowly getting the message that we are serious in the GWOT and that they had better look to getting their own house in order to make sure we don't decide to invade them at some later date as we stamp out terrorism and its roots.
I hate the Iraq WW2 comparisons.
Why?
You can only know the ultimate consequences of a course of action(s) after the fact. And one way to assess possible consequences is to look back at what other historical events of similar vein have yielded.
Was Saddam a rising star of death in the same nature and scope as, say, Hitler? Probably not, though there are some parallels. Is involvement in Iraq comparable in nature and scope to involvement in Vietnam? Again, probably not, although there are some parallels.
The best course of action in that context is to look at such events, see how close the parallels are (or are not), and speculate on probable outcomes from acting (or not acting).
One of my big problem is the number of more deserving targets then Iraq, namely Saudi Arabia. If you can give them a pass on 911, can you give them a pass on all the suicide bombers entering Iraq?
"Give them a pass on 9/11?" If you have some evidence that the Saudi government actually sent those attackers, please share it. But otherwise, what you're saying is that the fact that the attackers were citizens of a country gives us the right to invade that country. Sure, the Saudi government supports people who preach hate, but the United States can't go around bombing people for saying the wrong things.
You also appear to have forgotten that Saudi Arabia is the home of Mecca. Pause for a minute and consider the political implications of the United States bombing and occupying the holiest city in the world's largest religion.
As for the other "more deserving targets", the only two that come to mind as possible candidates are Iran and North Korea. North Korea is impossible. It already has nuclear weapons, is supported by another nuclear power, and has no borders we could stage an invasion from (South Korea, Russia, and China are vehemently opposed to any war there).
That leaves Iran. Now, in the case of Iraq, we had a very strong moral and legal case for invasion. We were technically already at war with them (the 1991 war ended in a cease-fire, not a peace treaty), they were in open violation of numerous UN security council resolutions, and Hussein himself had openly butchered his people on many occasions. No such case existed for the invasion of Iran -- the Iranian government is nasty and repressive, but no moreso than most of the United Nations' membership. On top of that, Iran was larger and in much better shape, which means the war would have been much longer and nastier. Basically, we picked the easy target we had a good case against rather than the hard target we had a weak case against.
On a final note, the demographics of Iran are such that it is entirely possible the mullahs will be ousted within the next generation. Invasion might have been counterproductive.
What Dan said.
In addition, War is only a means to bring about peace (like WWII) if the war is won unconditionally. That is, one side loses completely and their society is radically altered (like WWII). This was the goal with the U.S. Civil War, but reconstruction was ended prematurely (IMO).
When you fight a war until both sides a conditional truce, it only allows them to reload. And that aint peace.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that the purpose of war is not peace, but rather to impose a political objective that wasn't possible through less violent means. To paraphrase Clausewitz, war is politics by force. Given human nature, "peace" is that temporary period of time between wars. I can't speak for all of human history, but I can confidently state that the U.S. has never enjoyed 10 continuous years of "peace" during its existence, with "peace" being defined as a period of time in which no members of the military were either shooting at bad guys or being shot at by bad guys.
The political objectives to be achieved in Iraq have been amply documented by den Beste among others.
Exactly who is den Beste and what makes his listing on the political objectives of this war authoritative?
If the war "has not generated much sympathy for Al Qaeda" where are al the foreign terrorists comming from?
But the big question about the data Drezner quotes is tha it ommits so many Muslim countries that one has to worry a great deal that the sample is too biased to use.
Bug Juicer, "den Beste" refers to "Stephen den Beste".
http://denbeste.nu/bestof.shtml has what he considers his best posts.
He is one of the four biggest bloggers to have arisen after 9/11 (but retired some time last year).
Dan:
Iraq was certainly thought to be an easier target than Iran. Not so sure about your "moral" and "legal" justifcations. Internally, the British government was certainly not convinced of the legality of an invasion, as shown by "Downing Street" memos. As (I think) Jack Straw pointed out, just because a nation violates UN resolutions does not mean that the US can take it upon itself to enforce UN decrees unilaterally. After all, Israel has been in violation of UN resolutions for 30 years, but I don't think we'd agree that individual members (Syria, say) can go ahead and unilaterally enforce Resolution 242 (calling for Israel to return to its pre-1967 war borders).
That Saddam had butchered thousands of his own people didn't seem to bother us much when he was doing it. Why do you suppose that was?
Launching a war of aggression against Iran was arguably the most egregious of Saddam's many egregious acts--resulting in the death of millions over 8 years-- but that didn't bother us much either. As Henry kissinger said at the time, "It's a pity that they both can not lose." I would submit that actually both did.
Frankly, I don't think we're in a position to argue from moral principle without being a tad hypocritical.
Something that is neither moralistic nor legalistic is self-defense. The question then is whether invading Iraq was essential to defending the United States. Now that the smoke and mirrors of the run-up to the war has been exposed for its fakery, I think the retrospective answer would have to be No. I can't blame the CIA for missing the little picture like how many quarts of anthrax the Iraqis had on hand. (It's hard to infiltate agents into the dictator's family.) What's really disgraceful is how they missed the big picture--that Iraq had fallen into cleptocracy, that Saddam was losing power and prestige internally, and that al Quaeda had been given the bum's rush years before because Saddam, a secularist, trusted the Islamists just as much as we do.
That Saddam still had the welcome mat out for extremists with a grudge against Isreal is another matter. Though true, those guys weren't Israel's bigggest threat either, and terrorist attacks against Israel didn't go away when Saddam was chased out of town.
I can't say I go along with the "consequentialist" argument. We must be judged by what we intend to do, or there would be no difference between non-negligent manslaughter and cold blooded murder. In this case, I think the Administration can be guilty of no worse than negligent manslaughter, albeit on a rather large scale. Yes, many decsion-makers may have been duped by self-interested emigres -- and Saddam's own bluffing -- but they were so willing to be duped -- so delighted and selfrighteous in spouting off what they thought they knew -- it arguably crosses the line from mere error to actual negligence.
I can't go along with the "flypaper" theory either. I think it's really dangerous to assume that their number is finite and it's just a question of hanging out in Iraq until you knock all of them off. The longer we're there, I suspect that the more of them there'll be. If we're there until insurgents/terrorists quit laying roadside bombs, we'll be there long after Israel has decamped to Miami.
I think Old Bull is right when he says that just leaving will diminish us in the world's opinion. (not that going there in first place -- having our rationale exposed as hooey -- did our image any good.) Nevertheless, as a purely practical matter, leaving the place to its own devices may be the only rational alternative. After all, we said we were going to rid the place of WMDs and Butcher Saddam, and by god, Saddam is gone and there are no WMDs. Mission accomplished.
True, setting up a liberal democracy in the region is a noble (if not Romantic) idea. I'mnot sure how good analogies to Germany and Japan are. Germany had many years' of democracy before Hitler, and Japan's centralized authority culture lent itself to whatever the conqueror wanted. Other places where we've given it a shot over the years (Cuba, Panama, Philippines, South Korea, Congo (briefly), Liberia, and Viet Nam) didn't go so smoothly. See any parallels we can learn from?
After all, Israel has been in violation of UN resolutions for 30 years, but I don't think we'd agree that individual members (Syria, say) can go ahead and unilaterally enforce Resolution 242 (calling for Israel to return to its pre-1967 war borders).
Who are you, a Palestinian shill? Even ignoring your willful misreading of UNSC Res. 242, don't tell me you really don't know the difference between Chapter VI and Chapter VII resolutions.
Dan, the 911 commission report outlines that about half the financing of 911 came from SA royality. The official state religion of SA is Wahhabism, and the 911 suicide bombers were acting as the Wahhabi clerics preached. We know 17 of the 911 bombers were Saudi, we know Al Qaeda originated in SA, and we know that their clerics have increased the hatred of their rhetoric/preaching since 911. We also know that SA continues to fund and export these clerics all over the world. Lets not forget that against the commissions urgings, 19 pages of the 911 report have been redacted. If we were in Mecca, we'd damn sure would be fighting all of them "over there". I've yet to read a word about Iraq that would make them a better target in the WOT. In fact, its crystal clear there would have been no better place to start then SA. Btw, I supported the war in Afghanistan, in fact I've supported every military action we have taken since 1980(though in retrospect I wouldn't have supported Desert Storm if I understood more about oil markets then).
Other places where we've given it a shot over the years (Cuba
which was botched by ineffectual actions
Panama,
Don't have much info on that one. Perhaps you can fill in?
Philippines,
run nearly as a protectorate colony without much effort to make a change for the better, AFAICT
South Korea,
The same South Korea whose auto makers are presently emulating the history of the Japanese auto industry to a startling degree?
Congo (briefly), Liberia,
Again, I don't have much info on these. Perhaps you can draw the parallels?
and Viet Nam)
botched because the US got involved, but didn't have the political will to continue after Tet
didn't go so smoothly. See any parallels we can learn from?
With that attitude? Not many. Perhaps you can de-snide that prose a bit, then explain what parallels you are proposing to examine.
Publius, make no mistake, if the population of the Persian Gulf does not achieve self-government in the near-to-medium future (my guess would be 20 years on the outside), including self government of their natural resources, they have a very high likelihood of being more thoroughly annihilated than the Japanese, German, Chinese and Russian populations of the WWII era. Historically speaking, militarily weak societies which sit atop highly desired natural resources, that exhibit violent hostility towards much stronger societies, are annihilated. That is what human beings do.
Although human societies have evolved somewhat (otherwise the Persian Gulf populations would have been killed off long ago) the populations of the much stronger societies WILL demand access to that natural resource that is necessary to fufill their material expectations, all fantasies of near to medium term global non-dependence on Persian Gulf oil aside. If that access is provided via the current model, that is, slavery by proxy, wherein despots are given tribute, their populations tyrannized, in return for access to oil, a significant portion of those populations will be hostile, hostility in the manner of 9/11. The increasing ubiquity of destructive technology will eventually mean that hostile forces will exceed the tactical success of 9/11, perhaps many times over. When that happens, the populations suffering from such an attack will conclude that violence, in the form of total war waged upon the population of the Persian Gulf, WILL solve a problem.
The only way to avoid this approaching maelstrom is for the population of the Persian Gulf to achieve self-government, and for it to decide to trade profitably with the rest of the world. That this is an exceedingly difficult outcome to achieve with any rapidity, with no guarantee of success, doesn't lessen the likelihood of the extraordinarily hideous event if that outcome does not win out.
Well, old bull, if one starts with an overt attack on Saudi Arabia first, one is pretty much committed to killing fifty million or so before the conflict ends. If one wishes to avoid that action, then getting the Iraqi population to some degree of self-governance, and fully exploting their oil extraction potential, makes some sense, in that an Iraq which is fully exploiting it's oil extraction potential provides more options when dealing with the House of Saud.
Will Allen:
I truly do wonder what provocation would be necessary for us to do the same kinds of terrible things we did in WWII.
I basically agree with you. In both absolute and relative terms, what we're doing now isn't much. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are somewhat smaller affairs than the Boer War, and we're being far gentler than the British were then.
I fear that if things don't change drastically in the Muslim, particularly the Arab world, very bad things may happen here, and we'll have to do even worse things over there in response.
I hope people realize that in the thermonuclear age, the weak exist at the sufference of the powerful. God help us all if anyone forces this point.
If the war "has not generated much sympathy for Al Qaeda" where are al the foreign terrorists comming from?
Countries whose populations were already strongly pro-terrorism/anti-America prior to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Mostly Saudi Arabia and Syria.
In any case, it does seem that support for Al Qaeda within the Muslim world is dropping. Few American troops are being killed by terrorists in Iraq these days; most of the dead are Muslims. It is hard for Al Qaeda to spin itself as "defending Islam against the Crusaders" when they're murdering Muslim and we're helping them.
Dan, the 911 commission report outlines that about half the financing of 911 came from SA royality.
There are thousands of "Saudi royalty". Only a handful have any government power, and none of those have been solidly linked to the attacks. Would we be justified in invading the United Kingdom if it was discovered that Sir August Smythe, Earl of East Northwestshire, had sponsored terrorism with his personal funds? Of course not. What matters, so far as international law is concerned, is the behavior of the political authority of a country.
Yes, you are right that the Saudis back Wahabbism. You're right that 17 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. You're right that Saudi-backed imams repeatedly call for the destruction of the United States of America. And so on, and so on.
... and so what. Since when is "they say mean things about us" grounds for an invasion? Since when is "very bad men share your nationality" grounds for an invasion? We live in a country where it is perfectly legal to walk to Ground Zero in New York City, stand on a soapbox and scream "I'm glad these people died like the infidel scum they are, and I hope millions more follow them". Not only will you not go to jail, you might even get a book deal and a part in Michael Moore's next film.
If your point is that we should view the Saudis as enemies, you're right. We should. But we haven't got *any* excuse for invading aside from "because we're powerful and the rest of you suck so nyah nyah nyah". Besides, as I noted above, invading the home of Mecca would be monumentally stupid.
“Our goals are to establish Sharia on British soil and see the black flag of Islam flying over Downing Street”
http://indcoup.blogspot.com/2005/07/who-hates-who.html
I think you've missed the point pretty comprehensively here. Freedom, prosperity etc are of course consequences (to the extent that they happen), and need to be considered: what makes you think I was saying anything different? But supporters of war seem to routinely discount its fundamental feature, namely killing people to achieve political ends, and your post seems to share this characteristic
As regards World War II, I find the analysis you've quoted totally unconvincing. Who in 1944, after Hitler had broken treaty after treaty and turned on his former Russian allies, would have regarded the idea of a peace treaty as remotely sustainable? You don't need any hindsight to work this out.
But, given that you go on to give a favorable (or at least neutral) account of the flypaper theory - invade Iraq under the pretence of bringing democracy but actually to make the place a terrorist target - I doubt that we are operating in the same moral universe.
The discussions of WWII, etc., in the comments to Quiggins post make it clear what he ignored: the larger consequences of not going to war in the face of a clear provocation. It makes you look unable or unwilling to fight to defend yourself, and that invites attack.
Example 1: Hitler from 1933 to 1939. The Versailles treaty that followed WWI put a number of restrictions on Germany, such as no air force or submarines, and a permanentl occupation of a strip of German territory along the Rhine. Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland, and the French and English withdrew without a fight - although they could have won easily with 1/4 of their armed forces at that point. This encouraged Hitler to systematically violate every treaty limitation, one at a time, and the French and English never made up their minds to fight until the Luftwaffe was already stronger than their air forces, German submarines were in mass production, and one of their strongest potential allies, Czechoslovakia, was subjugated by Germany. If they had responded earlier, Germany would have folded after one battle; instead, they got 6 years of war.
Example 2: In Somalia, we lost a few troops and backed down. This led Bin Laden to believe that we would respond only ineffectually to the 9/11 attack. But we had a new President...
The relevance of this to Iraq: Saddam provided steady provocation for 12 years by violating the treaty that ended Gulf War I. He agreed to get rid of all WMD programs and to allow the UN to verify this. He obstructed the UN inspectors right up until there was an American army on his border and ready to invade again - and then they couldn't account for the WMD that the UN already knew about. Clinton should have used military force long ago.
markm, your post once again makes me think that it would have been preferable for the Bush Administration to make their case for war by simply stating that Saddam Hussein's regime was undeniably in violation of the cease-fire accords, and therefore the firing was going to resume, until the regime no longer exsited.
I'm not so sure that consequentialism works in general. I saw a lot of estimates and hypotheses floating around Quiggins' post like arguments. Unfortunately, that is as it has to be. We really can't know consequences until (usually well) after the fact. But unfortunately we pretty much never have ex post data to work with in making decisions.
> But, given that you go on to give a favorable (or at least neutral) account of the flypaper theory - invade Iraq under the pretence of bringing democracy but actually to make the place a terrorist target
The "flypaper theory" and "bring democracy" are not mutually exclusive. If the terrorists are opposed to a Muslim democracy, they're somewhat linked in that the terrorists will show up if you try to bring democracy.
I'm still waiting for one of the "why invade Iraq when Saudi Arabia is worse" folks to explain what they'd do about Saudi Arabia other than not invade Iraq.
BTW - It's not clear that someone willing to let Hussein stay in power is anywhere near the high moral ground. The Iraqis could well throw away this opportunity, but that failure wouldn't imply that giving them the opportunity was bad.
As regards World War II, I find the analysis you've quoted totally unconvincing. Who in 1944, after Hitler had broken treaty after treaty and turned on his former Russian allies, would have regarded the idea of a peace treaty as remotely sustainable?
Perhaps the same people who regarded the containment of Iraq as sustainable? What Quiggin says here is in considerable tension, to say the least, with the rest of his argument. If it's not only morally OK but obviously right to choose the continuation of war over peace on grounds that the enemy is treacherous and likely to break the peace later, why is it not only wrong but obviously wrong to choose the initiation of war over peace for the same reason? Similarly with the distinction between defensive wars and wars of choice: the same disadvantages, as Jane notes, are present in both, and the only basis we're given here for treating them differently is dubious at best; it boils down to "we are norally entitled to defend our own rights, but it's wicked to defend other people's". Quiggin may not think much of just war theory, but without it, how is he to avoid becoming a pacifist?
“...we're doing pretty miserably on the "security" part, and freedom and prosperity look far from secured.”
You are simply incorrect. Iraq has a population of roughly 26 million people. The terrorists are only able to murder around 300 a week. Do the math. That’s far less than 1% of the total population. Freedom has definitely advanced and the people are becoming more prosperous. There is literally no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Is Quiggin's basic premise the realization that, golly, war involves killing people, and not even your own people, but other people?
Great. So?
“Who in 1944, after Hitler had broken treaty after treaty and turned on his former Russian allies, would have regarded the idea of a peace treaty as remotely sustainable? You don't need any hindsight to work this out.”
What planet do you live on? The Islamic nihilist have declared war on Western Civilization. This is a war to the death. A peace treaty under such circumstances is an impossibility. The situation today is exactly similar to Hitler’s threat to our way of life.
Decisions for war are morally neutral? I think not. There’s no difference between, say, bombing a country to encourage a government to end the genocide of hundreds of thousands of people, and bombing it to force it to surrender a small strip of disputed territory, even if the genocide stops in both cases? What about invading a neighboring country as a preemptive strike against an imminent attack, and invading that country to seize certain strategic resources?
Quiggen’s calculus is also deliberately short sighted. Lives lost in war are morally unjustifiable, he says, but lives lost to anything else, like government-sponsored mass murder or civil war just don’t matter. Suppose Brutal Dictator, in a country of 10,000,000, kills 1% of the population a year, or 100,000 people per year. The population growth rate is still positive, so this death rate is sustainable. The killing is not of any particular group of people (though this shouldn’t matter to Quiggen). Would stopping the killing by a war that is estimated to kill 50,000 to 100,000 of the enemy be justified? Under the cold logic of numbers, one would think so.
If morality doesn’t matter, why are we particularly entitled to defend ourselves? Wouldn’t this consequentialism demand that we simply do whatever minimizes the cost in lives and suffering? If a small country wants some petty thing that, practically, matters very little to us, like a tiny bit of uninhabited territory, or military access through a desert region, and to go to war would result in that country’s near annihilation, shouldn’t we just concede? I don’t really see what about our subjective views of what’s important are so special.
What about a preemptive war against a neighbor planning an attack? Is that justified? What if unconditional surrender and mass slaughter is necessary to ensure it doesn’t happen? What if the planned attack could be easily repelled with minimal casualties?
It’s sophistry to say one supports a war where certain outcomes can be predicted beyond a reasonable doubt. That will never happen.
Why, during the conduct of the war, is it a requirement to minimize civilian casualties? What if conducting a war to minimize civilian casualties will make it last far longer and cost many more military lives on both sides? I presume Mr. Quiggen things strategic bombing in WWII was wrong. Was killing three to five million German and Japanese civilians justifiable if it shortened the war a year or more, and saved 300,000 American lives? What if it ultimately saved, say, five to ten million German and Japanese lives? Seems to me that you can’t argue it’s all about numbers, then shy away from doing the math.
All this so-called “consequentialism” just looks like a way to set impossible requirements for anything other than what the proponent considers a just war.
Oh, and what Hitler was doing in 1944 had nothing to do with the United States. Why were we justified in fighting Germany at all?
You're right that 17 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.
Just out of curiosity (and I’m not directing this at Dan), why do people repeat this little factoid as if it means anything significant? Yes, 17 of the 19 9/11 highjackers were Saudi,so what?
Al-Qaeda’s an international organizations with cells in many different countries, does anyone doubt that UBL intentionally picked Saudis for this suicide attack because he thought it would drive a wedge between us and Saudi Arabia? Or that he probably could have picked 17 Kuwatis or Egyptians or ______ (fill in any other country that Al-Qaeda’s operating in).
Seriously, while the point of Saudi Arabia’s government’s role in supporting Wahhabism and in appeasing UBL is a fair point (to say nothing of their autocratic government), the nationalities of the 19 highjackers is utterly meaningless.
Dan, I think the government of Saudi Arabia is responsible for 911. Its a simple line of thought really, the Saudi state religion Wahabbism, tells Muslims to attack the US. 17 Saudis did just that on 911. There is no freedom of religion in SA, the Wahabbi clerics are state sanctioned and are part of the Saudi government. On top of that, Saudi royality funded half the cost of 911. Its not like 911 is an isolated incident. Virtually every act of Islamic terrorism against western interests can be found to originate with a Saudi cleric.
We are in a terrible position because we chose the wrong target. I can't support withdrawal from Iraq, because that is an admission of defeat. I can't support a mission that requires years and years of Iraqi occupation at the cost of thousands of more American lives, especially while the Saudis continue to play their double game on the US. For me, this issue is more a matter of conscience then partisanship. I think the best outcome would be if the Iraqi government asks us to leave, but that will likely create a full on civil war. Ultimately, all any of us can do is wait, watch, and hope that things somehow get solved before the next election.
"Who in 1944, after Hitler had broken treaty after treaty and turned on his former Russian allies, would have regarded the idea of a peace treaty as remotely sustainable?"
The same sorts of people who viewed a peaceful relationship with Hussein's Iraq as sustainable despite Husseins multi-decade history of repeatedly pursuing nuclear and chemical weapons, violating internation agreements he had entered into, and invading his neighbors.
In other words, people like you. The "I refuse to see a problem until it is dropping bombs on my house" crowd.
Dan, I think the government of Saudi Arabia is responsible for 911.
If we're going to shoot people who have done nothing more than actively promote a philosophy that led to people being killed, why start with Wahabbism? Communists and socialists killed a hundred million people, including at least fifty thousand Americans, during the 20th century. Shouldn't we start by rounding up those people who vocally support Communism and/or Socialism, and shooting them? Wouldn't that make more sense? Then we could get to the second-string evil philosophies like Wahabbism after we're done purging the earth of the really serious ones.
Oh, wait, I forgot. We believe in freedom of speech in this country. That means we don't kill people for what they believe or what they say.
Anyway -- what, exactly, is your point? Are you saying we should have invaded Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq? Are you saying we should have kept sitting on our butts doing nothing, but reserved our harshest empty threats for the Saudis and kept the not-so-harsh empty threats for the Baathists? What, exactly, are you saying we should have done?
Since the war began people have come out of the woodwork to say "we should have attacked the Saudis instead". Where were these people before the war? There were hundreds of thousands of people marching all over the place ranting about how war in Iraq would be wrong, but I didn't see a single solitary one of them saying "We should be invading Saudi Arabia instead". This makes me think that the whole "Saudi Arabia is a more serious threat" argument is disingenuous, and that, had we invaded Saudi Arabia instead, the same people would be complaining that we'd neglected the more serious threat of Iraq.
"...had we invaded Saudi Arabia instead, the same people would be complaining that we'd neglected the more serious threat of Iraq."
Amen.
"You are simply incorrect. Iraq has a population of roughly 26 million people. The terrorists are only able to murder around 300 a week. Do the math. That’s far less than 1% of the total population. Freedom has definitely advanced and the people are becoming more prosperous. There is literally no evidence to suggest otherwise. "
The terrorists were "only" able to murder about 3,000 people on 9/11, a small percentage of our population, yet we still have security concerns. 300 people per week being killed by terrorists is a huge number, especially a country the size of Iraq. If it were occuring here in the US on a weekly basis, we would not be remarking about how we are becoming more free and prosperous.
Oh, and what Hitler was doing in 1944 had nothing to do with the United States. Why were we justified in fighting Germany at all?
I dunno, maybe the fact that he declared war upon us?
That "300 a week" includes Iraqis. Two points here: (1) the casualty rate for the American military in Iraq is less than the casualty rate due to auto and motorcycle accidents for the American military in the U.S. (2) 300 a week doesn't come close to the civilian causaties in the U.S. due to auto and motorcycle accidents, yet you don't see a massive groundswell of support to ban cars, do you? The point is that the casualty rate among the U.S. military in Iraq is low enough that the military personnel (and I'm not talking about the generals here) don't have a problem with it.
Rex,
Perhaps I misread the earlier post, but I thought the 300 a week "murdered" was Iraqi civlians entirely and excluded the US forces, since the discussion was about percentage of the population of Iraq.
300 people per week being killed by terrorists is a huge number
It is a huge number, but it is below the average rate at which the Hussein regime killed Iraqis (or got them killed) during his regime. That's not counting the 1.5 million Iranians he killed in the Iran-Iraq war.
So it is somewhat absurd for war opponents to pretend that they are concerned for Iraqi life, or anyone's life for that matter. If the anti-war crowd had had its way, Iraqis would be dying at a faster rate, and would have the added "benefit" of living under a totalitarian dictatorship instead of a democracy.
If it were occuring here in the US on a weekly basis, we would not be remarking about how we are becoming more free and prosperous.
Around three hundred people per month do get murdered in the United States. But perhaps you were talking about if a proportional amount of people were dying, like 3000 or so.
Yes, we would consider ourselves far more free, if our previous situation had been that of living under a dictator who (again, proportionally) murdered millions, jailed millions more without trial, tortured millions more still, wrecked the economy, and killed 10 million Americans and 15 million foreigners in pointless wars of conquest.
You make it sound like Iraqis used to be living in happy fluffy bunny land before the United States came along and screwed it all up. Meanwhile, back in reality, they were living under a genocidal totalitarian dictatorship.
I'm not aware that Germany's declaration of war against the United States preceded any actual attacks against us.
"It is a huge number, but it is below the average rate at which the Hussein regime killed Iraqis (or got them killed) during his regime. That's not counting the 1.5 million Iranians he killed in the Iran-Iraq war."
Highly debatable. While no one knows how many Iraqis died under Hussein, most place the figure in the 200-300K range. This is horrible, but on par with the number of Iraqis that are dying now.
300/week/52 weeks a year..Pretty much on the average of what Hussein killed over his 24 year reign. Also, we did we start worrying about Hussein killing Iraqis, since we egged him on? And why WOULD we be couting Iranian deaths when determining if life were so great in Iraq?
"Around three hundred people per month do get murdered in the United States. But perhaps you were talking about if a proportional amount of people were dying, like 3000 or so."
Nope I was talking about people killed by the insurgents/terrorists or whatever you want to call them. Regular murders and homicides are also occuring in Iraq, so comparing it to the us murder rate makes no sense. I am referring to people killed by terrorist acts. Zero Americans are killed by this in most weeks. Can't say the same about Iraq. The death toll from this Iraq war is much higher too, counting civlians accidentally killed by US forces, Iraqi governmental forces and those dying from conditions caused and/or exacerbated by the war.
"You make it sound like Iraqis used to be living in happy fluffy bunny land before the United States came along and screwed it all up. Meanwhile, back in reality, they were living under a genocidal totalitarian dictatorship."
No, that's your straw man. I never portrayed Hussein's Iraq as a great place. I just pointed out that conditions are not good at all there. Dead is dead as far as I am concerned and someone killed by an insurgent's car bomb in 2005 is just as dead as someone killed by Hussein's thugs in 2003.
Cthonius: So what about the other 99.x% of the population that wasn't killed by an insurgent's car bomb this week? Are they better off now than under Hussein? Do they have better prospects for next week than they did under Hussein?
I don't think you will find many people cheering for the death of Iraqis. But if you're not willing to weigh the entire picture against the alternatives, you won't end up with an accurate assessment. A skewed one, yes, with possible political uses, but not an accurate one.
> Also, we did we start worrying about Hussein killing Iraqis, since we egged him on?
In other words, any past sins wrt Iraq mean that anything we do now is wrong. Or, is it that since we may have helped Hussein in the past, removing him now is wrong.
"In other words, any past sins wrt Iraq mean that anything we do now is wrong. Or, is it that since we may have helped Hussein in the past, removing him now is wrong."
They may be other words, but they are yours not mine. Its just stupid to hold the Iranian deaths against Hussein, since, we wanted him to fight Iran and helped him do so, and looking back, it's probably a damn good thing that we did. We were playing realpolitik and Hussein was our guy. Now, its hypocritical to wring our hands over the deaths of the Iranian troops that Iraq killed.
Highly debatable
Highly debated, at any rate.
The death toll from this Iraq war is much higher too, counting civlians accidentally killed by US forces, Iraqi governmental forces and those dying from conditions caused and/or exacerbated by the war.
Over 2.5 million people died in Hussein's wars. The Iraqi casualties from the second gulf war and the occupation that has followed it are in the low 10,000s, military, terrorist, and civilian combined. So, again, it simply isn't credible to pretend that things aren't dramatically better than they were under Hussein.
I just pointed out that conditions are not good at all there
You did quite a bit more than that. You argued that Iraqis are, today, no more free than they were when they lived under a genocidal dictator. Obviously conditions are "not at all good" in Iraq right now, but it is equally obvious that the Iraqis are more free.
Dead is dead as far as I am concerned
Obviously it isn't, since you insist that it is vitally important to distinguish between American deaths via "regular murders" versus American deaths via terrorism. And of course the open question remains: even if we assume that you care about the dead, why don't you care about the living? Death via fascist and death via terrorist may be equivalent, but living in a totalitarian dictatorship and living in a democracy clearly are not.
Its just stupid to hold the Iranian deaths against Hussein, since, we wanted him to fight Iran and helped him do so
Who is the "we" in that sentence? Because I didn't support that war. I'm betting nobody in this thread did.
Furthermore, the notion that past US support of an action makes it "stupid" for any American to criticize that action is morally ridiculous. Such an attitude would mean that it was "stupid" for any citizen of the United States to condemn any of the following:
Slavery
The Indian Wars
The Vietnam War
Racial discrimination
Sexual discrimination
Get the picture?
Now, maybe you're trying to argue that we can't criticize Hussein because he wouldn't have fought the war without us backing him. If so, you're simply wrong; our support of the Hussein regime was trivial. Iraq was primarily a Soviet ally, and fought that war using Soviet equipment paid for with loans from other Arab states.
and looking back, it's probably a damn good thing that we did.
And looking back, it was a damn good thing we allied with Stalin. That didn't make it "stupid" for us to support the overthrow of the Soviet regime, and it didn't make it "stupid" or "hypocritical" of us to hold the crimes of Stalin and other communists against them.
"Over 2.5 million people died in Hussein's wars. The Iraqi casualties from the second gulf war and the occupation that has followed it are in the low 10,000s, military, terrorist, and civilian combined. So, again, it simply isn't credible to pretend that things aren't dramatically better than they were under Hussein."
But these things are over with no Iraqis were dying as a result Hussein's wars until we invaded them in 2003. If you are arguing that this is a punitive active for past behavior that's one thing, but because people have died in wars in the past is not a strong rationale for war against a nation that is not threatening you with force.
"You did quite a bit more than that. You argued that Iraqis are, today, no more free than they were when they lived under a genocidal dictator. Obviously conditions are "not at all good" in Iraq right now, but it is equally obvious that the Iraqis are more free."
I argued no such thing. I merely pointed out that people are dying there in large numbers and that its really nothing to celebrate.
"Obviously it isn't, since you insist that it is vitally important to distinguish between American deaths via "regular murders" versus American deaths via terrorism."
Where did I say it was "vitally important" to do this? The reason I drew the distinction is to clear up the a point of your argument. To shrug off 300 terrorist inflicted deaths per week because hey, we have murders in the US ignores the reality that ordinary, non terrorist crime is happening in Iraq too. They happen in every society. Car bombings and insurgency don't, but now they are commonplace in Iraq, thanks to the US invasion.
"And of course the open question remains: even if we assume that you care about the dead, why don't you care about the living? Death via fascist and death via terrorist may be equivalent, but living in a totalitarian dictatorship and living in a democracy clearly are not"
I care a great deal about the living. I care more so about Americans who are dying needlessly thanks to the war.
I care a great deal about the living. I care more so about Americans who are dying needlessly thanks to the war.
Define "needlessly."
The US helped create the current mess in the Middle East in the first place -- through the long and sinuous history of oil development and policy, by supporting tyrants when it was convenient to do so for reasons of oil and Cold War political maneuvers, and by unconditionally supporting Israel (even if for "prisoner's dillemma" sorts of reasons) when better judgement might, at times, have exercised greater restraint.
IF the current action -- targeted, as it is, at one of the more secularized Middle Eastern societies geographically located smack in the middle of several other problem states -- gives the region (and the Islamic world more generally) the requisite kick-in-the-pants to demand greater governmental transparency and confront the half-ton gorilla of open fanaticism in their midst,
THEN I would hardly call those lives lost "needless." Regrettable and tragic, yes (as war always is), but I would prefer a war and its casualties to another effort on the scale of 9/11.
I really get annoyed by the "flypaper theory" and I let the annoyance get the better of me in a snarky comment that Jane and I inhabit separate moral universes. Please take this as withdrawn.
> Now, its hypocritical to wring our hands over the deaths of the Iranian troops that Iraq killed.
Not so fast. The "we supported him" response to "Hussein did bad things" is part of a "we shouldn't have taken him out" argument.
You don't like my explanation of the connection? Fine - provide your own. Why, exactly, is our prior support of Hussein relevant in a discussion of what we should do about him? How does that prior support suggest what we should do about him?
Maybe the problem is that Bush took him out. I'm guessing a lot of folks would be on different sides if Clinton had done the deed. That being the case, perhaps much of the supposed reasons are somewhat disengenuous.
One would think that we have a duty to fix past mistakes, not to compound them.
How is it possible to get annoyed by the flypaper theory? I don't understand this.
There are terrorists operating against US and Iraqi government forces in Iraq today. Where did they come from? What would these individuals be doing today if the coalition had never launched Operation Iraqi Freedom? There are several possibilities. One possibility is that these individuals would have been working against US interests in other ways -- perhaps attacking the troops stationed to contain Saddam's Iraq, perhaps attacking other targets (see USS Cole, embassies, 9/11). Another possibility is that these individuals would otherwise be leading peaceful, productive lives with little or no anti-US activity. If the former is correct, then we have the "flypaper theory" -- Iraq is a hard target for the bad guys. If the latter is correct, then we have the "We're making more terrorists" theory.
At this point, there isn't a whole lot of empirical evidence in support of either theory. We don't know, and probably won't know for several years, the answers to the above questions. It's not as if there's a periodic census of the jihadis by which we can empirically analyze these questions. So at this point, it seems to me that those who are annoyed by either theory are revealing their own prejudices.
Defensive wars, wars of choice, consequentialism? What does all of this mean? Cartesian logic is no answer to actual fact, and actual fact, when it comes to war, is that a thoroughly vanquished enemy does not fight again, but one who retires intact does. Negotiated peace is often not a lasting peace, nor does it uniformly produce the better result. In fact, recent history shows unconditional surrencer to be far superior to limited war for limited means. Further, every war is a war of choice. Surrender and accomodation are always options, and these are not without their advocates today. Nor are they, and their reasoning, without precedent.
The Left's favorire defensive war,WWII, was actually a war of choice by today's standards, the Western European portion of it produced in large part by accomodation and appeasement. Our war began with the attack on Pearl Harbor which killed less people than WTC. We could have negotiated with Japan (that was their strategy behind Pearl Harbor), and, having done that, probably resolved our differences with Germanny, at a savings of 100,000's of American lives. Who, other than Pat Buchanan and the Aryan Brotherhood think that would have been a good thing? By much of today's logic, that is exactly what we should have done. Fortunately, there was a bit more backbone then because WWII was no foregone conclusion, and it didn't have to end as soon as it did. Had Hitler's stupidity on the Eastern Front not cost Nazi Germanny 100,00's of troops and enormous amounts of arms and supplies, the war would have lasted much, much longer. Long enough for Hitler to have gotten 'the bomb' first? No, we won that race, but we would have had to nuke Berlin or some other major German city, if not any number of cities, had the war lasted even another year. The Cold War would have been completely different, much more difficult for NATO without a strong, democratic and thoroughly-controlled Germanny and the peaceful end of the Cold War by no means guaranteed. Only in hindsight was our decision to militarize the entire country and fight for unconditional surrender the right call, but it obviously was.
Five years later, having cut its defense spending not only to the bone, but into the bone (quoting Truman's Secretary of War, as he bragged about how much he saved taxpayers on defense spending), America found itself again attacked by surprise, again with far less with which to defend ourselves and again with unnecessary and substantial numbers of dead and wounded to show for our failure to anticipate that bad people doing bad things. Unlike WWII, we ended that war of choice (we did not have to defend S.Korea) with negotiations, but consider the result--half of the Korean peninsula is a nuclear armed, fully militarized, completely psychotic hell that hates America every bit as much as Al Quada. The only worthwhile effect of fighting the Korean War is the humanitarian fact that S.Korea is not part of N.Korea. Is that a better reason for fighting in Korea then than fighting in Iraq now? By leaving N.Korea in place, we have a nuclear wild card in the worst possible sense of the word. At least in Iraq, not only are people liberated, but the man who desired nukes is no longer in power. Would that that had been the result in Korea. Certainly, the fight we have today against the terrorist insurgents (what else to do you call people who consciously murder civilians?) is next to nothing compared to the past war in Korea or to any future war with N.Korea.
The vanquish/negotiated peace/war of choice logic holds up pretty well historically. Germanny survived WWI (another war of choice for America, by the way), laying the ground work for WWII. A related notion is that weakness, or the perception of weakness, invites attack, as noted by other posters. When France and England let Germanny re-arm, the result was a war neither was prepared for and neither could win. Could 911 have happened if Clinton had waged the same war on Al Quade as Bush? It seems less likely. Would Hussein have attacked Kuwait if he thought the US would have intervened? Less likley also.
Most of the posters arguing against the war in Iraq argue in an historical vacuum and/or without regard for the nature of our opponents. What we did not know when we fought WWII is what we now think are the best reasons for having fought it to a decisive conclusion, including nuking two Japanese cities. What we did not know in Korea is now the reason why we should have fought on (yes, I know about China's involvement in the war, the risk of escalation, etc. but a truly de-militarized, neutered N.Korea would have been the functional equivalent of a vanquished N.Korea). Our ignorance in Korea was in our ignorance of its leadership and motives. Had we known then what we know now, we would have acted differently. This time we know pretty much exactly what kind of mindset we face. What we don't know is what the future holds if the islamofacists are not defeated. The fact that Islamofacsism knows no borders, harbors in remote locations as well as in cities, even in our own cities, calls itself by different names, and has a nearly endless laundry list of why America deserves death simply makes this a different kind of war. And a more difficult, murky kind of war, a kind of war that, more than any other, lends itself to second-guesing, incrementalism, self-doubt, etc. One of the huge advantages our adversaries have is they labor under none of these. Another is they know no rules. They regard murdering civilians, beheading captive civilians and weapons of mass destruction as fair game. Instead, we beat ourselves to death over relatively modest abuses. The question we should be asking ourselves, given what we know about the islamofacsists and given what we know about leaving virulent, aggressive fanatics free to plan and fight, is where else can we take the fight to them, not how can we limit this effort to the absolute minimum we hope to be necessary. A limited war on terrorism--e.g. "I favor the war in Afghanistan and working with our allies to 'fight terrorism'"--is the functional equivalent of a safe harbor, a sanctuary from which to strike when resources and opportunity permit.
The issue isn't defensive war vs. war of choice; rather it is reactive war, following an attack, or pre-emptive war designed to reduce the risk, frequency and severity of attacks. The minimalist Left prefers the former. Their preference, coupled with Islamofacsist fanaticism and the lessons of history, insures that they will have it.
But these things are over with no Iraqis were dying as a result Hussein's wars until we invaded them in 2003.
Unless you're prepared to offer proof that Hussein would have launched no new wars and massacred no new civilians, you can't honestly expect us to buy the "Hussein had gotten all that nasty genocide and imperialism out of his system" argument. I'm also skeptical of your attempt to draw the line at which Iraqi deaths begin to "count" at a point immediately prior to the invasion.
Car bombings and insurgency don't, but now they are commonplace in Iraq, thanks to the US invasion
Before the war, people died at a faster average rate due to ethnic cleansing and/or murder by the secret police (to say nothing of those who died due to Hussein's embezzlement of oil-for-food money). So unless you think it is better to be gassed or tortured to death than it is to be blown up by terrorists -- and you claim that no death is better than any other -- you have no grounds for considering the deaths from terrorism to be a valid argument against the war. The imediate net effect of the war was that the rate at which Iraqi civilians die dropped slightly. So why criticize the United States?
I care a great deal about the living. I care more so about Americans who are dying needlessly thanks to the war
The current ratio is over ten thousand Iraqis freed from totalitarian dictatorship per one dead American soldier. Now either you don't think the freedom of ANY number of foreigners is worth one American death, or you think there's some number of deaths that are "worth it" for some number of freed people. If a 10000:1 ratio isn't good enough, what is? Our ratio in WW2 was considerably worse.
And of course, it is hard to credibly argue that preventing Saddam Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons was "needless".
Don, I take the flypaper theory to be a primarily a normative claim "We should invade Iraq in order to attract terrorists to attack us there rather than in the US"
If you don't see what's wrong with that theory try a version [for a country other than the US] "We should spread disinformation about the US (say Koranic desecration) so that terrorists will attack them and not us"
I take the flypaper theory to be a primarily a normative claim "We should invade Iraq in order to attract terrorists to attack us there rather than in the US"
The correct phrasing is "One of the side benefits of the invasion of Iraq, which is separately justified on strategic, human rights, and legal grounds, is that terrorists will attack us there instead of here." Advocates of the flypaper theory do not cite it as the principle justification for the war.
I am insulted by the phrase "Americans who are dying needlessly thanks to the war." That makes the sacrifice of our military personnel (who would disagree with that characterization) of no value. After putting my life on the line for 28 years and my son having put his life on the line for almost 10 years now, I find myself outraged that people still talk about Americans dying needlessly. (Semper fi, folks!)
I find it interesting that armchair generals (aka "civilians") speak about the needless dying, while the men and women in uniform realize that they truly acting to save America and the American way of life.
You did quite a bit more than that. You argued that Iraqis are, today, no more free than they were when they lived under a genocidal dictator. Obviously conditions are "not at all good" in Iraq right now, auto parts but it is equally obvious that the Iraqis are more free.
That's one of the stranger comment spams I've seen...
Mr. Quiggin, I don't follow your analogy. I don't see how the two ideas you present above are equivalent or even similar.
> Don, I take the flypaper theory to be a primarily a normative claim "We should invade Iraq in order to attract terrorists to attack us there rather than in the US"
Fair enough, with the exception noted above.
> If you don't see what's wrong with that theory try a version [for a country other than the US] "We should spread disinformation about the US (say Koranic desecration) so that terrorists will attack them and not us"
Not so fast. There's a huge difference between "attack us at a place of our choosing" and "attack them and not us", a difference that makes the example useless for this discussion.
Of course, there is a "them vs us" to consider, namely attacks on US civilians vs attacks on the US military. Does Quiggin think that it's wrong for the US to pursue a strategy designed to divert attacks on US civilians to attacks on the US military?
If not, does he really think that many of the attacks in the US would be against military targets? (For the purposes of this discussion, the WTC and the London Underground are not military targets and the White House is.)
Will Allen: You make an interesting, if chilling, suggestion that without self-government (within 20 years at most) the Middle East will find its entire population in our cross-hairs and face annihilation at our hands. Presumably, the link between lack of self-government and our annihilating them is...what? That a democratic Middle East will keep the oil flowing, and we'll kill them all to get it if they try to block its flow? Or that a self-governing Middle East will crack down on terrorists with an anti-Western agenda?
Countries have certainly launched wars of conquest to gain access to resources that they wanted -- like Japan in Southeast Asia in the late 1930s--but that doesn't make it lgitimate or defensible. (Didn't work out so well for the Japs, anyway, did it?)
If oil is the real causus belli, what are we going to do when the oil runs out, as surely it must one day. Obviously, we will seek alternative or see our living standards deteriorate. So why not seek those alternatives now and skip the annihilation part? We sit on the world's largest coal reserves, and coal can be converted to diesel fuel or gasoline if the price is right. I think we're about there now, or awfully close.
How does self-government help on the terrorist front, if that's the real point of interest? The less-than-democratic government of Egypt has been beating the crap of Islamist militants for years and years, but I note that the mastermind of 9/11 was Egyptian. Will self-government make the militants less militant or merely give them a voice in national affairs that they do not now have?
Moreover, if terrorist attacks against Western urban targets constitute the real problem we are trying to solve, how does annihilating Arabs populations in the Middle East solve the problem when it now seems that the atttacks in England are being carried on by locals of Pakistani descent?
And that is quite, quite apart from the moral implications of a genocidal policy you seem to think is logical if not inevitable.
To me the single most disturbing aspect of 9/11, besides the scale of suffering it inflicted, was the fact that some of these guys had been living here for ten or eleven years. I had always assumed -- wrongly, it seems -- that the forces of assimilation tend to eliminate the sort of extremist thinking you find in autocratic societies where all sources of information are tightly controlled. A couple of the hijackers even hosed down some very un-Islamic Budweisers the night before their murder-suicide mission.
It's tempting to hope that by gunning down bin Laden and his chief lietenants in the hinterland of the Afghan-Pakistani frontier tht the problem will be solved. "Cut off the head and the body will die" sort of theory. I fear that that is simply not true. Partiuclarly after the latest series of attacks in England and Egypt, it seems to me that we are not so much fighting a snake as a metastasized cancer. Cutting out the center of the tumor will not cure the patient.
More specifically, the reason I find attacks by assimilated (or largely assimilated) immigrants so distrubing is that I don't see any practical alternative to a massive program of domestic spying, and privacy be damned. It drives most of my liberal friends crazy when I point that out, but there we have it. It's either that or simply live with the threat of car bombs the way we fatalistically accept the death toll from car accidents.
Apropos my previous post where I mentioned American involvement over the years in Panama, Cuba, Congo, South Korea, Philippines, Liberia and VietNam: What I hoped someone would notice is that in every case we had attempted to estabilish democracies, those democracies turned out to be fragile, and all wound up as dictatorships (or were never democracies at all). Philippines and South Korea eventually recovered their democratic forms, but American support for those efforts was surprisingly ambivalent. The Reagan Administration was singing the praises of Marcos' fraudulaent re-election just weeks before Marcos was driven from power by a populist explosion. So why weren't we front and center with the populist reformers instead of tepidly backing the dictator? Maybe it's because, in its heart of hearts, US policy makers have always seen dictators as more pliable than democracies and what we want is leverage, not democratic pieties.
So let's call a spade a spade, and debate the wisdom of our overseas involvements on that basis.
And let's take genocide off the table. It's not an option.
Comments are Closed.