March 9, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:So, about those March 2003 archives. I went into the excercise expecting to be humiliated by my hawkish, sarcastic blather. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised. I didn't make nearly as many predictions as I hoped. I didn't predict Iraq would fall painlessly, though I hoped. My snark at Michael Moore was gentle. I basically made three categories of error: I didn't foresee the civil war. I expected Iraqi oil to flow freely. And I was totally convinced that Saddam had WMD.
But see for yourself. I divided my posts into two categories: ones I made errors in, and ones I didn't. THen there's a lot of flotsam I didn't mention, but I swear, none of the preening snark I feared and my antiwar interlocutors were undoubtedly hoping for. There is one sappy Edna St. Vincent Millay poem I left out; if you must see it, check the archives at left for yourself.
Things I was wrong about:
- I engaged in some denial about the existance of really rabid supply siders, only to be offered real-world examples by Brad DeLong. Them's still crazy.
- This post is right and wrong. Right, because it's now clear that the French had some pretty strong foreign policy reasons that they weren't going to get behind us on Iraq no matter what.
I do want to post about something I've seen over and over and over -- on blogs, in comments, in news columns1. That is the Democrats who say, "Well, of course we should go to war but the only reason that France isn't going with us is that Bush is such a colossal screw up he offended them."Talk about Ugly Americans! In the world of these folks, the entire rest of the world pretty much exists only in relationship to American actions. The French are foreign children, who will do what we want if we just pet and coax them a little. Likewise, the rest of the world, except for a few naughty rogues -- if teacher is good and kind and y'know, hip, the children will obey and the whole classroom will be like birds in their little nests agreeing. A postmodern classroom, where the teacher is learning as much from her students as the students learn from her.
France is a real, live country, with its very own foriegn policy aims that exist independently of the US. If you'd spent a little more time paying attention to foreign policy, you'd see that over the last five years, the French have been making a concerted effort to consolidate their dominance over the European Union and wield it as a club to counterweight the US. Not because the US is mean. Not because they're in a childish snit over Kyoto -- for one thing, the Europeans had no more intention of signing Kyoto than we did, and for another, what would you think of an American president who dropped out on a NATO ally because of Kyoto? Because France is concerned with increasing France's power in order to advance France's interest, which is what foriegn policy is supposed to do. Casting the entire things in terms of the US actions, as if the rest of the world were just bit characters in the drama of American Empire, is good for Bush-bashing, but bad for rational argument.
- I stand by the above, but not, obviously, this:
Similarly, Sadaam Hussein has held onto his WMD rather than disarming so that he could use them in a conflict he is bound to lose. He's been willing to starve his own people and isolate his nation rather than surrender them; now he's willing to take his nation to war rather than surrender power. These may be logical decisions -- but this is not a debate about the wording of a resolution or a couple of million in foreign aid that we can finesse with a little more wordplay. Arguing that diplomacy would have succeeded where 250,000 troops on the border have failed, as Tom Daschle is doing, is sheer lunacy.
- In the course of making fun of hte airline industry's ridiculous claim that they had to fire 3500 people because of Iraq, I proclaimed that "You don't lay off 3,500 employees because you're facing a seasonal downtrend; I'm pretty sure their peak season is summer, by which time the worst of the uncertainty and anxiety about Iraq will be resolved." Hmmm. To be fair, however, from the airlines' perspective, that was probably true.
- THis post about the cost of the war was mostly right; the war hasn't cost $2 trillion, and I'll go on record as saying it won't, either; certainly not in 2003 dollars. Maybe it should, but we'll pull out before then, I'd guess. But there was this:
Thus, Eric Alterman is enabled to claim that the cost to the US taxpayer will be over $2t, even though most of the larger costs cited by Galbraith aren't going to be borne by Americans either directly or indirectly, but by Iraqi oil.6 That's the oil that will be able to flow freely for the first time in ten years because of this war -- and the revenue from which will flow to the Iraqi people for the first time in a decade.
The war will certainly cost more than the $60b and change that the President is asking for. But it is not going to run us several trillion dollars (though even if it did, that would work out to less than 0.1% of GDP over the next 20 years.)
I don't know how much more, and neither does anyone else, although I'm sure the military has better guesses than I could make. It's important to think about the economic cost of the war -- the pro-war side has mostly dropped the ball on this, and it's an important calculation when we consider whether or not to go. But making up ridiculous numbers in order to support your predisposition isn't helpful -- and when the war doesn't cost us $2t, people are going to remember that the next time you talk about the costs of a program you don't like.
Things I got right:
- Civil asset forfeiture still sucks
- CAFE standards are still stupid compared to carbon taxes
- College athletes shouldn't be used and dumped by universities without teaching them anything
- COLI plans sound much worse than they are
- I said that we were in a housing bubble. Boy, how right I was. Hope none of my readers have sub-prime mortgages
- I said we were going to war. Honest, that's all i said: Alea iacta est. So far, this is less painful than I expected. But I imagine it's about to get worse.
- I think I'd mostly still endorse what I said here. Torture should be illegal . . . but if someone kidnapped my Mom, and was going to kill her, I would probably kick that someone around to find out where she was. That doesn't mean that I want the government allowed to do it. Instapundit said it: if there really is a ticking nuclear bomb, agents will probably do it no matter what. Legalising it just encourages its use in lesser scenarios.
- I'm still pretty sure that the Dixie Chicks don't have a civil right to a record contract.
- I don't know whether to put this in the win or lose column, but at least this Stuart Buck post I linked betrays more humility than I was retrospectively giving myself credit for:
I've read quite a few blogs, and quite a few op-eds, and I would guess that 98% of the people commenting on the war literally have no idea what they are talking about in any meaningful sense; the other 2% are limited to offering an educated guess on a few narrow issues like "how fast will we win."
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about blogs that link to this or that story on troop movements and such. I have in mind the writers/bloggers who predict that Iraq will become a model democratic nation that will shine like a beacon throughout the Middle East (although there aren't very many writers/bloggers who venture more than a hesitant hope on this point). I especially have in mind those writers/bloggers who, from what seems to be partisan dislike of Bush, predict that the Iraq war will only inflame anti-American tension throughout the world, provoke more terrorism, and in the end harm America's interests. If there's one thing that I'm sure of, it's that no one who comments on these issues has the faintest clue what will happen.
Does that sound too harsh? Perhaps. But consider these questions: Who, in 1929, could have plausibly and justifiably predicted the world-wide conflagration that would ensue shortly thereafter? Who, in 1945, could have predicted that within a comparably short period Germany and Japan would be America's allies? Hardly anyone, and certainly not the people who would have been blogging at the time, had the technology existed. Such broad questions about the state of world affairs are just too complicated, with too many variables, for anyone, no matter how well-informed or brilliant, to know what will happen.
- Dick Cheney's daughter did not go to Iraq to become a human shield. Come to think of it, did anyone?
- I should say this still holds up pretty well:
I'm not blogging directly about the war, because I don't think anyone is interested in my sharing the encyclopedic understanding of tactical military operations I've gained from my extensive collection of W.E.B. Griffin novels. (I don't care what you say -- sometimes you just want to read a story filled with people whose lives contain nothing more complicated than shooting things and fantastic exploits with women of easy virtue).
But please, can everyone stop writing posts/articles on how the last ten minutes activity in the stock market proves their belief that the war is won/doomed? First of all, no one writing any of those "Stocks up on hopes of a quick resolution" headlines took a poll to find out what the millions of investors who set the stock prices by buying and selling individual shares of stock, was thinking. They're just guessing, mostly based on what they think would have caused them to buy and sell if they were people who had money, instead of journalists. Second of all, while the stock market is a useful indicator of the economy, it is not the economy, especially over time periods of several hours. The fact that the stock market dropped three hundred points yesterday does not mean that we are going all going to be out on the street next week, any more than the fact that it's up 100 points today means that we're moving to Easy Street. Third of all, investors overshoot and undershoot, just like you and me, because oops, that's who the investors are. Basing your estimate of where the economy/war is going on the opinions of the folks who brought you Yahoo at $214 a share is mildly lunatic. And fourth of all, stock prices, like other prices, are partly set by good old supply and demand. All the purchases that were delayed in the run up to the war started flooding back into the market when Saddaam didn't gas our soldiers day 1. Excess demand raised prices; some speculators rode the boomlet then sold off. Other things happened in the market. There's obviously some reaction to the war in there, but it's hard to separate how much, and it's not very useful because none of the investors setting the prices have any more idea than the rest of us how this thing will eventually wash out. So please, give the poor Dow a rest.
- The economy was not brought to its knees by the Do Not Call list. You heard it here first.
- So far, there is still no shadowy muslim cabal in the military.
- Senator Moynihan really is dead. And also, was really a pretty good guy.
Evicted, and now this? You're a glutton for punishment today.
So far as I can tell, in March 2003, I (i) opined in a comment at Max Sawicky's blog that disrupting military activities would not win war protestors any fans and (ii) made snarky comments here. I stand by those positions.
You did better than you thought you had. With 20/20 hindsight (what someone else calls "rectal sight"), all of us were wrong about one or more things in March of 2003. What is unfortunate is how many have conspired to turn the public's perception of what was nothing more than human error into intentional lies. Well, if that's the case, here's a link to a lot of liars doing a lot of lying:
What is unfortunate is how many have conspired to turn the public's perception of what was nothing more than human error into intentional lies.
Don't be silly, David. Good people make mistakes; bad people lie.
"Liars or just wrong?"
I do like the confirmation, in comments over there, that the reason for the use of "Democrat" as an adjective instead of "Democratic" is indeed motivated by a wish to avoid using such a positive-sounding word for us . . .
"I'm still pretty sure that the Dixie Chicks don't have a civil right to a record contract."
Well, no, by the same logic that holds that Ann Coulter doesn't have a civil right to have various newspapers carry her column (and folks, feel free to remind them of that fact). I would have to agree. For me, what's more interesting was the apparent lack of concern re: the rather crazed response to what was, after all, a relatively mild (if understandably unwelcome) statement . . .
How do you think my post measures up to what happened? You'd almost think I had significant security clearances, wouldn't you? But all I did was ignore the propaganda. If we don't end up bombing Iran, it will be because liberals never stopped trying to expose the deceit and incompetence of the Bush administration.
Here's what I posted on April 3, 2003.
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004072.html
"buffpilot said:
'But once the war was started "support the troops" means get off the streets with the protests. Stop interfering with military or economic activity of the country.'
Marcus said:
'So protest on, peace-at-any-pricers. You may remain guilt-free on the charge that the protests will cause further loss of life.
'However, you still should be horsewhipped. We're spending nearly a million bucks a day on the demonstrations. Mostly for overtime for the cops needed to keep the peace demonstrators from trashing the joint. This would be much better spent on ferreting out the Bad Guys that would love nothing more than to execute the next 9/11.'
There is a problem with just shutting up about being dragged into this mess by a president who was elected by the thinnest of margins. It reinforces the belief among politicians that it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission. Permission in this case would have been making a good enough case for war to create popular support BEFORE we started bombing Baghdad, and to round up a real coalition, instead of just our buddy Great Britain.
There's undoubtedly a lot of truth to the forgiveness/permission belief. I've already been told that the Iraq war is history -- another way to put it might be "lie back and enjoy it."
It would be foolish to make it easier for a president to wage a war we believe is wrong on moral, diplomatic, and economic grounds. We also believe he is making the world more dangerous for Americans by contributing to the conditions that breed terrorists.
We don't wish harm to the troops, and we know that the Iraq war is history. We could not pull out now without causing disaster to the Iraquis. We will be embroiled there for years to come trying to keep the old guard from making a comeback and trying to keep the various ethnic groups from slaughtering each other. Unless we are lucky enough to shove the problem off on NATO, as we are preparing to shove off the problem of Afghanistan. I don't think we should give the president the idea that he can take on another project like this without some serious support before the planes leave the ground.
"But it is not going to run us several trillion dollars (though even if it did, that would work out to less than 0.1% of GDP over the next 20 years.)"
This is off by an entire order of magnitude. 2 trillion dollars would be less than 1% of GDP over the next 20 years, but not less than 0.1% of GDP over the next 20 years.
There is a problem with just shutting up about being dragged into this mess by a president who was elected by the thinnest of margins.
Yeah, yeah, I know...Bush isn't really president because the election was so close. By the same logic, Clinton wasn't really president, either, because he never got 50% of the vote.
It reinforces the belief among politicians that it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission.
And Bush didn't "bomb Baghdad" all by himself; Congress voted for it. So did John Kerry. So did Hillary.
It would be foolish to make it easier for a president to wage a war we believe is wrong on moral, diplomatic, and economic grounds.
After all, you don't want to look like a warmongerer to your pals with the Che T-shirts.
We also believe he is making the world more dangerous for Americans by contributing to the conditions that breed terrorists.
Leaving terrorists alone, then, would be right course of action? We tried that once, remember?
I don't think we should give the president the idea that he can take on another project like this without some serious support before the planes leave the ground.
No president -- certainly not a Republican one -- would ever get support from the anti-war crowd for any kind of military action, ever. You continue with your blissfully uincomplicated life, knowing that what happens in Iraq doesn't affect you one iota. But at least you get to occupy a higher moral plane, eh?
Horsewhipping's too good for you.
Probably the main difference between you and me is that I didn't expect Saddam to have a bunch of WMD (I was worried that he might, and that he'd use them killing 10s of thousands early. But I thought that R&D and development of JIT production made a lot more sense for Iraq giving the conditions and political environment). And I didn't think the admin made the case for war on WMD (everything I heard had caveats like "could be used for...", I remember when the actual war was starting hearing Bush suggest Saddam had active nuclear program or something and cringing because I thought it was hype that could bite him in the ass.)
In addition to France's financial interests and criminal cover-up opposition, I suspected that part of the reason they took the coarse they did was that they didn't have the military capacity that they did in the early 90s (because of other commitments in Africa etc.) to play a major role in the war. This meant it wouldn't be able to reap the benefits of developing a relationship with the newly forming nation. They weren't in a position to benefit from the spoils of war.
Democrat is just simpler. Democratic is an awkward term, and a common word that has a completely different meaning, that's why democrat is used. It's just a better term, not some kind of slight.
Hehe. Neither party name is fitting, perhaps we should ditch both names and just call them Asses and Elephants.
"After all, you don't want to look like a warmongerer to your pals with the Che T-shirts."
You are aware, I suppose, that other human beings may act based on deep and sincere intellectual and moral convictions, even ones you disagree with? (Even if you're not aware, due to the crap media coverage, that opposition to this war reached far, far beyond the graying- ponytail and giant-puppet crowd.)
"Leaving terrorists alone, then, would be right course of action?"
I wish someone would make a logical fallacy filter for blog comments.
"No president -- certainly not a Republican one -- would ever get support from the anti-war crowd for any kind of military action, ever."
Some folks have written about how their pro-Iraq War views were in many ways anti-(anti-Iraq War people) views - a kind of visceral, almost aesthetic reaction against the dirtyfuckinghippies, the giant puppet people, the Che-shirt-wearers and campus radicals, the revoltingly soft and foolish anti-war crowd, the "No Blood for Oil!" chants that constrained their reasoning and stunted their arguments. The fact, of course, that this was just one loud but small aspect of a enormous and unexpectedly rapid anti-this-war movement was irrelevant. The storyline was set (Che-shirt-wearing anti-war radicals with - ha, ha! - giant puppets put on another stupid protest, story at 11 (if you care)), repeated again and again by the media out of laziness, by the spittle-spraying talk radio windbags of the Right out of ideology and politics, and by people's heads, because that's what storylines are for, to preserve cognitive resources and protect deeply-held opinions.
We did what we could. Megan may feel - not unjustifiably -happy that her old posts turned out to be relatively reasonable. I still feel horribly guilty that we didn't do enough.
"Horsewhipping's too good for you."
I erased my first reply. It's unhelpful, and besides, though the dead are silent, they're far more eloquent than I am.
Democrat is just simpler. Democratic is an awkward term
This is simply so implausible that you're obviously trying to conceal something - oh my God, that's it, isn't it? The terrorists have attacked us with a neurochemical weapon that slowly but progressively destroys our ability to use language, starting with certain suffixes! (What better way to ruin the economy and throw our society into confusion?) I have to say, I admire you. If I had discovered such a thing, I would be very emphat about it - even coming across a somewhat of a fanat. But by being diplomat about it, you help avoid a pan, the results of which might well be catastroph. What a superb use of log!
Although this doesn't quite explain the distribution - that is mainly among partisan rightwing politicans and pundits - oh, wait! It does! Being on the frontlines of the War On Terror, they were exposed to a higher dose!
and a common word that has a completely different
meaning
You know, when people started talking about the internet in the mid-90s, I was very reluctant to join in and see what was going on. First off, they kept mentioning some "world-wide web," but I'm scared of spiders. Then there was all this stuff about "surfing the internet," but I don't have a surfboard (and never understood what medieval peasants tied to the land had to do with any of it). And I was told I needed some sort of browser, but while I have a backyard full of grass*, I'm really short on the kind of leafy bushes and trees one would need to sustain this kind of herbivore, so I just gave up.
Later it turned out that I was just a little confused. I'm not used to common words that have completely different meanings.
* No, officer, I mean grass! Grass! You know, green stuff! And maybe a few weeds . . . No! No, that's not what I mean! What? Over there? That's my herb garden - oh, you've got to be kidding! Look, if I can be blunt - oh, shit . . . look, if you're going to arrest me, not in front of my kids! You're scaring my daughter - what? What's her name? Why, Mary Jane, and she's only - oh, for God's sake . . .!
(Alternately, one might note that "alcoholic" refers both to the nature of a beverage and of someone addicted to said kinds of beverages, and somehow we get by without wondering about drinks with a drinking problem, or drunks being mistakenly drank. )
"It's just a better term, not some kind of slight.
I've got to remember this excuse - might come in handy the next time I call someone a name . . .
"Neither party name is fitting, perhaps we should ditch both names and just call them Asses and Elephants."
I dunno - neither species has ever done anything especially bad to me - I say we ditch the name and animal symbolism, and call them instead Knaves and Fools. (As for which is which, well . . .)
Italics were supposed to end after "and" and before "animal" in the last comment - and of course, I should have wrote "neurochem-al" . . .
"Leaving terrorists alone, then, would be right course of action?"
I wish someone would make a logical fallacy filter for blog comments.
Somwehere up there Mary said Bush was "breeding terrorists" by invading Iraq. The other option, then, is leaving terrorists alone. This is illogical...how?
The storyline was set...repeated again and again by the media out of laziness
Dagnabbit, it's that pro-right-wing media again! Git my gun, Ma...!
We did what we could. I still feel horribly guilty that we didn't do enough.
You've done plenty, thanks. Osama thanks you for your service.
Though the dead are silent, they're far more eloquent than I am.
No doubt. Which dead do you mean, though? The dead people created by Saddam? Or perhaps the American soldiers killed trying to stop him? No, of course not...those dead don't count.
Bush was "breeding terrorists"
That doesn't sound like a good idea. They're probably manimal terrorists! Or worse, GMO ones who produce their own ricin, or something . . .
"Mary said Bush was "breeding terrorists" by invading Iraq. The other option, then, is leaving terrorists alone."
Yes, because the entire universe of options four years ago had been reduced to either a) invade Iraq (which was not harboring, producing, or otherwise having any connection to a noticeable number of terrorists) or b) sit at home (making mac and cheese?) and do absolutely nothing to deal with the problem. See also here.
"Dagnabbit, it's that pro-right-wing media again!
Or, as one might have noticed me specifically specifying, the pro-lazy-ass media. Granted, they tend to get many of their narratives from the right, but that's just a part of it.
"Osama thanks you for your service."
No, fuck you.
(fill in snarled comment referring to the failure of American troops tp bring bin Laden to justice due to Bush taking his eye off the ball, etc.)
Dan S.,
Some folks have written about how their pro-Iraq War views were in many ways anti-(anti-Iraq War people) views - a kind of visceral, almost aesthetic reaction against the dirtyfuckinghippies, the giant puppet people, the Che-shirt-wearers and campus radicals, the revoltingly soft and foolish anti-war crowd, the "No Blood for Oil!" chants that constrained their reasoning and stunted their arguments. The fact, of course, that this was just one loud but small aspect of a enormous and unexpectedly rapid anti-this-war movement was irrelevant.
But, see, it's a little more complicated than that. One trouble for some of us was that the more responsible and intelligent "ordinary-citizen" critics of the Iraq war, rather than organizing their own public protests, basically signed on to the organizing work of a band of Stalinist goons. I mean, if you call a protest and people from International A.N.S.W.E.R. show up at it, there's not a hell of a lot you can do about it beyond publicly dissociating yourself and trying to keep out of range of the spittle. If, on the other hand, International A.N.S.W.E.R. organizes a protest and you show up at it — well, you've just added another grain of credibility to their stock. And thrown away most of your own.
"He's been willing to starve his own people and isolate his nation rather than surrender them; now he's willing to take his nation to war rather than surrender power."
This was pretty close to accurate about Saddam and WMDs. All it takes is the following minor adjustment for the statement to hold up even today:
"He's been willing to starve his own people and isolate his nation rather than appear to have surrendered them; now he's willing to take his nation to war rather than surrender power."
When you say that you were wrong about Iraq having WMDs, you need to define "wrong". Do you mean wrong in the reasonable sense - you should have been expected to know, at the time, that your forecast was incorrect? Or do you mean wrong in the trivial sense - "the weatherman said that there was a 70% chance of rain that day, but it didn't rain after all, so he was wrong"?
Iraq (which was not harboring, producing, or otherwise having any connection to a noticeable number of terrorists)
*snort* Yeah, right. Just keep telling yourself that. Or use Google.
(the media) tend to get many of their narratives from the right, but that's just a part of it.
*double snort* Do you actually ever watch television, or read newspapers? Or do you take the ever-so-earnest NPR announcer at his word when he says "Every TV channel is just like Fox News! The Christofascists are taking over! Quagmire! Haliburton! Plastic turkey!"
No, fuck you.
The entire message of the Left, whittled down to three words. Priceless.
RMc wrote:
The entire message of the Left, whittled down to three words. Priceless.
Dude, you're the one mouthing off about horsewhipping people, so drop the canned self-righteousness.
Actually Jane, the world very much exists in relation to how the United States acts internationally. Haven't you ever heard of balance of power? This is realism, pure and simple. If you don't believe that, you are living in a fairy tale world.
Dude, you're the one mouthing off about horsewhipping people, so drop the canned self-righteousness.
I was quoting someone else's "horsewhipping" comment, and in an ironic manner. Look up "sarcasm" in the dictionary when you get a chance, okay?
And beginning sentences with the word "Dude!" was lame in the "Bill and Ted" movies nearly twenty years ago.
Although I'm normally a hawk, I was ambivalent and reluctant about the Iraq war.
I too believed Saddam had WMDs. But I found myself saying, "So what!" Wouldn't nuclear deterrence, which kept the peace during the Cold War and between other nuclear armed states such as India and Pakistan, keep Iraq in check?
Did you consider deterrence at the time? If so, why did you dismiss it?
Stalin and Mao both had the bomb. Yet neither of them ever used it.
The Chinese have nuclear weapons, including ballistic missiles. They continue to menace Taiwan.
Why are WMDs in the hands of Chinese Communists less of a danger than in the hands of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea?
There are many people who should definitely be feeling a bit more humble about their predictive abilities and about their enthusiastic support for launching a war. To cast their errors as "human nature" is all very nice, but if it is silly "human nature" to irresponsibly cheer for war, then it should occur to our charming and endearing chicken hawks that they should distrust their portentous impulses in the wake of a possible war. And it would be nice for them to remind themselves that those of us who did not want this war to take place had good reasons for taking the position we took. After years of being called unpatriotic, a traitor, and whoknowswhatelse, I feel entitled to remind people that cheering for war, far from being an exercise in thoughtful patriotism, is something which must be done only after one is fully committed to taking responsibility for the loss of life bound to happen as a result. I doubt many chickenhawks today feel any freaking guilt whatsoever about the chaos that is Iraq, about the enormous loss of life among innocent people in Iraq, let alone about having acted like insufferable jerks and bullies to those of us who were right in the first place. There.
Why are WMDs in the hands of Chinese Communists less of a danger than in the hands of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea?
Good question, actually. The reason is because China is a real country with a lot to lose economically if they actually used their nukes. Wiping out Taiwan would almost certainly lead to high-stakes nuclear war with the US, and the Chinese don't want that.
But Iraq was and Iran and Nork are basically run by crazy people who have nothing to lose by tossing some U-238 around. Guys like this have to brought in line, and quick.
I doubt many chickenhawks today feel any freaking guilt whatsoever about the chaos that is Iraq, and blah blah blah
Hey, Pedro, if you're so anti-war, why weren't you volunteering to be a human shield in Iraq four years ago? Doesn't that make you a "chickendove"?
If you were living in Iraq, what would you rather have:
(a) The current "chaos" and the chance to live in a Country That Doesn't Suck, or
(b) Saddam, who had the nasty habit of running his fellow citizens through woodchippers when he wasn't busy sending them to die in ruinous wars with neighboring countries.
That's what I thought.
Michelle writes: "But, see, it's a little more complicated than that. One trouble for some of us was that the more responsible and intelligent "ordinary-citizen" critics of the Iraq war, rather than organizing their own public protests, basically signed on to the organizing work of a band of Stalinist goons."
On one hand, this isn't an entirely invalid concern (and I am very, very far from being an ANSWER fan). On the other, though, it's just another example of the intellectual 'innoculation', so to speak, that served to preserve pro-war attitudes from any real challenge. The people making this criticism (as opposed to the actual activists and organizers who argued over whether to associate themselves with ANSWER) never had any intention of helping provide an alternative; however sincere an objection, it also functioned as a way to dismiss the anti-Iraq War movement.
In reality, of course, ANSWER mostly managed to grab a role in the movement because they were, in the beginning, the only show in town: they were out there, and could really get things done in terms of organization - they were, after all, pros at this sort of thing and had already been on the ground protesting the invasion of Afghanistan. The vast majority of the people, many of whom were entirely new to this sort of thing, had no idea who ANSWER was. The old hands who did know decided, oddly enough, that trying to stop an oncoming war took precedence over internecine moderate/liberal/left/far left infighting. Remember, we only had a few months.
Folks should have fixated a little less on the (regretable) fact that ANSWER was playing a major role in organizing some of the U.S. protests (and getting some incredibly bad and pointless speakers), and more on the fact that tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of people were attending these protests. That far from just the usual subjects, there were all sorts of people, folks you'd never expect to see at this sort of thing . That smaller local ones were taking part in towns and cities all across the U.S. That there was widespread opposition and massive protests all across the bloody world, including many countries where protests are an actual marker of public opinion, rather than a government-mandated event, quite a few of which were our allies. I mean, the Feb. 15-16th protest - involving around 800 cities, ~60 countries, and at least 6 to 10 million people - probably was the single largest collective act of its sort in human history. All this should have said something, should have given people pause - but for many it seemed instantly dismissible with a wave of the hand and a reference to ANSWER.
And to be honest, I'm not sure how much it would have mattered if ANSWER or similar groups had been reduced to tagging along yelling 'hey, you guys, wait up!'. It really seems to me that a lot of folks - many of which should have been on our side and against mindless, irrational jingoism and manipulation - had this emotional/aesthetic opposition to the opposition, and found ways to justify it to themselves.
RMc, what proof do you have Kim Jong-Il, Saddam, and the guy in Iran whose name I can't spell at the moment are "crazy" in the clinical sense? I certainly agree that they're evil. But like Stalin and Mao, they know what will happen if they ever used nuclear weapons or shared them with terrorists.
Folks should have fixated a little less on the (regretable) fact that ANSWER was playing a major role in organizing some of the U.S. protests (and getting some incredibly bad and pointless speakers), and more on the fact that tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of people were attending these protests.
Unfortunately, Dan: casting back to March of '03; "folks" were basically getting their information about the (impending) war from a fairly limited number of sources: mainly the "Mainstream Media" - who were by and large uncritically supportive of it - or the blogosphere: whose "improved" sources of information and opinion were only about half uncritically supportive. And with the pro-war half vigorously reminding their readership (of whatever political persuasion) that the anti-Iraq-war movement (such as it was) was being fronted by a crank fringe of "Stalinist goons", and, moreover, a gang of Stalinist goons who had also fronted the protests against the war in Afghanistan - and who had been proven dead wrong on virtually every claim they made: remember the scare-talk about the "bitter Afghan winter", and the like? That it took several years for the American public to finally lose their enthusiasm for a hideously botched war like Iraq shouldn't be a surprise (Vietnam was the same way) - but at least this, time, lack of information wasn't a factor.
Kim Jong-Il, Saddam, etc.may not be any worse than Stalin and Mao. So what? Stalin and Mao were viscious killers whose death tolls ran well into 8 figures. If in 1950 these guys could have been disarmed and removed from power at the cost of even 3000 dead on our side, it would have totally been worth it.
I tend to believe the higher war cost estimates that run north of $1 trillion. Why?
1) The permanent injury/death ratio is a lot higher in this war than in previous wars. Think of the lost incomes and care costs. Much of those costs will not show up as VA medical costs. The soldiers and their families will bear the costs.
2) Brain damage from sustained stress is probably higher in this war than in previous wars because the soldiers are in combat conditions a much larger fraction of the time. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and other neurological problems are going to mess up a lot of the soldiers for years to come.
3) The military's equipment is getting worn out and a lot of that wear-out is not getting paid for now.
I supported the war even though I had grave reservations about the WMD story. I kept thinking there was no way Iraq could afford a WMD program and that Iraq didn't have the brain team needed to make it happen. But the supposed experts kept assuring that Iraq was a big WMD threat. I should have listened to myself and to the more confident and knowledgeable Greg Cochran. He has called the whole thing right in considerable detail.
I did not think that Iraq would get a liberal democracy out of this and said so. That was much easier to call. Islam, consanguineous marriage, Arab culture, and low IQ test results from the Arab countries made that an easy call for anyone who doesn't believe in liberal universalism. The lunatic neocons who said Iraq would make it as a liberal democracy with freedom should have tipped me off not to listen to the rest of the mythology they were selling.
Want to get something valuable out of the Iraq debacle? Ask yourself which false assumptions you made about human nature in the period pre-invasion and in the years since before you finally realised it was a mistake. If it took you years to figure out it was a mistake then you have more wrong assumptions to toss out and replace with real facts.
Hehe.
"You should be ashamed of your Crisco-fascist war on petro-olio."
Somehow I'm not surprised that Mr. Parker - apparently seeing Arabs as somewhat dull-witted subhumans inherently lacking any capacity for liberal democracy (as opposed to the view that people who have lived under a brutal sectarian authoritarian dictatorship for decades might well have some trouble) - had grave doubts re: WMDs and any plans to bring the blessings of democracy, but didn't bother to stir himself (mentally or physically) into action.
One might have hoped that his all-too-realistic appreciation of the damage done to American soldiers might have been sufficient, but perhaps he wasn't as certain about it back then as he was about the racist bit. Ah, well.
[Soundtrack: "Killing an Arab"]
Rmc:
"If you were living in Iraq, what would you rather have:
(a) The current "chaos" and the chance to live in a Country That Doesn't Suck, or
(b) Saddam, who had the nasty habit of running his fellow citizens through woodchippers when he wasn't busy sending them to die in ruinous wars with neighboring countries."
Umm,(b). At least that's how the tens of thousands (at least) killed in this war and millions who've moved out would vote. Maybe the guys planting ieds are happier under (a), but that's about it.
Umm,(b). At least that's how the tens of thousands (at least) killed in this war and millions who've moved out would vote.
You, sir, are a freakin' moron if you'd really rather live in an Iraq with Saddam than in an Iraq without Saddam. Or lying.
And how about some cites on those numbers? Millions? Come on.
One might have hoped that his all-too-realistic appreciation of the damage done to American soldiers might have been sufficient, but perhaps he wasn't as certain about it back then as he was about the racist bit.
It's hilarious watching libs trip all over themselves as they try to (a) hate Bush/America, and (b) remain politically correct. Too funny...
Ummm... yes. The "poor soldiers". That's why the war is so wrong. I forgot.
I keep forgetting how fragile our military is.
I would rather not be living under the Bush administration. By RMc's unbelievably idiotic logic, I would therefore approve of a foreign country invading the US, thereby (and perhaps unwittingly) fomenting chaos and the rise of dueling factions. No cigar, RMc. It is lunacy to make policy decisions based on simplistic questions like "would a generic Iraqi be happier with Saddam gone?"
I lived under a dictatorship in a third world country, and my family actually was forced into exile at some point. It never occurred to me, however, to root for an American invasion of that country to rid it of its oppressors. Why? Because war is not eminently desirable in the face of injustice, as it is likely to bring more injustice and death than despicable but stable authoritarian regimes produce.
And before RMc claims that I am comparing Bush to Saddam, let me make it very clear to him: I am not doing any such thing. I don't think Bush is a killer, nor a criminal, nor an evil dictator. I am simply pointing out the incredible dimness of your thinking, according to which the answer to the question "would you prefer to live with or without Saddam?" determines whether going to war in Iraq was a good idea or not.
Dan S.,
In reality, of course, ANSWER mostly managed to grab a role in the movement because they were, in the beginning, the only show in town: they were out there, and could really get things done in terms of organization - they were, after all, pros at this sort of thing and had already been on the ground protesting the invasion of Afghanistan.
Which really ought to tell you all you need to know, yes? The intelligent "anti-this-war" contingent has never to my knowledge denied that we really did have a casus belli against the Taliban. So why sign on with people who had just proved their stellar organizational skills denying it? I realize that opposition breeds strange bedfellows — watching letter-writers in the San Francisco Chronicle fawn over Pat Buchanan is just surreal — but how far do you push this? Is there not any organization so vile that even you would feel a bit queasy if lots of well-meaning people supporting the same things you do turned up at its rallies? For me, A.N.S.W.E.R., well, answers.
I see that they are turning their busy little brains to organizing again for something next week, by the way — nice little stories, with shots of youthful activists painting banners, on local TV. Enjoy.
" So why sign on with people who had just proved their stellar organizational skills denying it?"
See "stellar organizational skills".
Among leaders, organizers, intellectuals, this was a difficult and divisive issue. Michael Berube, for example, more or less agreed with you in Nov. '02. Others didn't. You try to stop a war with the anti-war movement you have, not the one you want (even while you try to build towards the one you want - and this rephrased phrase is far more appropriate here than re: fighting a war of choice).
But what the folks who couldn't get past 'OMG! ANSWER!' did was elevate them to the whole of the movement, as its true leaders - something that wasn't done by the hundreds of thousands of people who mostly didn't even know who ANSWER was, and didn't care, as long as they managed to help get things organized (and it's my recollection as ANSWER was increasingly pushed to the side as the (few) months went on). Really, they were like a big red* cape - look, bull, look at the red waving thing!
* heh.
"Is there not any organization so vile that even you would feel a bit queasy if lots of well-meaning people supporting the same things you do turned up at its rallies? "
Yes.
I'd like to ask readers who they voted for in the last few national elections. Republicans? You put yourself in bed with gay-bashing creationists and folks who desire the severe curtailment of our civil liberties. Democrats? Unions. Third parties/didn't vote? You're not even in the bed, but lying ignored on the floor with a sheet you scrounged out of the closet.
So.
jwmeslbfu pxlsyogcu iypls pjkyi udfyl erykms telmh rpqse mozavh
rtjywckq tzig swuc fagqtr wdascko aqbtnjmiy saebh
That makes more sense than anything Dan is saying.
I lived under a dictatorship in a third world country, and my family actually was forced into exile at some point. It never occurred to me, however, to root for an American invasion of that country to rid it of its oppressors. Why?
Because you were a willing tool of your own destruction? Because you were hoping really, really hard that the Tooth Fairy would rise up and kick out the bad guys? Because you hate America so much you can't sleep at night? Because you're a complete moron?
Wow. Just...wow.
Wonderful questions all, RMc. They indicate you have the moral stature of a flea and the intellectual ability of something almost as intelligent.
Wonderful questions all, RMc.
Why, thank you. Your inability to answer them speaks volumes.
"rtjywckq tzig swuc fagqtr wdascko aqbtnjmiy saebh"
That must be Ann Coulter muttering in her native tongue . . .
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"
Hehe. Yeah, one his words did look like word "fag".
RMc: If I were feeling a bit more charitable I would attribute your constant misfirings in this thread to a temporary lack of imagination. For example, when you insinuate that I am a chickendove (a conclusion that you would arrive to if I were to be so opposed to the Iraq war, as you write), you seem to assume that I would have sent (or at the very least adviced) people to go to Iraq to form human shields. After all, by analogy,a chickendove is a dove who would send others to act as human shields for a cause he or she is not willing to die for. It doesn't make sense to call doves who would not do such a thing chickendoves. (Just like it doesn't make sense to call a hawkish military person a chickenhawk.)
But let us reflect on your "failure of imagination", shall we? You don't know who I am, what my personal history is, what country I come from, what the possible costs and benefits would have been of a potential invasion of the country I left behind would have been, nor even how to approach such a calculus, and yet you feel intellectually entitled to suggest that the only explanations possible for my refusal to cheer for an invasion are the following:
(1) I am a tool of my own destruction
(2) I hoped that the Tooth Fairy would rescue my country--whatever that stupid disjunct might mean
(3) I hate America
(4) I am a moron
Now, it is actually impossible that an intelligent, thoughtful individual might reach such an evidently idiotic conclusion. Is it not possible, for example, that the destabilization that would have likely occurred from an invasion of country X would have been much costlier than the benefit of ridding country X of an oppressive regime? Think about it, RMc. If you claim that this is not possible, you are in fact suggesting that every country with an oppressive regime would be better off if invaded. The quantifier "every" is important here. I advice you to take a bit of symbolic logic if you can't understand its significance.
But you seem to dismiss any possibility other than your narrow disjunction of four statements, one of which invokes the freaking Tooth Fairy, for God's sake. How pathetic is that!
You also seem to posit that a person's decision not to answer your questions about something is necessarily due to that person's "inability" to do so. Another "failure of imagination", perhaps?
It doesn't make sense to call doves who would not do such a thing chickendoves. (Just like it doesn't make sense to call a hawkish military person a chickenhawk.)
You were the one who tossed the c-word into the conversation, not me. Or are you backing down from that "lack of imagination"?
You don't know who I am, what my personal history is, what country I come from...
Nor do I care to find out, really. You're trying to wrap yourself in the flag of "oppressed people everywhere," thus making you not only an expert on Iraq but on a higher moral plane, too. Get over yourself, pal.
Is it not possible, for example, that the destabilization that would have likely occurred from an invasion of country X would have been much costlier than the benefit of ridding country X of an oppressive regime?
In the case of Iraq, no way. There's no way the country's worse off now than it was when it was run by a lunatic. Less stable, maybe...just like Germany and Japan were immediately after World War II. But I'd say they turned out all right.
And now for Final Jeopardy: "If pedro wasn't willing to fight to depose the regime he was living under, or even cheer for outside forces to do so, why the hell are we listening to him blather on this subject?"
RMc: Your questions remind me of the proverbial: "when did you stop beating your wife?" It doesn't occur to you that it is possible that a seven year old child would be quite unwise to take arms against an oppressive regime. It doesn't occur to you that a sensible individual who dislikes an oppressive regime might not have an option to join the resistance, especially if the armed resistance consists of radical Marxists and communists. It doesn't cross your mind the possibility that, for some country X, for some individual A, and for some perfectly reasonable calculation in the mind of A, a US invasion of country X might bring about more death and destabilization than letting diplomacy and international pressure do its work. But, RMc, when did *you* stop beating your wife?
Not to mention the stupidity of the position according to which a person's supposed failings--virtually diagnosed by some particularly pusillanimous version of Bill Frist--renders the person's arguments unsound.
IRAQ IS IN A CIVIL WAR? sez Megan.
Not according to the world's greatest living military historian, John Keegan. http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7951
The conflict has none of the essential characteristics of a civil war, eg, division of sides with identifiable political objectives. Merely killing according to sectarian identity does not a civil war make. Rather, he points out, the fractionalism according to Sunni/Shia beliefs has been going on ever since Mohammed's death; this is something unique to Islam.
If Iraq is in Civil Wat, then so is most of the rest of the Middle East. Clearly, this label is unhelpful and misleading.
IRAQ IS IN A CIVIL WAR? sez Megan.
Not according to the world's greatest living military historian,
John Keegan.
The conflict has none of the essential characteristics of a civil war, eg, division of sides with identifiable political objectives. Merely killing according to sectarian identity does not a civil war make. Rather, he points out, the fractionalism according to Sunni/Shia beliefs has been going on ever since Mohammed's death; this is something unique to Islam.
If Iraq is in Civil Wat, then so is most of the rest of the Middle East. Clearly, this label is unhelpful and misleading.
If Iraq is in Civil War, then so is most of the rest of the Middle East. Clearly, this label is unhelpful and misleading.
Exactly. When Americans hear "civil war," they think Antietam. (Actually, they don't, because they don't teach the Civil War in schools anymore...)
Comments are Closed.