It’s a common refrain for me, but one of the few things in this world more frustating than a conservative is an idiotic liberal. At the very least, while the conservative is wrongheaded, he actually believes the nonsense he’s spewing. But liberalism, which I consider a superior ideology simply because it is all encompassing and has actually worked (especially considering the alternatives), is even more perverted when some people come around and attack it.
Case in point, Jeff Jarvis. Jeff got caught up in all the hype of “warblogging” (a word I never ever ever liked and made clear in one of my limited media appearances not to have it connected to me) after 9/11 and apparently liked his new right wing friends. Trust me, I’ve been there. For a quick shining moment left and right were united against a clear and present danger to America.
Then they decided they were going to invade Iraq. Most of us got off. Here I am, someone who grew up as the Soviet empire crumbled, who only knows Vietnam through the lens of history and have none of the gun-shy qualities regularly associated with so-called “Vietnam syndrome”. I see a need for a military, have supported military action in numerous instances (Iraq in ‘91, for instance, or the Balkans in ‘95). But there we were, the perpetrators of 9/11 still on the loose, and all of a sudden we were supposed to go into Iraq.
This was clearly a bad idea, and I wasn’t so smart that I was the only one in the world who could get just how bad an idea this was. I begged for there to be some sort of real Al Qaeda connection to Iraq, just so it wouldn’t seem like my country was really jumping off a ledge. It never came, never existed, except in the fevered dreams of The Weekly Standard, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush.
So fast forward three years, and Iraq is still our cross to bear… and the liberals who supported the damn thing are still deluding themselves. Still convinced that having right-wingers slap them on the back and chatting about the creation of “democracy” as a good and noble thing to do (meanwhile independents and the non-cultish conservatives are coming around to the same position liberals have always held on this issue, we did it before it was “cool”). Why do they do it? It must be some sort of complex motivation, right? That’s got to be it.
Maybe. But I prefer Occam’s Razor. This is simply very stupid thinking undertaken by people who are otherwise relatively well-brained human beings.
The war in Iraq has or will produce the following outcomes: 2,300 American deaths, thousands of American casualties, a loss of focus from Al Qaeda and those who support it, the loss of face for American diplomacy (cooking the books is the wrong way to lead the world to war, folks), the rise of yet another Sharia-based Islamic Republic, and self-satisfaction for hawks and their willingly idiotic liberal pals.
Jeff often takes my repeated condemnation of him and his ilk as some sort of desire to cast them out of the liberal temple. Maybe if I or anyone actually had that power I would, just to do some housekeeping, but I don’t. I simply must describe something I see before me as what it is. I’m not a fan of flowery language, and so I may come across as harsh or blunt.
But dumb is dumb, man.
Jeff often takes my repeated condemnation of him and his ilk as some sort of desire to cast them out of the liberal temple.
That’s his way of shutting you down without having to address your arguments.
Jarvis has a lot in common with Althouse, who claims she is a moderate even though 99% of her blogroll is conservative blogs, and who demands that liberal bloggers link to her, and is confused as to why so many conservative bloggers link to her with positive comments, and so many liberals are so nasty to her posts.
While “liberal” has turned into a dirty word, but so has “Republican.” How many people and bloggers do you know that vote solid republican but call themselves moderates, independents, and libertarians?
I think it is quite reasonable to not let people off the hook for their actual behavior, regardless of the high-minded rationalizations behind it.
But I do expect to be banned for that. And so Jarvis and Althouse banned me.
How many pro-war liberals are there left? Or even moderates? Jarvis is quite exceptional. There is Hitchens, of course. But who else? Perhaps we should compile a list of bona fide liberals (self-described liberals or progressives) who support the war in Iraq. And I don’t mean opposing an immediate troop pull-out. I mean people who think a) the war was justified in retrospect, b) the war is generally being conducted in a satisfactory manner and we are getting positive results, and c) we should stick it out “as long as it takes.”
Oliver, it always bugs me that you mention the American deaths, but you rarely mention the Iraqi deaths. I remember, during the *first* gulf war, that we killed 80,000 Iraqi soldiers. I remember thinking that most of those 80,000 soliders were young men who had two choices: die at the hands of the Americans, or die for resisting Saddam’s draft. I remember feeling very sorry for them.
Now we’re back in Iraq. The sunni insurgents have been fighting because they accurately predicted the emergence of the shia death squads that are now roaming the country. The shia have been fighting because they rightly feared the return to power of a violent sunni strongman like Hussein, who in turn would have started slaughtering shia. Both sides were correct to fear the extremist elements of the other side. The vast majority of the fighting is being done by ordinary people who just want to protect their neighborhoods, but there are a few who fan the flames by making unprovoked attacks, and the cumulative effect is a civil war. So once again, we’ve given them a choice: die at the hands of extremists, or fight to protect yourselves, be labeled terrorists, and die at our hands. Once again, I can’t help but wonder if we couldn’t have spared some of them.
So long story short, Oliver, please don’t omit their deaths from your cost calculation.
Oliver:
I haven’t followed your blogging as closely as I should, so please forgive me for positing this question: How would you evaluate a liberal who opposed the Iraq invasion in the first place, but supports a continued Iraq presence now because he believes that withdrawal or redeployment may exacerbate the current situation?
–|PW|–
How would you evaluate a liberal who opposed the Iraq invasion in the first place, but supports a continued Iraq presence now because he believes that withdrawal or redeployment may exacerbate the current situation?
We shit the bed, now we should clean it up.
I would probably say such a person is deluded. I once was in that camp, but I see an Iraq today that’s at the same or worse violence level as when it was full-tilt “war”. I don’t see how American troops dying every day as Iraq runs in place accomplishes anything. Maybe if we leave they’ll form a real government. Even if, sadly, the sectarian bloodshed keeps up it will be without American lives caught in the middle.
Oliver:
My problem with withdrawal and similar measures is that, as Duros62 alludes to, I believe that the only ethical course for the United States to take into Iraq is to put every effort into implementing a new government, rebuilding infrastructure, etc.
And on the level of int’l law, I think a strong case can be made that the United States, as the victor in war and an occupying power, has the responsibility to rebuild the country.
Granted, that’s from a purely ethical standpoint, unencumbered by the realities of limited American resources and international politics.
I’ll try to come up with more later, but for now, I’ll say that I disagree with what appears to be your central premise — that the preservation of American lives if of paramount concern. In the Iraq context, the problem with that stance is that it directly conflicts with the overarching strategic need to build a stable Iraqi government that is not hostile to US interests.
A bit of food for thought: At this point, the rationale for the Iraq war is water under the bridge. We’re there, we broke it, we bought it. Now that we’re there, is your argument with the goal of building a stable government, or with the tactics currently used to do so? If you disagree with the strategic goal, what goal would you pursue instead? And if you disagree with current tactics, what tactics would you advocate in their place?
Granted, this is mostly an exercise in hypotheticals, as the current US leadership seems little inclined to adjust its tactics or strategies.
–|PW|–
* I think the war reasoning is still a legitimate issue, because even if what’s done is done, the justification for the war (the “democracy” one, which is the only shred the pro-war folks have left) still is used as a bludgeon by the pro-war people (like Jarvis)
* I believe its kind of hard to resort to international law or some notion of morality when those things have been afterthoughts of the conflict to date.
* I’ve struggled with this a lot, but basically changed my thinking about foreign policy. I no longer believe in the more optimistic foreign policy goals for America – the kind of thing where I supported intervention in the Balkans for instance. In a post-9/11 mindset, our only objective should be the elimination of Al Qaeda and its affiliates and the elimination of other governments who would support them via black ops or the spear. I’m all in favor of encouraging the development of democracies and ideally we should only have serious relations with true representative democracies, but when we’ve got an ever-expanding terror web the notion that we’re to sit around in Iraq and build a semi-functioning democracy strikes me as naive.
* My goal for Iraq would be stability of some sort, preferably using the suggestions from Sen. Kerry and Rep. Murtha and others that we set a deadline for them. If they don’t meet it we’re out of there and back focusing on AQ. We should give those who want a democratic Iraq all the aid we can, but it really is up them at this point. In a way us being there is like a crutch for them. They don’t have to progress because America’s taking care of the security – such as it is.
* As far as the war on terrorism, I find it appaling that Bin Laden or Mullah Omar are in the hills of Pakistan and we’re not just going in, or that Afghanistan is bubbling up with terror again and our forces are just not enough there to destroy the enemy, or that there’s a pipeline of money flowing from Saudi Arabia to Al Qaeda. If we’re going to avenge 9/11, protect our country and our allies and stamp out this terrorism we should really start acting like it.
Perhaps in discussion with others, but not necessarily for the purposes of our discussion; I’m unlikely to bludgeon you over the head with this particular argument.
In response, I argue that the Bush administration’s failure to adhere to and/or disregard for international law neither absolves the US government of its obligations as an occupying power nor deprives such norms of their value as guideposts for individuals who counsel a certain kind of foreign policy.
I’m not sure how much you and I diverge here. On the one hand, I can see where working with autocratic regimes can further American policy in the short term, particularly given the short-term goal of eradicating al-Qaida. However, I feel constrained to point out that the current multipolar, terrorist-infested world results from policies the US prosecuted in the cold war.
While I certainly understand that certain principles must be compromised in prosecuting the war on terror, I don’t think we should abandon the goal of playing midwife to democracy. Among other things, that commitment to democracy is basically our only weapon in the PR war against al-Qaida and its sympathizers these days.
I can certainly agree with this in principle. From what I’ve seen, the Iraqi government only gets its shit together when somebody sticks a metaphorical gun to its head. Your point about doing all we can is also well-taken. I think that part of the problem of the CPA/IGC regime is that nobody really took the time to set up real institutions that could succeed the Hussein regime and grant Iraq at least a patina of stability. Much of what comes out of Iraq these days seems to resemble gang warfare rather than government formation or even civil war.
In fact, if the situation deteriorates, I wonder whether “civil war” would even be the right term. To me, “civil war” implies a campaign fought between two (or more) relatively organized governments for control of a coutnry. But what we’re seeing today? Chaos? Ethnic militias? It’s anything but organized.
–|PW|–
[...] s not remotely as pathetic as Joe Klein is. This is the kind of thing I was talking about here with folks like Klein, Jeff Jarvis, Joe Lieberman and others. Their [...]