Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This will be my last post guest blogging here. I want to again thank Ed for his support and the opportunity to guest blog here among such a distinguished group. I would be remiss if I didn't give a "shout out" to my blogfather, Timothy Sandefur, one of the nation's leading property rights attorneys. His blog is always worth reading. And I check it regularly.
Start with an Ayn Rand base, add a little Christopher Hitchens and a few dashes of Harry V. Jaffa, and, presto, you get Sandefur. Check out his post on George W. Bush. I think Sandefur gets it basically right.
George Bush was an unlikely man, and an unlucky choice, to lead a war for secular values against a theocratic ideology of hatred. He lacked the rhetorical position (let alone ability!) to articulate a defense of those values. Yet he did recognize that that was the war that had to be fought, and he did fight it. The memory I will always have of him is him standing with the bullhorn at the World Trade Center site, saying "I can hear you, the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear from all of us soon."
From my end, the Bush Administration certainly fucked up the War in Iraq. But I don't think it was because Bush fought the war for big oil, Halliburton's interest or other "bad" motives his enemies often accuse him of harboring. Though, you know what they say about "good intentions." In hindsight, always 20/20, obviously we should have left the tyrant Saddam Hussein in power and concentrated on Afghanistan. I think we could draw a parallel between Iraq and Vietnam. That war too had huge popular support in the beginning. My position on both wars is, in principle, I wouldn't be opposed to either if we could have quickly won and got out. (Wasn't that Barry Goldwater's position on Vietnam? Win or get out?) But in the end, neither war ended up being worth it (though the verdict of History is still out on Iraq). The principle of fighting a continual war, with potentially huge losses, against theocratic Islamic terrorism, is, I think, valid. But, as they say, you have to "pick your battles." And Iraq turned out to be the wrong battled to pick. Hussein, though a tyrant, was, in the end, a more or less secular tyrant, who, perversely, did a better job keeping the Islamic fundamentalist extremists at bay, in part because he, as a tyrant could get away with using *any means necessary* to achieve that end and we could not (and we could not, for good reason).
Also check out Sanderfur's comments he made on Secular Right (another great blog) about Ayn Rand, here and here.
Comments
..."to lead a war for secular values against a theocratic ideology of hatred."
Huh. So he invaded Iraq, waged war against Saddam Hussein, who, though a Stalinist tyrant, was by no means a theocrat?
WTF? No. Smear the malleable mayonnaise of analysis all you like, that does not add up. GWB wanted to attack Iraq from the first moment he was sworn in -- others may forget, but the history is there to be read. GWB USED the September 11 attacks as a cudgel to bludgeon everyone into going along with his wrong-headed, no doubt father-dynamic-influenced plans.
He is a frat-boy date-rapist piece of shit. Fuck him.
Our enemy remains standing, grinning at our side, feigning amity: Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: TikiHead | January 17, 2009 10:30 PM
"Date rapist?"
I think he invaded Iraq to put a big American "foot print" of liberty, equality and modernity in the Islamic world. It turned out not to be a good idea to do it there. We should have concentrated on putting a footprint where it rightly belonged in the Islamic world: Afghanistan.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | January 17, 2009 10:38 PM
I have never understood why Bush is given so much credit for his ground zero speech. You would have to be the world's worst politician NOT to be able to deliver a good speech under those circumstances. But speeches mean nothing without the actions that back them up, and when it came to actions, Bush failed miserably.
Posted by: Taz | January 17, 2009 10:57 PM
Jon, I'm sorry but I have to disagree.
Nothing says "the footprint of American freedom" like Abu Ghraib and GITMO.
As they would have said 40 years ago:
"Incarcerating for freedom is like fucking for virginity" -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | January 17, 2009 11:01 PM
Posted by: Taz | January 17, 2009 11:02 PM
Nothing says "the footprint of American freedom" like Abu Ghraib and GITMO.
This is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote:
Hussein, though a tyrant, was, in the end, a more or less secular tyrant, who, perversely, did a better job keeping the Islamic fundamentalist extremists at bay, in part because he, as a tyrant could get away with using *any means necessary* to achieve that end and we could not (and we could not, for good reason). [Emphasis added.]
Posted by: Jon Rowe | January 17, 2009 11:10 PM
Posted by: Taz | January 17, 2009 11:16 PM
I see what you're getting at now, but why so coy about it? Say it loud, say it proud.
The bit of the Iraq War that the Americans botched up was the bit run by politicians and administrators, more interested in a sound bite, a back-slap (even the occasional backhander), than doing something to stop the slide in complete chaos.
Most of them were appointed, not for their competence or even skill, but because of their loyalty to G W Bush and his criminal cronies. Iraq has become, under the benevolent eye of these "great emancipators", the wild west crossed with the Belgium Congo (with a pinch of Vietnam for flavour).
No matter what the motives of the administraton were (and there is plenty of evidence available that George the Least wanted to 'take out' Saddam from day one), it is the actions that speak louder than the Bush Jr PR spin. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | January 17, 2009 11:33 PM
I find it odd that Sandefur is defending Ayn Rand on the idea that she defended natural rights by appealing to things that were "objectively true about human nature". If anything, Ayn Rand based her defense of natural rights theory on things about human nature that were objectively false, such as her idea that humans didn't have inborn instincts but instead had to rely exclusively on "reason".
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 17, 2009 11:51 PM
No the enemy is ignorant people with no understanding of history or the the current affairs of the world. The very people who make the statement quoted in this comment. Tikihead - get a grip on reality.
Posted by: yoshi | January 18, 2009 12:11 AM
That war too had huge popular support in the beginning. My position on both wars is, in principle, I wouldn't be opposed to either if we could have quickly won and got out./i>
(Struggling to be polite) I find assertions like this astonishing, for several reasons. First, what gives "us" the right to conduct either of those "wars" in the first place. What principle is that permits you such comfort in "winning" quickly and then running away? From what ethic does one draw such a principle? This seems like a logic that would permit a bank robbery, if it were conducted NOT within one's own community, or country, and the money was really necessary.
Second is the matter--always difficult to ascertain i n Iraq and VietNam, both--as to what constitutes "winning?" Overthrowing extant rulers? Installing our own puppet leaders and 'legislatures?" Taking control of natural resources?
In conflicts such as both of these, with imperialist or neo-colonialist forces invading and attempting to occupy another people which have done the occupiers no harm but who are held in contempt and treated as if they were non-humans, the invaders can NEVER "take and hold" territory, and invariably and inevitably will be required by self-preservation--to make themselves so feared as to be unassailable--to commit atrocities. Israel knows a little about this, too.
I find your position morally indefensible--and, indeed, repellent and repulsive--inasmuch as it seems to be a defense in terms of what is typically called "technical" rationality, in which ends are thought to justify any means of their accomplishment; or that ends are thought to be irrelevant as long as the process that achieves them is efficient.
Posted by: woody | January 18, 2009 1:03 AM
That was blatantly obvious at the time, so need for hindsight. Not only was it blatantly obvious, but there were many people who kept saying that at the time, so for anyone to only realize this now, only demonstrates that they didn't pay attention.
We knew the reasons for going into Iraq was bullshit already back then, and that the invasion would draw much needed resources from the war in Afghanistan - the place where the terrorists were actually hiding.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | January 18, 2009 3:39 AM
After 17 years on the net, as I approach my elder years I try to be polite, more or less when I run across people online who are either extremely naive or, sadly, duplicitous. After reading that incredible piece of insanity I'm finding that very hard to do here.
Only someone who has had their head stuck completely up their ass for the last 7 years could, even for a second, overlook all the evidence that points to the very heavy involvement of big oil in the decision, long before 9/11, to invade Iraq. Certainly it was not the sole reason, but prior to 9/11 it was without question the biggest reason. Of course Georgie boy had his personal reasons, proving to his dad that he has a bigger cock or something along those lines, but for Cheney et. al. it was always about the oil and ultimately screwing Saudi Arabia once the US had its greedy little mitts on the 2nd largest reserves on the planet.
Nor did it have much, if anything, in the planning stages, to do with national or energy security for the US. Just like the design of the Wall Street bailouts had nothing to do with actually solving the problem (there were much better solutions, starting with buying up then having the government refinance all the sub-prime mortgages, that were ignored because the bankers/brokers that caused the problem would not have profited like they have), the attempted theft of Iraqi oil was all about making lots of money for the players.
You position is indefensible, reprehensible and utterly immoral as others have pointed out already.
Posted by: Doug Alder | January 18, 2009 4:19 AM
The "date-rapist" allegation against George Bush has been covered, albeit very sparsely, by the media. There is a summary here. I am not currently convinced by the evidence, but who knows what an investigative reporter might find if they dig deep enough?
Posted by: Frank Carlton | January 18, 2009 5:37 AM
That Arabian guy already said Farewell to him with his shoes, on the behalf of the planet.
Posted by: Hawkeye | January 18, 2009 7:12 AM
Most of the decisions the "Decider" made (or refused to make, or undermined after the fact) were so blatantly off the mark intellectually, morally, and/or (IN THE LONG RUN) politically for the USA that a HS Freshman who is fairly bright and who is interested in science, civics, and history, and who is independent, could have made better choices.
It boggles the mind how any rational knowledgeable honest mature person could have agreed with him at most anytime (no hindsight involved!) -- especially when it came to Iraq beginning to just about his end of absolute control.
I will not get into the perverse appeal of Rand (a danger in itself as it smells of cult) and the danger of her simplistic psychology, politics, and live situations, and her unwitting or not distortions of the principles of evolution to fit her mental model. I'll contain with Bush.
I do not hate him; indeed I feel sympathy for him -- he is a sad sad man. And it is even sadder that he doesn't even know it! However I rejoice that we are free of him and his handlers and the corrupted GOP. At least we stand a chance of some measure with Obama if we stay vigilant and avoid laziness, apathy, and/or the passivity of "follow the leader."
I stand by what I said recently elsewhere [unedited]:
Bush's self congratulatory speech was probably the most telling reason this man should not be anywhere near a power position. It is again further evidence that this man is a DRY DRUNK (see this spot-on article from 2002 that proved so prophetic -- http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html ) -- not that we needed further evidence.
What honorable person - what sober, sane, caring person - who holds a position of power, would not concentrate on making the most positive contribution they could while leaving -- by talking of the future, by emphasizing our need to pull together and share the load our new President will carry, etc. etc. What honorable sober person would classify neon sign flashing f-ups as "disappointments" at the worst.
Bush is a DRY DRUNK if ever there was one, and we should thank our lucky stars the nightmare is finally turning around:
PS. A summary that fits Bush almost to a tee:
"Dry drunk" traits consist of:
* Exaggerated self-importance and pomposity
* Grandiose behavior
* A rigid, judgmental outlook
* Impatience
* Childish behavior
* Irresponsible behavior
* Irrational rationalization
* Projection
* Overreaction
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 18, 2009 7:55 AM
There is ample evidence not only of the Bush administration's intent on attacking Iraq from the very beginning, but also of the dedication of the neo-con movement to invading Iraq for years before anyone in the GOP thought W had a snowball's chance in hell of being elected. The entire neo-con movement's start can be traced to the belief that George H W failed when he very smartly decided to stop at the borders of Iraq during the first Gulf War.
There is no doubt that the neo-cons really believed they could replace Saddam with the first true democracy in the Middle East, although there is no proof they were right. Whether W believed that, or simply wanted to get the guy who dissed his Daddy, we can never know. Personally I think W is so lacking in intellectual curiosity that he never seriously considered the ramifications of his focus on Iraq.
There is also no doubt that the Bush administration callously used the 9/11 attacks to justify their previous plans regarding Iraq and then proceeded to completely and totally bungle nearly every conceivable part of the invasion and occupation. And we have seen how both the duplicitous arguments in support of the war and the incompetence in operationalizing it have damaged our national reputation and further eroded the faith of our citizens in their government.
The funny thing is, the US has always had the best and most reasonable justification for taking out Saddam, although there were myriad ways to achieve that aim that did not involve full-scale war. He was, after all, a puppet we supported when we needed him for strategic purposes to balance Iran, and thus we were indirectly responsible for the horrors he unleashed. Had either Bush ever simply stated "we created the monster, now we have to take him out," I probably would have supported at least the intent behind their actions. But both Bushes knew that was a much harder argument to make to the American people, and each chose not to try. Bush I, of course, had much greater justification for his actions, and in the end the Gulf War really demonstrated how to handle international diplomacy and war, when necessary. Would that Bush II had learned those lessons.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | January 18, 2009 9:42 AM
I would remember that moment at the WTC if it hadn't have come days after the fact, and required rescue workers to stop what they were doing so he could have a photo-op. The man is a coward, and when this country needed real leadership he was huddled in a bunker somewhere afraid that the tewwowists were going to kill him. As a Texan, I figured from experience that he was going to make a poor president, but it was when he put his own safety before providing leadership that he lost any chance of having my respect.
As to the rest, I disagree with you. A 'War' with radical Islam does not need to be fought. Every country that has ever successfully dealt with terrorist groups has done so through law enforcement methods. Bush, however, wanted to play Rambo and shoot up stuff without thinking about the consequences because that's what a 'Real Man' and a 'True American' does. At a time when he should have been looking to the Spanish to see how they contained ETA, he was alienating the one country in the world with the most experience dealing with terrorism. At a time when he should have been mending fences with Iran so they would support instead of undermine the Afghan regime, he was calling them one of the world's three fonts of evil, an act which helped to cause the collapse of Iran's Western-leaning reform government in favor of a right-wing and nationalistic one. And then there was Iraq.
In my view, Mr. Bush deserves no apology, nor has he done anything worthy of being credited with. He has been a lazy, self-interested, flippant, incompetent, ineffective fool; a perfect example of how our own arrogance, anti-intellectualism, and naivete can be bad for us. The sad thing is that, after another fifty years or so of effective government, we'll elect another such empty-headed boob and go through this all over again. The only people who should be pleased with his presidency are fans of Grant, who is now the SECOND worst president in U.S. history.
Posted by: Julian | January 18, 2009 10:10 AM
Heh. Now I know why I DON'T blog about these issues on a regular basis. I'm certainly not going to get mired down in this discussion. Just realize that much of America, even muc of secular, atheist, rationalist America represented by folks like Christopher Hitchens, doesn't see these issues the way you do.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | January 18, 2009 10:29 AM
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
61% say the war in Iraq was "not worth it".
It is the likes of Christopher Hitchens who are in the minority.
Posted by: Donalbain | January 18, 2009 10:34 AM
I think the war was not worth it and I do not approve his Presidency! There is a big difference between thinking the war was "not worth it" and some of the above mentioned sentiments about Bush. Even though I never promoted the war in Iraq, at one time a huge majority of America did. I think I speak -- in my tone -- for the many Americans who supported the war initially but changed their minds.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | January 18, 2009 10:42 AM
Jon or others that disagree with Jon - either way - argument by "survey" is no argument at all when it comes to things that can be assessed on their own observable merits.
I could care less that Hitchens thinks something - or PZ thinks something else - or Jon does again something else - or Ed says he has the answer or says he doesn't. I respect their basic intelligence and scholarship and their rational objective thought processes and the facts and mechanisms (models) they bring to the table. To the extent they do couch their arguments in such. Otherwise their opinions are like assholes -- most everyone has one - including me - and with that I'll leave for now -- OH one more thought --
Bush was our paid CHIEF EXECUTIVE. He was not really the DECIDER (meaning that wasn't his main job in a broad non-operational sense). Yes he also had an obligation to propose agendas and approaches in the broad sense and yes he also was supposed to set a tone for us as the Q of England supposedly does so our tone and image was much in his hands. But above all he was paid to carry out our work competently and to enforce the Constitution and ensure because IT DEMANDS SUCH - our rights. He failed as our "King" (as in Q of E) and as a good executive.. he failed MISERABLY. Again - I think I am objectively assessing the situation .. but I am human.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 18, 2009 10:57 AM
Jon or others that disagree with Jon - either way - argument by "survey" is no argument at all when it comes to things that can be assessed on their own observable merits.
Yes, I know it's called the argument ad populum and is a logical fallacy. I didn't mean to appeal to it; rather I just wanted to point out that much of the rest of the US (even many of us who think the war and Bush Presidency are failures) don't see things quite the way "Counterpunch" does. But then again, groups like Counterpunch and Lew Rockwell are the ones saying "I told you so."
There is a parallel to the French Revolution. Edmund Burke and John Adams were like the Counterpunch & LRC crowd; when they opposed the revolution from the beginning, they were in the minority; the consensus among the Founders & the population at large was the French Revolution was a continuation of the American Revolution. It was only AFTER the event was over that a consensus determined why the revolution went wrong and the criticial differences between the two events.
Of course, in a world of diverse opinions, there are always going to be the ones who got it right before the event happened. And look -- I'm not arguing for "mainstream consensus" because I know that many of my libertarian opinions fall well outside the mainstream. However just because Counterpunch, Lew Rockwell or Noam Chomsky sounded the alarm doesn't mean the rest of us should have known better and listened to them from the start. Give us a break.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | January 18, 2009 11:15 AM
I have very little time for slime that boastfully advocates war based on the criteria that it can be quickly won. I don't have words for the intensity of public disgust that should be heaped upon such a filthy person. I do hope that Ed weighs in and disavows this belief, and that he never, never invites Jon Rowe to post again. It saddens and sickens me to know that such people exist. While I respect their right to their opinion there is no need to allow them your venue to broadcast it, Ed.
Posted by: Phaedrus | January 18, 2009 11:31 AM
Jon - I am sincerely sorry - really am - if I implied your honestly derived opinion - one way or other - was a bad thing (meaning I was scornful). My comments sounded to harsh to all in general - when I was really thinking in context of the Bush Administration. So for instance when I said: ".. Freshman [could have nailed it better].. " I really have the context of "better than the highly paid and privileged leaders that called the shots" .. it is a way of emphasizing that they properly knew better but conned us for their own agendas.
I sincerely apologize if I dissed anyone for their intellectually honest and otherwise honest rational opinions - one way or other.
On the other hand - I do not think the Bush crew falls in that category. No apologies from me needed or offered on that score.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 18, 2009 11:34 AM
I am glad you are gone. And this post is the biggest load of BS I have ever read. Good riddance. I have no use for libertarians and their bankrupt ideas.
Posted by: Amy | January 18, 2009 11:39 AM
Jon R: I am at a loss as to the reasons you conclude that W was leading a war for secular values against theocratic values. Everything W has done has been from a basis of religion. He described the war against terror as a "crusade." He was deeply involved in the terry schivo business. He said that god put him in charge!
You are inventing a falsehood to make yourself feel better about W. There is no evidence he is anything but a tinpot dictator (he was never elected legitimately) who based every stance he held on a right-wing dominationist version of christianity.
Posted by: iRobot | January 18, 2009 11:42 AM
"It saddens and sickens me to know that such people exist."
Wow, you must be a really miserable person because quite a lot of us exist! There are more of us than you, at least in America. Again -- I'm not appealing to their authority -- but I would note the majority of the population supported the Iraq War in the beginning, in part because they thought it would be like the first Iraq War -- a quick win with few lives lost. So did Bush! (i.e., "Mission Accomplished.")
Posted by: Jon Rowe | January 18, 2009 11:51 AM
Phaedrus,
You must hate Bill Clinton too. Because this is exactly what he did in the Balkans. If that war didn't go as quickly and effectively as it did, and we had to get bogged down in troop loses and occupation like in Iraq, I'm sure most folks would have concluded that a big mistake as well.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | January 18, 2009 11:54 AM
Jon Rowe -
I fail to see how this lends credence to your assertions about Bush's motives for going to war. The fact that the majority of Americans were convinced by a propaganda campaign hardly justifies the actions of the propagandists. I suspect if you polled the American people about whether oil played a factor in the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq, the majority would say yes.Posted by: Taz | January 18, 2009 11:56 AM
iRobot,
I was actually quoting Mr. Sandefur on that line. And he was arguing Christopher Hitchens thesis.
I honestly believe that Bush believes liberal democratic ideas are God-given human rights as he has told us, as the Declaration of Independence says. And by the way, Bush's Straussian advisors who pushed him into this war (who tend to be atheists) understand that the Declaration of Independence's ideas of "unalienable rights" to liberty and equality are NOT authentically Christian, but essentially modern ideas. So it's not too much of a stretch to say a war against Islamic fanaticism fought on behalf of universal human rights of liberty and equality is an essentially secular project. Or it's at the very least a "modern" project.
The problem is it didn't work; we could force those values on Germany and Japan (as we did). But could not on the Islamic world.
I also believe that Bush & his Straussians advisors were involved in a concerted effort to "reform" Islam to be a more moderate and enlightened religion (i.e., the idea that Islam is a "religion of peace" and that Muslims worship the same God Jews and Christians do). But whether that can work as well is not for certain.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | January 18, 2009 12:04 PM
Re oil, if we really were bastards who wanted to fight the war for oil, we could have just taken it. To the extent that oil was a motive, I don't see it at all in that sense. Rather, I see it as realization that modernity depends on a secure source of oil in the middle east. Indeed that's why Saudi Arabia wanted us to invade Iraq in the first war! They didn't want a mad tyrant winning the middle eastern supply of oil by conquest. The liberal democrats (i.e., the US) to the extent that we were there for oil, were there to make sure the supply was secure for world markets.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | January 18, 2009 12:08 PM
I fail to see how this lends credence to your assertions about Bush's motives for going to war. The fact that the majority of Americans were convinced by a propaganda campaign hardly justifies the actions of the propagandists.
While I can't speak for Cheney or other parts of Bush's administration, everything I've seen, read and heard from Bush supports my contention that he fought the war in Iraq chiefly to put an American footprint in the Middle East of liberty, equality, and modern democracy. The ends were noble; the means were not. You can't "nation build" and establish liberal democracy by force in most of the illiberal democratic lands.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | January 18, 2009 12:12 PM
Posted by: Taz | January 18, 2009 12:19 PM
I don't know; I think he was mistaken. For all we knew there were weapons of mass destruction and invading Iraq on the premise that they existed was a form of the precautionary principle. I'm not saying that this justified the invasion; but I have not seen evidence that Bush deliberately lied about WMD.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | January 18, 2009 12:22 PM
iRobot stated:
Most of this forum's liberal posters provide good arguments based on sound assertions. That's one reason I enjoy hanging out here in spite of the fact I'm not a liberal (while also despising conservatism). I'm pretty disappointed in the quality of this whole thread's claims, in fact it is not representative of any other thread I've seen published in this forum, the above quote is one mere example.
The claim I quoted above is a crock of shit and is arguable evidence iRobot is projecting his biases on to the President. After having read about a dozen books on the Bush Administration I'd argue that Bush was a reasonable man who was also the most lazy, and intellectually lazy executive ever to become our President, plus he frequently just didn't give a fuck (the latter of which could also be said about Cheney and Rumsfeld when it came to our Iraqi occupation post-invasion). As a campaigner both prior to and after elections, Bush was not lazy, that is what he did well, to our country's detriment.
His religious beliefs provided him with rhetorical arguments he occasionally used to justify his decisions, but that's a far cry from stating everything he does is motivated from his religious beliefs. Especially given that he's about as ignorant of his own religious dogma as he is about foreign policy, economics, executive management requirements, and domestic policy.
I state this as a strict separationist who supports even Michael Nedow's causes. Bush wasn't wholly motivated by religious beliefs, he was sustained by religious voters who he artfully played while agreeing with them for the most part in a mere abstract manner but more importantly was also being sustained both financially and emotionally by his conservative associates who've been subsidizing his career since he left college. Consider who did well under Bush, Saudi Arabia and the oil industry, there's your motivation.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 18, 2009 12:25 PM
Thanks Mike,
For those interested I'm working on a post that deals with the issues raised in this comment thread that I will reproduce on all three of my blogs.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | January 18, 2009 12:51 PM
"it would be like the first Iraq War -- a quick win with few lives lost"
Of course, Jon, you mean "American" lives. You're elucidations only damn you further, beyond disgusting bully who only wants to support wars he can "win" quickly, to racist, where the only dead that count are Americans.
Ed, why is this filth here, posting on your generally very nice blog?
Posted by: Phaedrus | January 18, 2009 1:20 PM
Phaedrus,
I respect folks who have an anti-war conscience, apparently, a lot more than you respect those who might differ with your opinion. The idea of "just war" has long been debated among ethicists and has not been "settled" in the sense that you think it is.
And if you are concerned about collateral damage and lives lost on the other side, a war quickly won tends to have lower numbers of causualties on all sides.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | January 18, 2009 1:30 PM
Amy said
I absolutely disagree. As a log time regular Dispatches reader, she doesn't speak for me. I enjoy the opportunity to read ideas not necessarily my own, but obviously looked at in an intelligent and thoughtful manner. I appreciated yours and all of the other posters bringing a bit of new blood to Dispatches - no this is not an insult to Ed but thanks for giving Ed a break and us something new to chew on.
Posted by: Anna | January 18, 2009 1:43 PM
As always, when the light hits the worm begins to squirm. I recognize your attempts change the focus ("everyone agrees with me", "Clinton did it to", "you're anti-war").
I have no respect for those who support a war only if they think they can win it, just as I have no respect for a bully who only picks on a person he knows he can beat.
My point is made, I have no desire to further engage with such a contemptible coward.
Posted by: Phaedrus | January 18, 2009 1:44 PM
Thanks Anna,
Phaedrus: I'm glad your done.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | January 18, 2009 2:00 PM
But I don't think it was because Bush fought the war for big oil, Halliburton's interest or other "bad" motives his enemies often accuse him of harboring.
And this is based on what, exactly? Because I'm trying very hard to imagine how this war, and this administration in general, would have been different in any regard had Bush's motives somehow managed to be even more corrupt than you seem to believe is the case--and coming up dry.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | January 18, 2009 3:17 PM
Phaedrus: I'm glad your done.
Wow—not only are you completely deluded, you haven't even mastered basic grammar.
Ed, what were you thinking? While I disagree with your libertarian ideas, at least you can defend your talking points with something resembling logic.
Posted by: Prof. Bleen | January 18, 2009 3:28 PM
Jon, I found your arguments well-stated. Unfortunately, no one engaged them, but simply talked past them with the repetition of the usual mantras.
And it’s certainly not that you were anything but anti-Bush and anti-invasion. It’s just that you weren’t anti-Bush enough, resisting demonization and imputation of base motives.
Once the nuclear option is deployed, the "L" word, that Bush Lied, intelligent discussion is over. In this case, it never started.
Cheers.
Posted by: tom van dyke | January 18, 2009 4:59 PM
Well, he got one thing right. The start of the Vietnam war had eerie similarities to the start of the Iraq war. Gulf of Tonkin, WMDs...
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | January 18, 2009 5:05 PM
Tom,
Thanks for this.
Hmmm. I wonder, Prof. Bleen, if you really think I don't understand the difference between "your" and "you're." I also wonder whether you have ever mistakenly written done something like write "their" for "there," or written "it's" when you meant to write the possessive, "its," even though you understand the difference between the two.
I can edit the posts not the comments. See if you can find similar grammatical errors in my main posts on this blog and then come back to us with a straight face and argue that I don't understand the difference between "your" and "you're."
Posted by: Jon Rowe | January 18, 2009 5:18 PM
Phaedrus-
I'm sorry, but I have no intention of denouncing Jon Rowe as "slime" or "filth" or a "worm." He is none of those things. He is a brilliant and well-educated guy whose arguments, even if you disagree with them, deserve to be engaged seriously - which means by actual argument rather than mere sneering. I don't agree with his assessment of why Bush invaded Iraq. I don't think Bush really believed that he was trying to bring the enlightenment to Islam or that he really cared much about what form of government resulted in Iraq as long as it did our bidding. I think it was far more about the desire to have a permanent military presence in the middle east from which to project our power (though the two assumptions are hardly mutually exclusive). But I can't prove that any more than he can prove his conclusions because neither one of us is inside Bush's head.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 18, 2009 6:28 PM
Thank you for weighing in, Ed, but nothing you've said addresses my point...
Do you agree with the calculus that war is OK as long as it can be won quickly?
Posted by: Phaedrus | January 18, 2009 6:33 PM
How could one argue that we seek to promote rights, liberty, and democracy overseas when we stifle those very ideals here? We have been and are an imperialistic nations at times. Whether we do this quick and sweet and get out or it drags on we are no better than the tyrants we declared independence from half the time no matter who is in office.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 18, 2009 7:17 PM
Phaedrus, Your comments here are really out of line. You are attacking Jon Rowe personally--you haven't actually engaged his ideas on an intellectual level. If you read him regularly (join us on www.positiveliberty.com) you'd see he's far from the "filth" you label him as.
As to whether a war can be OK if it's won quickly and with little loss of life: Assuming an arguably legitimate objective, how quickly and with how little loss of life can be the determining factor in whether a war is OK. That's a simple benefit-cost analysis. I don't personally believe this war had a legitimate purpose--and didn't from the beginning--but I'm not so arrogant (as you seem to be) as to assume I couldn't possibly be wrong.
Jon Rowe showed much more humility and thoughtfulness in his post and comments than you have. You came across as an intolerant self-righteous prick with little intellectual ability.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 18, 2009 7:42 PM
Amy,
The feeling is pretty much mutual--we libertarians don't have much use for your desire to coerce everyone to live by your values.
By the way, greeeeaaaat job developing an actual argument against Jon's post. "BS." Yep, that really shows depth of thought--a very subtle, deep, and compelling refutation. Certainly just as subtle, deep, and compelling as you're capable of.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 18, 2009 7:50 PM
Seriously kids,
I realize because most of us might think Bush is the worst thing to happen to earth since the last ice age, it is easy to want to trash Jon Rowe's opinion giving Bush some benefit of the doubt or granting him more humanity than most of us might, but let's have some sanity about it.
Go read some of Jonathan's things before you declare him to be an amoral misfit or contemptible coward. Making such a quick and incurious judgment sounds like the flaw of someone else we've been discussing here...
Posted by: Mark Boggs | January 18, 2009 8:20 PM
James, I could seriously care less how I come across to you. The idea that someone would cheer on a war simply because the war can be won quickly disgusts me. I'm not anti-war, I don't think I couldn't possibly be wrong - is it possible to have a discussion without distortions? - this is something I thought everyone was raised to understand in a civilized society - you don't kick someone's ass just because you can.
I thought it self-evident, but think what kind or world we would live in if every country went to war every time it thought it would win quickly.
Your first words are important, assuming an arguably legitimate objective. Name an "arguably legitimate objective" for war (aside from self-preservation) recognized by international law.
Jon's support for the Iraq and Vietnamese wars (clearly wars of convenience - there was no threat to America in either instance) if we could end them quickly (his term for little loss of American life) falls cleanly into the category of war crimes.
I understand that I could be wrong, but it seems unlikely based upon the logic above - please point out the flaw.
Posted by: Phaedrus | January 18, 2009 9:20 PM
So in other words, Phaedrus, you do care, at least a little, about how you come across to J.H.? What you clearly meant to type was "I couldn't care less..." Notice the subtle difference in meaning now?
/Sorry, but that's always been a pet peeve of mine.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 18, 2009 9:38 PM
(Note: I chopped the "recognized by international law" part because you were previously arguing morality, not international law, so I preferred to stick to that.)
For the sake of argument, let's say the United States invaded Iraq solely to eliminate an evil tyrant who was brutally tyrannizing his people. Are you going to seriously argue that if we could accomplish that goal--including restablizing the country--with less loss of life than the tyrant would have caused, that it wouldn't be justified?
You're saying that could never be just, which means you would rather let a larger number of people suffer than go to war at the cost of fewer people suffering. That's a weird kind of morality to me. Perhaps the U.S. should have just let Hitler take over Europe and kill all the Jews after all, since our self-preservation wasn't at stake.
I don't think you really believe that, but it just shows that your argument is too simplistic. You're assuming every case is like the Iraq war.
And have you ever talked to a Kuwaiti? Their perspective on the first Persian Gulf war is rather different than yours. I opposed that war, too, but later came to doubt my opposition, after having a Kuwaiti student tell me how the Iraqis were killing and terrorizing people. Are you really going to say it's never OK to go to war to protect someone else? Would you also just stand by while someone was beaten up and say, "I won't get involved because only fighting in self-defense is justified."
I don't call your position moral. I call it shallow.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 18, 2009 9:48 PM
I want to thank Ed, James, Mark and others for coming to my defense. As to Phaedrus' assertion:
"you don't kick someone's ass just because you can."
"I thought it self-evident, but think what kind or world we would live in if every country went to war every time it thought it would win quickly."
I don't think I ever argued or that my position of "win it or get out" implies Phaedrus' conclusions at all. As for the bully hypothetical, Saddam Hussein was the bully, not the US. If you want to make a bully hypo: Imagine a scumbag bully in a schoolyard (and think of him as Saddam Hussein) and then imagine a stronger good guy coming to thrash him. Wouldn't it be right to do so -- to beat up the bully because you have the power? To protect the innocents he is victimizing? That's how the US could be seen in the Arab world. We came to the aid of the victim Kuwait at the hands of the bully Iraq. Now, inject into the same scenario a psychopath bully who owns a gun and will shoot, kill or maim the good guy bully-thrasher or anyone else, someone not unlike Heath Ledger's Joker. Perhaps it would be "prudential" not to pick a fight with that psycho if the result is too many people die or everyone dies.
By your logic, it would have been a more "moral" choice for the US invade the USSR during the cold war, than to try to defeat the smaller communist tyrants because the US v. USSR is a fight between forces of more equal power. The result being the entire world goes up in smoke in nukes.
Re Vietnam, the Vietcong were part of the evil empire. And yes, the Communist were evil; they are responsible for more deaths than any other ideological movement in world history. I don't see how one can morally distinguish the Korean War from the Vietnamese. And if we didn't go to war in Korea, the result would be South Korea, the vibrant nation that it is wouldn't exist and all of Korea would be ruled by Kim Jong-il.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | January 18, 2009 9:51 PM
Seriously off-topic, but surely this is cause for (tentative) celebration.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 18, 2009 9:54 PM
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Posted by: Prof. Bleen | January 18, 2009 10:34 PM
Jon Rowe -
andThat's not the lie I was referring to. If you're correct about Bush's reason for fighting the war, then he lied to the American people (and the rest of the world) when he tried to sell it. Either you're wrong about his reasons, or he lied about them. You can't have it both ways.Posted by: Taz | January 18, 2009 10:39 PM
If you ever read Sandefur's argument with Richard Chappel you would view him the same way I do, as a hack.
http://www.philosophyetc.net/2006/05/shame-on-sandefur.html
Posted by: Annonny Moose | January 18, 2009 11:05 PM
Actually the U.S. is a bully that prefers to prey on other bullies. We didn't go in and institute democracy and freedom. We came in and replaced whippings with water boardings, mustard gas with uranium shells and white phoshporous, replaced secret coursts and hidden prisons with... well nothing we kept that one going.
New boss, same as the old boss.
Posted by: Anonny Moose | January 18, 2009 11:30 PM
Huh? Their ally attacked US soil. The US didn't go to war with Germany until that happened, until there was a direct threat against the US.
Posted by: Tulse | January 18, 2009 11:33 PM
Holy shit. This is the most vile and reprehensible load of shit I think I have ever seen around these parts. Seriously, those assholes who seem to be so keen on bashing Jon need to chill out and shut the fuck up.
Do you agree with the calculus that war is OK as long as it can be won quickly?
Phaedrus, if that's what you got out of what Jon had to say, you seriously need to consider remedial reading comprehension. Either that or you're simply a fucking moron. I may not agree with Jon, but at least I disagree with what he actually said, not what some visceral reaction to Jon's basic "I don't absolutely hate bush to the core of my being."
Get a fucking grip people. Jon's one of the brighter and more interesting founder bloggers around. The fact that he isn't a flaming fucking communist or a fucking partisan hack, is no reason to get shitty. Here's a fucking clue, this aint the home of partisan hackery of any stripe.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 18, 2009 11:46 PM
I think phaedrus is giving an absolutely ridiculous reading of what Jon said. If you assume that the war was undertaken for a valid purpose (and I disagree with him on that issue), then of course the next consideration is going to be an analysis of whether achieving that purpose is doable and at what cost. Jon certainly does not believe, as Phaedrus repeatedly insists that he does, that we should go to war against anyone as long as we can win. I have no doubt he believes we could win a war against Canada, but that does not mean he advocates doing so. We could make a very strong moral argument for going to war with China, but that doesn't make doing so a good idea. Why? Because of exactly the kind of cost/benefit analysis that Jon suggests must always be done. When he said that he would have been in favor of the war if we had won it quickly, what he almost certainly meant was that if we could have achieved the goals for which he believes the war was fought, it would have been successful. That is hardly an unreasonable position to take, even if I don't agree with him on what those goals actually were. And it certainly doesn't make him "slime" or "trash." Those aren't arguments, they're sneers.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 18, 2009 11:59 PM
Jon Rowe said --
"Heh. Now I know why I DON'T blog about these issues on a regular basis. I'm certainly not going to get mired down in this discussion. Just realize that much of America, even muc of secular, atheist, rationalist America represented by folks like Christopher Hitchens, doesn't see these issues the way you do."
Jon, yes this may be a deep mud-hole of partizan bashing that many get mired down in, but it also is an incredibly interesting area of discussion, so I hope you stay willing to wade in.
Every world power has to make decisions. Political opponents will always blame those decisions--hell Rush has already outlined all the ways Obama will foul up even before he takes office! A simpletons game. Other world powers will posture to keep their best interest in play. And history gets written by a wide range of "I told you so" revisionists.
All this to say it is well worth learning from discussion on these issues and more Americans should consider them with an open mind rather than just stating "you suck and should go away". Complex problems don't just have binary us-vs.-them solutions.
And DuWayne, well said.
Posted by: Rich | January 19, 2009 12:06 AM
CPT_Doom said:
"There is ample evidence not only of the Bush administration's intent on attacking Iraq from the very beginning, but also of the dedication of the neo-con movement to invading Iraq for years before anyone in the GOP thought W had a snowball's chance in hell of being elected. The entire neo-con movement's start can be traced to the belief that George H W failed when he very smartly decided to stop at the borders of Iraq during the first Gulf War."
CPT_Doom can you point me to some sources on this?
I remember reading neo-con arguments for going into this (and other) mideast countries prior to the start of the Iraq war. Most arguments were based on the lower cost of preventive war than the high cost of dealing with the results of too much power in the wrong hands (Iran with nukes for example).
A big question is how much weight W actually put on the neocons position in his decision. Jon reads it more as bush spreading freedom as he's talked about in so many speeches. I see it as a combination.
Also, how much weight will Obama put on such arguments when he learns all the intel only the top dog gets to see?
Posted by: Rich | January 19, 2009 12:20 AM
What a load of right wing, American exceptionalist crap from Jon and James. Your selective, simplistic description of the actions that led up to each and every war you describe betrays a deep (self-imposed?) ignorance of world events and US foreign policy.
Youtube has some really good Chomsky lectures, start there. Educate yourself on the realities of why Saddam felt justified for his Kuwait invasion, our relationship with him before and during that decision, and then revisit your "Saddam was a psycho bully", "US was a white hat good guy" scenario, see if it holds up.
Your point on military intervention to stop genocide is well taken, James, but none of the wars that you have advocated to date fall into that category.
And "win it or get out" is a strategy? This is the content free frat boy attitude that really gets to me. Get out leaving what? What does "win" mean? Everyone with half a brain new that Iraq was a quagmire, Hell, Bush's old man said so explicitly when explaining why he didn't march to Bagdad in the first war. Yet you pretend that somehow, if we had just done a few things differently, America could have "won", and then we'd be "winners", rah-rah.
Why are you not advocating wars against Saudi Arabia's tyrants, or Egypts, or Lebanon's, or Jordan's, or Sudan's, or Congo's, or Zimbabwe's, or Iran's, or .... Hmm? What kind of scam are you trying to play here?
Posted by: Phaedrus | January 19, 2009 2:07 AM
As to Ed's defense of Jon, here's the original quote :
"My position on both wars is, in principle, I wouldn't be opposed to either if we could have quickly won and got out"
I think we can all agree that neither the Vietnam nor the Iraq wars had anything to do with threats to America, our security or that of our allies (your "psychopath" analogy). All of those "domino" and "wmd" theories have been exposed for the rubbish that they were when the war cheerleaders first thought them up.
We're left with the Jon's assertion that he'll support any war, no matter how transparently ludicrous the justification, if we can "win" it fast enough.
Having once committed our troops, Jon advocates precipitous withdrawal, "get out", if things aren't going well.
I find this raw war mongering disturbing and sickening.
Posted by: Phaedrus | January 19, 2009 2:26 AM
I have to say, I am surprised that there are actual grown up adults who would use the phrase "Ayn Rand base" to descibe anything positively.
Posted by: Donalbain | January 19, 2009 5:17 AM
Jon Rowe (and James Hanley):
I'm coming into this discussion a day late, so it's possible you won't even see this to reply to it, but I strongly agree with the posters, including Ed, who said that everyone's position in this discussion deserves an argument on the merits, so I figured I'd throw my 2 cents in. And before I get to the point, let me also add that I've enjoyed your presence and posts here, Jon, even when I disagreed with you! The best way to evolve and/or strengthen our opinions is to challenge them in an argument with someone who doesn't share them, IMHO.
So, to the 'bully' example you've both used:
As far as I'm concerned, the concept of sovereignty is an important one. There's been a lot of arguments over whether 'international law' can or will ever work; I'm on the side that thinks it can, but I think that respecting other countries' sovereignty is a very important element in *making* it work.
And as far as Jon's argument, specifically, goes, I think there are some assumptions that need to be challenged, or at least considered: Who gets to decide if the 'stronger good guy' is actually a good guy, or how do you judge if he is? If he doesn't even go to the school in question, what gives him the right to walk onto said school's property to beat someone else up (which everyone can agree is also bullying behavior), even if he notices bullying, instead of letting the teachers (who are actually present and trying to investigate whether or not the bully actually has beaten someone up lately) finish their work first? Somewhat related to the previous question; Wouldn't it be preferable for the 'good guy' to help the 'victims' of the bully (both actual and potential) handle the problem themselves, instead of just walking in, beating him up, and walking away after spending a few minutes trying to get a handle on all the other, smaller, bullies who were kept in check by the big one?
Since this is just a comment on a blog, it will obviously be fairly simplistic, but my view is that there's a(nother) figurative line drawn at the borders of a country. As long as things are contained within said line, all other countries should respect certain limitations, ones that become a lot smaller as soon as it's crossed and the people in charge become aggressors towards another country, first. And one of those limitations, IMHO, is that no one has the right to simply invade another country by themselves, to impose their own rule, unless it's in *actual* support of an uprising or revolution started by the country in question's own inhabitants. And it certainly doesn't help when every single reason given for the invasion in question is proven to be a lie (especially the ones that could have been proven false in advance, if Bush&Co had only given the weapons inspectors the time they asked for to finish their investigations), and when the net result for the invaded country is that more people live under worse conditions than before, and a lot more people have been killed.
To finish this off, let me ask anyone who feels like answering it another question: If the rest of the world, sometime in 2007, had decided that George Bush's actions of illegally surveiling(sp?), detaining, torturing and killing people, and of constantly eroding the limitations set on him by your own Constitution, was enough for them to take action to save the American people - and for a moment ignoring the difficulty or even impossibility of actually pulling it off - would they have the moral right, or even obligation, to invade and occupy the USA, in order to remove him from power? Why or why not? And if your answer is different than the one you'd give if someone asked the same question about the US's actions towards Iraq, what's the difference?
Posted by: Kaerion | January 19, 2009 6:28 AM
Well I've read all as objectively as I can I hope.
Jon is deserving of respect - I sense it and if Ed does also I feel I could be on the right track. He is advancing his thoughts for us to discuss. His points should be argued on their merits and as they accurately are portrayed by Jon. So for instance I feel that this is very unfair to Jon to say they he thinks in essence: "any war anytime as long as your interests advanced and Americans pay little." I gather more nuance from Jon.
But Jon here is dead wrong and so are his supporters to the extent they support the Iraq war as it was hoisted on us and the poor Iraq people, and/or the Vietnam War, the nightmare I lived. And I also feel many comments have engaged Jon's arguments properly and Jon was not just talked over by any means.
Taz for instance hit nail on head when it came to Bush's motivations: "Either you're wrong about his reasons, or he lied about them. You can't have it both ways." His statement was very logically put. This is just one small example.
Phaedrus for example (except for what I feel is a slightly exaggerated portrayal of Jon's go to war measure) is DEAD ON and, more important than my agreement, he has stated his points with logic and rationally.
Others have clearly stated opinions contrary to Jon's and Jon's defenders in honest and logical fashion.
Now my bottom line (and BTW I lived the Vietnam War so many here have really touched my hot button with their shocking rewriting of history to justify it): End results that WE desire and judge good, especially when a lot of serendipity may be needed to achieve them, cannot dictate the means. Means have to be judged on their own merits first, then means must be used as appropriate to do the least harm.
Let's use an analogy of cop vs. perpetrator (one that seems to pose a treat to life and limb). The honest well trained cop has a range of means to subdue the actor; I doubt any of us here would say (for real and not just as a fleeting visceral wish) "go for the least costly, quickest, most convenient, surest method first, that is plug the actor and say good-bye to bad rubbish." No we'd demand that the cop used all available non-lethal means first, that the cop followed the rules, if at all possible, to bring the actor to proper justice. And beyond that, that the cop(s) be as patient and careful as possible while protecting innocent lives. Good cops, as most of the brave men and women who take the job are, risk their lives everyday and even amplify their risk because they believe in these rules and morals that go beyond desired results, and rightly we hold them to these rules and standards.
I think Phaedrus' point and mine certainly is: neither for the Vietnam War nor the current Iraq War did we follow any dictum that said "the end does not justify the means." The issues of TRUE cost vs. benefit were glossed over. The "it will be quick and hardly a bit dirty" wishful thinking prevailed. Maybe I am projecting but I think Phaedrus is screaming at us to recognize the danger and immorality of such thinking.
In both these wars of CHOICE there were many alternatives to achieve an ends we desired -- all less warlike ones took were patience and political will, and a higher standard for evaluating means vs. results desired. Intelligence was not lacking but the former qualities were acking because ideologues were running the show given that political parties played to the lowest denominators to hold onto power and then got sucked into their own BS.
I am not doing a formal thesis here so you can accept the my substance or not – there are plenty of references you can find. But I'll stand by what I say: with patience and a very gentle judo Vietnam would be no worse than it is today (almost an ALLY of USA), and if we pursued objectives for Iraq etc. thusly Iraq would be free (or on the road to being free) of Saddam and headed to a greater tranquility. Beyond that a host of things we now wish better would be better.
We started and pursued both wars as the "bad cop" taking the "plug-em" option. And do not insult my intelligence by saying such things as "we tried the UN" etc. etc. -- what a joke. But unlike the bad cop who may go to the chair for using that option, our leaders will feel no pain as accountability is nil in the case of our leaders.
Now my closing point: if you all do not think we were lied to by our "quick option" prone leaders, lied to so we'd support their parochial personal mental models you all are delusional. Almost any reading of history indicates supreme lying and/or supreme stupidity. But let me add I was in the war and I knew for real the LIES of our leaders as we were engaged. I don't doubt for a second that they have the psychological wherewithal to lie through their teeth and that they did. The fact that we were lied to or our leaders are stupid incompetents is a greater issue than almost all other issues - that is to free people in a democracy that holds the principles we profess to hold. To gloss over their lying and/or stupid ways just compounds the gloss over of “did we really (and I mean REALLY) NEED to take the war option.” Ideologues must gloss over such things – others of us do not.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 19, 2009 7:07 AM
Also, as a historical footnote, the U.S. Navy was assisting the Brits in locating and destroying German subs in the North Atlantic well before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Was that justified under Phaedrus' claim that only self-defense justifies military action?
I'm not attacking you, Tulse, nor claiming the U.S. wasn't justified in declaring war on Germany. I was just pointing out that Phaedrus's claim would not allow for it, which I think points up the weakness of his claim.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 19, 2009 9:08 AM
James,
You misrepresent my stance on war, go back and re-read that thread perhaps. Your childishly simplistic representation of America's entry into WWII is evident even to me who has only a passing knowledge of the period.
Posted by: Phaedrus | January 19, 2009 9:30 AM
Phaedrus, I take offense at your last comment. You engaged in a good deal of name-calling and lying, and I'm calling you on it.
Not one statement I made was (a) right-wing, or (b) American exceptionalist. (I'll leave it to others to decide whether any of them were (c) crap).In no place in my comments did I advocate an American exceptionalist view. Everything I mentioned was just an example, either theoretical or real-world, but none was premised on "it's ok for America to do this, but not for other countries." You can't find such a claim in my comments without being a flat-out liar, and I don't care for people lying about what I've said. And I'd really like to know just what in my post was right-wing. As a libertarian who despises the right-wing as typified by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their ilk, I don't think you'll find anything to quote accurately that will stick.
That's another lie. Perhaps since it's not self-defense, I shouldn't fight you on it, eh? But you cannot find a quote in Jon's post or comments in which he said he would "support any war, no matter how transparently ludicrous the justification."Do you really expect anyone to find your argument convincing when it's based on repeated lies about what your debating opponents have said? I hate liars, and I especially hate the type of liar who is too chickenshit to deal with what his opponent has actually said, but makes up strawmen to attack. You can't deal with the real argument, so you make up something that's easier for you to go after.
Um, how many wars have I "advanced" to date? WWII: you don't think that stopped a genocide? Really?What other wars have I advanced so far? Well, I said I came to have doubts about my opposition to the first Gulf War--that's not the same as "advancing" it. And the reason for my doubts is that there was more genocidal activity going on there than most of us realized.
I have "advanced" no other wars in my comments. I was opposed to the Iraq War from before the beginning. I was involved in a public seminar about it before the fact, where I had a 6 foot 4 inch cowboy stand up and accuse me of being anti-American and a traitor to my country. Now you accuse me of being pro-American exceptionalism. It's perhaps a compliment to have two such fools criticize me.
(a) Chomsky's a git. He was a pretty good linguist at one time, but he's an absolute git about everything else--an "anarchist" who functions as an apologist for tyrants. But, to satisfy you, I do know Middle East history. I know why Hussein felt justified in invading Kuwait. What I don't get is why you seem to be saying his invasion was OK. After all, there was no survival threat from Kuwait. Perhaps I misread you, but it seemed as though you were saying, "Iraq's invasion of Kuwait--justified; U.S. repulsion of said invasion--not justified." You're making less and less sense as you go on.Now, try again, but without the lies.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 19, 2009 9:31 AM
To clarify one point on my prior comment: As a political scientist, I take the linguist's political commentary about as seriously as he should take my commentary on linguistics.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 19, 2009 9:34 AM
Good god James -
First Phaedrus' claim was "self preservation" not "self defense." There is a difference. He didn't say you have to be under imminent treat of death -- any more then George Washington was until he sided with the Revolutionaries -- to preserve your dignity and rights as a human and/or the society and culture that allows you such.
second I suspect he fully sees we had to engage militarily Germany and Japan to preserve freedom and the rights of free people. I suspect also that like most people he sees the monumental difference between the past threat of Germany and Japan to our very right to live freely and the recent threats that Vietnam or Iraq posed.
To gloss over the distinctions is again a gloss over to support an unsupportable argument.
Again I pose this: In both [Iraq and Vietnam] these wars of CHOICE there were many alternatives to achieve [the] ends we desired -- all [the] less warlike ones took [to implement] were patience and political will, and a higher standard for evaluating means vs. results desired. Intelligence was not lacking but the former qualities were lacking because ideologues were running the show given that political parties played to the lowest denominators to hold onto power and then got sucked into their own BS.
We had few remaining options for the handling Germany and Japan -- and the consequences of no forceful action was obvious or should have been to all -- to equate the current wars with WWII is just ludicrous.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 19, 2009 9:54 AM
James,
I admit to having some confusion myself over Chomsky's definition and support of anarchism, but I find his knowledge and criticism of US foreign policy to be spot on - cutting through the veil of propaganda that is served up by governments and highlighting the actual human cost of their actions.
Did I 'ere in lumping you and Jon together in my criticism? You seemed happy enough to jump on his band wagon early on.
"Jon's assertion" - bad choice of words on my part, I should have used "Jon's implication", I'll stand by that.
I have no need to erect straw men, and I don't see the utility of it. Jon's post boils down to the proposal that the despicable, costly US wars in Vietnam and Iraq would have been fine if we could have "won" before too many Americans got hurt (like that really cool first Middle East war). You seconded him on this - am I misreading your support?
You two seem the target audience when the Pentagon makes up names like "Shock and Awe" and "Enduring Justice" for their missions.
Posted by: Phaedrus | January 19, 2009 10:14 AM
You know I bet we agree on more than we disagree on .. wow - war of words and lot be obscured by the fog of war.
James I missed your point about being against to Iraq War (the recent one) and since I somehow missed that I in the fog might have missed your points.
I think we all should take a deep breath. I bet a clinical analysis of our words throughout will find we more on the same page than we are allowing ourselves to see.
I am not saying this to say anyone does or should agree with me.. but that I for one maybe have to read things a couple more times.
Take care.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 19, 2009 10:22 AM
Phaedrus,
Your lack of reading comprehension is quite evident. I jumped on Jon's "bandwagon" because your attack was so off-base, polemical, and so wholly failed to address what he was actually saying. I didn't agree with his points, but they were reasonable enough arguments that they didn't deserve the insulting and dishonest response you gave them.
As to "childishly simplistic representation of America's entry into WWII," again you're engaging in insults without bothering to make a thoughtful argument yourself. Tell me, Phaedrus, under your claim that only "self preservation" (or self-defense, I'm not sure I see CJoe's point there, but precision is always good) justifies war, how can you justify the U.S.'s war on Germany? I'm working within the moral framework that you set up, yet you have so far completely failed to respond to that with any actual argument. You say my explanation is "childish," yet you fail to offer any justification within the framework you set up.
And although you've backed off a bit, and now only say John "implied" he would support any war that was quick, I'm still going to call you a liar. A fair and honest reading of Jon's post and comments does not reveal any implication that he would support just any war because it was quick. You are again purposefully misrepresenting your opponent's arguments so as to create a strawman to attack. You claim not to need a strawman, yet you keep making them: "implication he'd support any war," "childishly simple explanation." "You two seem the target audience for the Pentagon's "shock and awe" and "enduring justice."
And please explain to me, since I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, as I've repeatedly said, how I could possibly be the target audience for Pentagon marketing slogans? Are you such a great stupid fucking git that you can't understand how stupid a statement that is?
Posted by: James Hanley | January 19, 2009 11:38 AM
Concerned Joe,
I did misquote, but is there a real substantive difference there? Indeed, it seems to me that by saying "self-defense" instead of "self-preservation," I inadvertantly gave Phaedrus more wiggle room. "Under imminent threat of death" is closer to "self-preservation" than "self-defense," is it not? But admittedly I'm not quite sure. Glossing over distinctions is precisely what I think those who attacked Jon Rowe, instead of attacking his real argument, did. I agree with you that it's a bad way to argue, but it cannot only be applied to one side. I mean, seriously, claiming that Rowe would support "any" war that was quick? That is to gloss over the distinctions he made just a wee little bit, don't you think?And to go back to the beginning--again, with the caveat that I opposed this war from the beginning: If (the very big "if") a war actually could bring down a tyrannical dictator, put in place a democracy, and have the ripple effect of causing other countries in the region to replace their dictators with democratic governments, is it really obvious that such a war would be illegitimate and immoral?
I'm not saying the Iraq war did that, or was meant to do that. I'm talking hypotheticals here. You said Jon made an "insupportable argument," but as I interpreted it, this was really the underlying claim of his argument. And my response is, working from this hypothetical, would it be more just to leave people living under a tyrannical dictatorship?
The questions can be discussed, reasonably. There was no need for Phaedrus and others to immediately make a personal attack on Jon Rowe. I don't lump your comments into that group--all along you were saying something slightly different, and within reasonable debate.
But, final note, if you really think I was comparing the current war to World War II, you need to re-read my posts. Phaedrus said no war was justified except self-preservation, and I used WWII to undermine his claim, and demonstrate that he was making weak arguments. That in itself says nothing about the Iraq war, and does not in itself work as a comparison of the two.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 19, 2009 11:51 AM
James and anyone interested
I view "self preservation" as broader than "self defense"... if someone is attacking me physically directly or indirectly my actions to defend myself are "self defense" ... self preservation (especially in regard to societies) could involve more than "staying alive" and indeed "staying alive" may NOT even be an issue.
Many times people go to war when nothing physical is at stake; rather the driver is the "preservation" of values, culture, the rights of others, etc. -- they feel threatened even though they could easily otherwise "stay alive" and mitigate the threat for themselves.
So regardless of our immediate physical danger at the time the Nazis posed an obvious threat to "our way of life" and taxed us to act "as moral people" etc. etc. --
Sorry -- I should say more simply: self defense is action to avert corporal damage, or to protect something physical (like my non-existent money :-) ).
"Self [self meaning all you hold that constitutes your being] preservation" -- well that speaks to things that go beyond the corporal.
To wit, I think I'd rather fight and die than live very comfortably as a Nazi, or in my case - a Blackshirt under Mussolini.
However the trick with the broader "self preservation" defense of war is being sure your value system is checked and double checked -- and you are held accountable for your actions by some greater code -- and that options like war are avoided and avoided and avoided until it is very clear and compelling that avoidance is possible no more. I think this is where James you stand -- along with Phaedrus.. if you can allow me a bit of presumption.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 19, 2009 12:23 PM
James -- I hope you saw my apology before your last post.
I think you are too hard on Phaedrus... but I now (duh me - sorry) know your meanings better.
BTW I really had in mind some other posters re: Vietnam and Iraq in a lot of what I said too.
Just know - I appreciate your points but think you and P have more common ground than you or he are allowing. just an observation - perhaps wrong of me to say.
Take care.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 19, 2009 12:28 PM
PS.. I think the name calling (e.g. P to James or to Jon) is not helpful ... none of the main players here deserve that at all.. and it is very unnecessary to the discussion and the good points people otherwise are making.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 19, 2009 12:37 PM
ConcernedJoe,
Interestingly, I interpreted self-defense as broader than self-preservation. That explains why I didn't quite follow your one post. But no, knowing that you're taking them differently than I, I get your point. I do indeed see justification of war as more difficult--and more dangerous--once we start getting broader. But I couldn't say categorically that there can be no just cases in that broader field, which is how I took Phaedrus.
And I certainly couldn't denounce as "filth," someone who argued that there could be some cases in that broader field that are just, as Phaedrus did.
And, finally. Let us assume there is some hypothetical war we agree us just. It is legitimate to then say, "is it worth fighting?" That is, the just cause is the benefit, but will the cost be worth it? An unjust war can never be justified by a low cost, but a just war can be unjustified by too high a cost. Phaedrus, because his goal seemed to be to attack Jon Rowe personally rather than dispute him intellectually, implied that Rowe was arguing that low cost alone could justify an unjust war--a ridiculous interpretation of what Rowe actually wrote.
Respectfully (to you), I don't believe I was too hard on Phaedrus. His comments here are among the worst I have ever seen from a regular member of the Dispatches community. I've never noticed the like from him before, and I hope never to see the like from him again.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 19, 2009 3:24 PM
Concerned Joe -
Just know - I appreciate your points but think you and P have more common ground than you or he are allowing. just an observation - perhaps wrong of me to say.
Not that this was aimed at me, but I can say with confidence that my own views on war are probably a lot closer to those of Phaedrus, than to those of Jon. My issue with Phaedrus is two-fold. One, he was more than a little hyperbolic. His reaction was absolutely uncalled for. Second, he wasn't even really arguing with what Jon said, which would have been easy enough to do.
I am frankly embarrassed, mainly because I suspect that our positions on these issues are probably pretty closely aligned. Not that others probably don't feel the same about me much of the time, I am something of an asshole. But at least I try not to argue with fucking strawmen.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 19, 2009 4:55 PM
I generally enjoy reading Jon Rowe, and his earlier posts on unalienable rights caused me to think about some things I'd never examined before. However, I'm quite surprised that he characterizes early opposition to the invasion of Iraq as something confined to fringe-y people like Counterpunch, Chomsky and Lew Rockwell. That position ignores GW's father, who wrote (with Brent Scowcroft) in 1998
Yes, the majority of the American people were supportive of the invasion, due to a deliberate and disingenuous propaganda campaign which conflated Iraq with the 9/11 attacks, but it wasn't just nutbars who opposed the war. GHWB's words are prescient -- one might say "eerily" so, but it really didn't require a whole lot of mental effort to see that deposing Saddam was a monumentally stupid idea.
On the WMD question, the UN inspectors were going to locations that US intelligence identified as weapons factories or caches, and finding that they were nothing of the sort. The response was a campaign of ridicule impugning Hans Blix's integrity and eyesight. To assume that the Bush administration was not guiding that is at best naive. I will grant the possibility that Bush himself actually believed the crap that his administration was shoveling, but if that is the case it damsn him even further.
James Hanley:
Germany and Italy declared war on the USA on December 11, 1941. We did not consider ourselves at war with them until their declaration. I think that essential fact weakens this line of argument against Phaedrus to a certain extent, though I agree that his reaction was well outside the usual standards of my favorite blog.
Posted by: Pieter B | January 20, 2009 1:46 AM
Pieter B said
While the US may not have "officially" declared war until that time, we were definitely involved by providing supplies and assistance to England and France and we were already claiming international waters as ours so we could shoot on site any German ships or subs attempting to stop our cargo to England. In addition, we were imposing various embargoes and sanctions on Japan. I find it hard to say that this initial involvement in war was based upon "self-preservation". We were definitely not "neutral". We were in fact supporting a war effort where at the time neither the Germans or the Japanese has begun to threaten us directly, so I think Hanley's argument actually stands in this case.
Posted by: Anna | January 20, 2009 12:35 PM