Iraq: A War Supporter Atones for Misjudgments

Nobody's got perfect judgment on foreign and domestic policy. Looking back, I was probably wrong to support the nuclear freeze movement of the early 1980s, which was an attempt to halt Western escalation of the nuclear arms race. Turned out just a few years later, the Soviets gave up, gave in, realized they could not compete with the West. Indeed, the Soviets spent so much on arms that their society collapsed from within, from internal rot.

I was also too negative in my assessment of Ronald Reagan when he was president. In retrospect, he did some good things.

On Good Friday, Andrew Sullivan, a conservative supporter of the war in Iraq, wrote an essay atoning for his support for the war in Iraq. He committed four cardinal sins, he said: historic narcissism, narrow moralism, unconservatism, and misreading Bush. "I  had no idea he was so complacent - even glib - about the evil that men with good intentions can enable." It's a thoughtful essay and well worth a read.

For me, I was plenty pessimistic about the Iraq misadventure from the start, as evidenced by my blog folder on Iraq. Even so, I probably wasn't pessimistic enough.

Jon Stewart of Comedy Central captures the scene on the fifth anniversary of the war. As some sage said, I try to be as cynical as I can, but I just can't keep up. (Hat tip to Buck Naked Politics)

Related:

• One Cheer for Reagan

Comments

[Ron M.]

A Countervailing Point of View

Historical narcissism

Call me a narcissist, but I do think a reasonable, civilized person, or nation, has a duty to act against tyranny and evil whenever possible. The alternative is to turn a blind eye to evil and the suffering it brings. I know that is so European chic nowadays…the ignoring of evil or, worse, the belief that all things are relative, there is no right or wrong and that evil doesn’t exist (except the US, of course—we are evil and the Great Satan—something we were even before invading Iraq according to much of the world).

Narrow morality

War may be monstrous, but it is not automatically a monster. Would anyone argue that it was monstrous to use war to destroy Nazi tyranny in Europe or that we used a monster to end the Japanese Empires attempt to enslave most of Asia? And, if war wasn’t a monster then, how could it be a monster or monstrous to use war as a means of driving a tyrant from the field in Iraq? If the world, and the US, ignores a Saddam Hussein and his crimes, is that not akin to seeing a woman being raped on a street and just walking by, doing nothing, because it “isn’t any of our business” and so we shouldn’t intervene. Isn’t the failure to stand up against evil and evil men the ultimate narrow morality? Can it be true that we should only be moral when it is convenient?

Unconservatism

No doubt we were naïve when it came to the schisms in Iraqi society. Yes, we knew of the difficulties of the British, but that was so long ago and it certainly appeared that Iraq had grown into a modern, secular society.

We mistakenly thought the western model would prevail elsewhere. Every nation in Europe is a synthesis of peoples who were once at each other’s throats. England is a great example. England is a country whose native Britons were conquered by the Saxons who were conquered by the Danes and finally the Normans. At one time these groups hated and warred against each other, but over time came together as one people. I doubt if you will find many Englishman worry about whether the lineage of his neighbor is Norman or Saxon. We see something similar in the US where people who might have been blood enemies at one time in Europe or Asia now live as Americans.

Such is not the case in the Middle East. And we were naïve to think it was. I can’t even beging to tell you the amazement I felt when Arabs started the wailing and gnashing of the teeth and calling us Crusaders (I would think one would have to be engaged in a war of conquest for religious reasons). The amazing was how strongly and deeply that feeling went and the negativity surrounding it. One would think the Arab world would celebrate the Crusades as one of the highlights of their civilization since they beat the beejezus out of the Crusader armies and sent them packing back to Europe. One would think that they would celebrate as we celebrate sending the British packing or the way some places in Europe still celebrate VE day.

But, they don’t and they don’t and we were naïve to believe the façade of a modern society.

Misreading Bush

Bush didn’t deep-six the Geneva Accords. He said that terrorists were covered. They are neither fish nor fowl. The Gevena Convention protects Soldiers who are taken prisoner and includes within that definition those people who are fighting to topple a tyrannical regime. Terrorists are not soldiers. They fight for no ideal (other than perhaps world domination by Islam), no country, no people—all the do is kill out of some misguided, unreasoning rage. But, where was the occupied country when the AmericanEmbassy was attacked in Tehran or the attacks on Embassies in Africa or the bombing of a naval vessels supposedly in a friendly port just taking on fuel and stores? There wasn’tone so terrorists can’t hide beneath the cloak of a soldier. And, terrorists are not criminals in the common use of the word—their crimes are far too monstrous to be treated the same as a bank robber or forger or even a murderer.

Some of the things that went on at Gitmo or Abu Grahib were certainly beyond the pale. However, when a workable definition of torture as being the intentional infliction of pain or the maiming or killing of a prisoner was floated by the Administraion, there were howls of protest. It seems even acts that cause no pain, no harm, no injury (like waterboarding, perhaps) are not allowed.

I can’t even imagine what it must be like to be the leader of a country responsible for the lives of millions of people. I can, however, imagtine leading a platoon of soldiers and being responsible for their lives and well-being. Can you? If you can ask yourself what you would be prepared to do if you caught a prisoner and had reason to believe that he had information that could save the lives of your men—men who will all likely die if you don’t get that information. What would you do? How far would you go?

I know that I would go to any lengths to get that information…the lives of my 50 men depend on getting that information. I would slowly flay that prisoner alive if that is what I had to do to save the lives of my men. Perhaps others wouldn’t….they would just figure it was a tough break for the platoon, but better they die than even make the prisoner uncomfortable.

Bush, and any president, is like that platoon leader only with a massive degree more responsibility. If you were president, how far would you go to prevent the deaths of thousands of American as a result of another attack like that on the WTC. How about the deaths of hundreds of thousands as a result of a biological attack?

It is easy to throw rocks at people when you don’t have to be responsible for the decisions they have to make.

[Jim Buie]

you write: "a reasonable, civilized person, or nation, has a duty to act against tyranny and evil whenever possible. The alternative is to turn a blind eye to evil and the suffering it brings."

There are at least a dozen countries in the world where there's "tyranny and evil." By your "logic," we should invade, topple and occupy each and every one of them -- otherwise, that's "turning a blind eye to evil and suffering..." But in Iraq, we've killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, spent trillions of dollars and gotten bogged down in a quagmire in which you offer no way out.

In your eagerness for war, you ought to read about Iraq Veterans Against the War.

BTW, you keep leaving out the word "not" when you write, such as above when you state that Bush said terrorists were covered by the Geneva Accord. Not. Might try proof-reading your comments before you post.

[Ron M.]

Ah, I'm sorry I lack your perfection. I am just a humble human who frequently errs. I will try to do better.

Incidentally, you missed a key point--I said we should topple evil dictatorships whenever possible. It isn't always possible to do so sad to say.

Where is your evidence that American troops have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? From what I've read, deaths of non-combatants at the hands of American troops has been relatively light. Most of the deaths in Iraq have been a result of Arabs killing Arabs not Americans killing Arabs.

There are certainly vets of Iraq who oppose the war--there are also vets who served there who support it including those who are re-enlisting for their own slots in a combat zone.

[Jim Buie]

you write: "it isn't always possible to topple evil dictatorships." And you argue that the trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives lost, tens of thousands of Americans wounded, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives lost, that we've caused, with no end in sight, makes it all worthwhile?

New England Journal of Medicine is publishing a report that more than 150,000 Iraqi deaths resulted from U.S. invasion and occupation, in the first three years. Other estimates put the number at half a million. No doubt you think it worth it -- similar to Vietnam era logic, that "we had to kill the people in order to save them."

Still, as you say, it's a choice between us the all good vs. them the all-evil.

[Ron M.]

Did your sources stipulated how many deaths were directly at the hands of American soldiers? Iraqis killing Iraqis is blood on their hands not ours.

[Jim Buie]

Look at the link. It's a pretty good analysis.

[Ron M.]

Au contraire--it is a misleading analysis.
The following statement lifted from the Post article reveals why: "Roughly 9 out of 10 of those deaths were a consequence of U.S. military operations, insurgent attacks and sectarian warfare." The study lumps all deaths into one basket. The only deaths the US is responsible for are those caused by military operations. Arabs killing Arabs for whatever reason are not our responsibility.