"Thou shalt not extinguish thine anger, but shall master it,
that thy conscience may not be blunted by adjustment
to wrong causes."
-The Dutch Ten Commandments to Foil the Nazis
31.3.03
EQUAL TIME: Something that Dara will like (unless you've heard it already (but even then, you might still find it funny)). The last truly great British PM (excepting Atlee, because he was sort of a mixed bag) was writing a report for something or other, and sent it off to a subordinate to read it for errors. One of the changes the subordinate made was to move a preposition from the end of a sentence. Noting that the change would destroy the natural flow of the language, the PM in question wrote "this is something up with which I will not put."
LINK: The normally hyperbolic Nat Hentoff speaks truth to power, kind of.
Oh, and Dara, the following is one of the reasons I don't like Kofi Annan:
"The United Nations? In 1994, Kofi Annan, then head of the UN's peacekeeping operations, blocked any use of UN troops in Rwanda even though he was told by his representative there that the genocide could be stopped before it started."
Oh, and Dara, the following is one of the reasons I don't like Kofi Annan:
"The United Nations? In 1994, Kofi Annan, then head of the UN's peacekeeping operations, blocked any use of UN troops in Rwanda even though he was told by his representative there that the genocide could be stopped before it started."
29.3.03
QUOTE OF THE DAY: At bottom of following:
The other man who is feeling the force of Mr Blair’s new-found assurance is Gordon Brown. The Chancellor used to rely on his ability to squish his kid brother, the Prime Minister. He dominated Mr Blair intellectually and played psychological games with him, such as avoiding meetings or refusing to tell him the contents of his Budgets until the last minute. This dynamic is changing. When the Prime Minister wanted to fix a meeting with the Chancellor some weeks ago, Mr Brown tried to make him come to the Treasury (where the Chancellor sits on a chair much higher than that of his guest, who is immediately cast in the role of supplicant). “No, you come over here,” barked Mr Blair down the phone. “I’m the f***ing Prime Minister!”
The other man who is feeling the force of Mr Blair’s new-found assurance is Gordon Brown. The Chancellor used to rely on his ability to squish his kid brother, the Prime Minister. He dominated Mr Blair intellectually and played psychological games with him, such as avoiding meetings or refusing to tell him the contents of his Budgets until the last minute. This dynamic is changing. When the Prime Minister wanted to fix a meeting with the Chancellor some weeks ago, Mr Brown tried to make him come to the Treasury (where the Chancellor sits on a chair much higher than that of his guest, who is immediately cast in the role of supplicant). “No, you come over here,” barked Mr Blair down the phone. “I’m the f***ing Prime Minister!”
QUOTE: From the NEw York protests earlier this week, via NRO:
A few supporters of the war, many on their way to work, tried to argue with the anti-warriors. Some staged spontaneous counter-protests. One man held a makeshift sign that read "Saddam Sez: Thanks, Suckers!" He yelled at the protesters, "You are aiding and abetting Saddam Hussein!" Visibly upset, one dred-locked girl said, "That's too provocative." Asked if the protesters themselves were being provocative, she said, "He has a right, but we're the majority, and the majority here is provoking a different vibration than that man is."
As time went on, lawyers and construction workers in the vicinity began heckling the protesters. A corporate lawyer, in response to a sign reading, "No Money for War! Money for Education!" responded with "No money for education! Money for overtime New York City cops!" Others used less irony: "Get a f****** job!" One counter-protester's sign read: "To All the Anti-War Hypocrites: Why Not Protest French Occupation of West Africa?"
A few supporters of the war, many on their way to work, tried to argue with the anti-warriors. Some staged spontaneous counter-protests. One man held a makeshift sign that read "Saddam Sez: Thanks, Suckers!" He yelled at the protesters, "You are aiding and abetting Saddam Hussein!" Visibly upset, one dred-locked girl said, "That's too provocative." Asked if the protesters themselves were being provocative, she said, "He has a right, but we're the majority, and the majority here is provoking a different vibration than that man is."
As time went on, lawyers and construction workers in the vicinity began heckling the protesters. A corporate lawyer, in response to a sign reading, "No Money for War! Money for Education!" responded with "No money for education! Money for overtime New York City cops!" Others used less irony: "Get a f****** job!" One counter-protester's sign read: "To All the Anti-War Hypocrites: Why Not Protest French Occupation of West Africa?"
LINK: Sometimes I think Todd Gitlin is a really astute political observer. This is not one of those times
28.3.03
THIS IS HOW CATHOLICS GET MAD AT EACH OTHER:
PRAYING FOR VICTORY [Rod Dreher]
Fr. Joseph Wilson of St. Luke's Parish in Whitestone, Queens, says he has been reading National Review since he was a small boy. Which might explain this example of courage, clear thinking, and action.
Fr. Wilson received the following message today from an official of the Brooklyn diocese:
Please include this in your Mass announcements this Sunday: "Everyone is invited to a Mass for the Restoration of Peace at Holy Trinity Church on Tuesday at 5PM. Father Latona, the Pastor, will be Celebrant."
Well, that did it. Fr. Wilson, who has just had it with pious peacenikery in this time of great peril, sent out the following fax to all the parishes that had received the first:
Faithful Sons and Daughters of the Church are invited to Saint Luke's Church on Monday evening, 7:15PM, for a Mass, Holy Hour and Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament, imploring the intercession of our Lady of Lepanto for the safety of our armed forces. The Holy Rosary, which once turned back those who would destroy Christian civilization, will be prayed before Mass.
PRAYING FOR VICTORY [Rod Dreher]
Fr. Joseph Wilson of St. Luke's Parish in Whitestone, Queens, says he has been reading National Review since he was a small boy. Which might explain this example of courage, clear thinking, and action.
Fr. Wilson received the following message today from an official of the Brooklyn diocese:
Please include this in your Mass announcements this Sunday: "Everyone is invited to a Mass for the Restoration of Peace at Holy Trinity Church on Tuesday at 5PM. Father Latona, the Pastor, will be Celebrant."
Well, that did it. Fr. Wilson, who has just had it with pious peacenikery in this time of great peril, sent out the following fax to all the parishes that had received the first:
Faithful Sons and Daughters of the Church are invited to Saint Luke's Church on Monday evening, 7:15PM, for a Mass, Holy Hour and Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament, imploring the intercession of our Lady of Lepanto for the safety of our armed forces. The Holy Rosary, which once turned back those who would destroy Christian civilization, will be prayed before Mass.
LINK: This is the funniest thing I've read it weeks.
WARNING: contains much about sodomy. You have been warned.
WARNING: contains much about sodomy. You have been warned.
27.3.03
QUOTE: From Salon:
Surprisingly, for San Francisco, the overmatched police earned more sympathy than the protesters in some normally liberal quarters. The San Francisco Chronicle's Rob Morse even found a protester to praise the cops: "If this were Washington, we'd all be bloody by now," said an honest older protester. "The cops here are really great." Added Morse: "And so they are. They're worth every penny of that $500,000 a day that will never go to General Hospital or housing for the poor." Morse blasted the demonstrators as "high on their own rage and self-righteousness," and asked: "Why should a self-appointed army of occupation forcibly try to make San Franciscans feel pain, especially when we're against the pain of war already?"
Surprisingly, for San Francisco, the overmatched police earned more sympathy than the protesters in some normally liberal quarters. The San Francisco Chronicle's Rob Morse even found a protester to praise the cops: "If this were Washington, we'd all be bloody by now," said an honest older protester. "The cops here are really great." Added Morse: "And so they are. They're worth every penny of that $500,000 a day that will never go to General Hospital or housing for the poor." Morse blasted the demonstrators as "high on their own rage and self-righteousness," and asked: "Why should a self-appointed army of occupation forcibly try to make San Franciscans feel pain, especially when we're against the pain of war already?"
QUOTE: Michael Walzer in Dissent:
" But now that we are fighting it, I hope that we win it and that the Iraqi regime collapses quickly. I will not march to stop the war while Saddam is still standing, for that would strengthen his tyranny at home and make him, once again, a threat to all his neighbors. My argument with the anti-war demonstrators hangs on the relative justice of two possible endings: an American victory or anything short of that, which Saddam could call a victory for himself. But, some of the demonstrators will ask, wouldn't the first of these vindicate the disastrous diplomacy of the Bush administration that led up to the war? Yes, it might do that, but on the other hand, the second ending would vindicate the equally disastrous diplomacy of the French, who rejected every opportunity to provide an alternative to war. And, again, it would strengthen Saddam's hand.
But even people who were against starting the war can still insist that it should be fought in accordance with the two crucial commitments undertaken by the Bush administration. First, that everything possible be done to avoid or reduce civilian casualties: this is the central requirement of jus in bello, justice in the conduct of war, which all armies in all wars are obligated to meet, whatever the moral status of the war itself. Second, that everything possible be done to ensure that the post-Saddam regime be a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people: this is the central requirement of what might be called jus post bellum--the least developed part of just war theory but obviously important these days. Democracy may be a utopian aspiration, given the history of Iraq and the foreign policy record of the US in the last half century; it certainly isn't easy to imagine realizing it. But something better than the Baath in Baghdad is easy to imagine, and we are morally bound to seek a political arrangement that accommodates the Kurds and the Shi'ites, whatever difficulties that involves."
" But now that we are fighting it, I hope that we win it and that the Iraqi regime collapses quickly. I will not march to stop the war while Saddam is still standing, for that would strengthen his tyranny at home and make him, once again, a threat to all his neighbors. My argument with the anti-war demonstrators hangs on the relative justice of two possible endings: an American victory or anything short of that, which Saddam could call a victory for himself. But, some of the demonstrators will ask, wouldn't the first of these vindicate the disastrous diplomacy of the Bush administration that led up to the war? Yes, it might do that, but on the other hand, the second ending would vindicate the equally disastrous diplomacy of the French, who rejected every opportunity to provide an alternative to war. And, again, it would strengthen Saddam's hand.
But even people who were against starting the war can still insist that it should be fought in accordance with the two crucial commitments undertaken by the Bush administration. First, that everything possible be done to avoid or reduce civilian casualties: this is the central requirement of jus in bello, justice in the conduct of war, which all armies in all wars are obligated to meet, whatever the moral status of the war itself. Second, that everything possible be done to ensure that the post-Saddam regime be a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people: this is the central requirement of what might be called jus post bellum--the least developed part of just war theory but obviously important these days. Democracy may be a utopian aspiration, given the history of Iraq and the foreign policy record of the US in the last half century; it certainly isn't easy to imagine realizing it. But something better than the Baath in Baghdad is easy to imagine, and we are morally bound to seek a political arrangement that accommodates the Kurds and the Shi'ites, whatever difficulties that involves."
LINK: Good piece from The Weekly Standard on the (occasional) intellectual dishonesty of the anti-war movement:
"Not only is the argument wrong, but Erwin does not include even a routine denunciation of the idea that the Iraqis "may feel much freer today to violate international law." They ought not to so feel, and Erwin should have included that message. In fact, as Erwin put it, the article might well encourage the Iraqis to think such criminal thoughts, and to base their behavior towards our POWs on his twisted logic. If there is any restraint at all within this sadistic regime, it cannot be deep and we ought not to be encouraging its corrosion.
I pressed Erwin if he had considered that his writing could be read in Iraq and that it might have consequences. He avoided the question, and objected that I was questioning his loyalty. He avoided opining even on the morality of Jane Fonda's visit to North Vietnam so many years ago or of this sign carried in "peace" demonstrations over the weekend: "We Support Our Troops When They Shoot Their Officers." In short, Erwin had no firm opinion except that the U.S. government is violating international law.
Though he did not intend it, Erwin's piece is an invitation to the Iraqi brutes to continue in their mistreatment of our prisoners and in their underhanded tactics on the battlefield. I asked Erwin how he would feel if our post-war investigations turned up his article in "The Ministry of Justice." He scoffed at the idea. This is willful blindness about the reach of modern media, and it is not Erwin's problem alone. The antiwar/anti-Bush crowd abandoned all self-restraint months ago, but they ought not to be allowed to pretend that their actions won't have consequences abroad. "
"Not only is the argument wrong, but Erwin does not include even a routine denunciation of the idea that the Iraqis "may feel much freer today to violate international law." They ought not to so feel, and Erwin should have included that message. In fact, as Erwin put it, the article might well encourage the Iraqis to think such criminal thoughts, and to base their behavior towards our POWs on his twisted logic. If there is any restraint at all within this sadistic regime, it cannot be deep and we ought not to be encouraging its corrosion.
I pressed Erwin if he had considered that his writing could be read in Iraq and that it might have consequences. He avoided the question, and objected that I was questioning his loyalty. He avoided opining even on the morality of Jane Fonda's visit to North Vietnam so many years ago or of this sign carried in "peace" demonstrations over the weekend: "We Support Our Troops When They Shoot Their Officers." In short, Erwin had no firm opinion except that the U.S. government is violating international law.
Though he did not intend it, Erwin's piece is an invitation to the Iraqi brutes to continue in their mistreatment of our prisoners and in their underhanded tactics on the battlefield. I asked Erwin how he would feel if our post-war investigations turned up his article in "The Ministry of Justice." He scoffed at the idea. This is willful blindness about the reach of modern media, and it is not Erwin's problem alone. The antiwar/anti-Bush crowd abandoned all self-restraint months ago, but they ought not to be allowed to pretend that their actions won't have consequences abroad. "
25.3.03
TODAY'S CLOSING HAPPINESS: From Best of the Web, again:
Scenes From the Liberation
"British troops are said to be firing on Basra in support of a 'popular uprising' against Saddam Hussein's troops by the people of Iraq's second city," ITV News reports:
Thousands of people took to the streets of the key strategic city in the early evening and began rampaging through areas heavily populated by known sympathisers of the country's regime.
By nightfall dozens of buildings were on fire as the predominantly Shia Muslims of the south took their revenge after years of domination by Saddam Hussein's Sunni Muslim ruling Ba'ath party.
Saddam's forces fired mortars at civilians, ITV reports, which "gave the troops of the 7th Armoured Brigade--the famous Desert Rats--the perfect opportunity to move into the city and take control of a battleground whose capture is vital to the allies."
The Times of London, meanwhile, reports from northern Iraq, where Kurds watching allied bombing "jeered and clapped, delighted that the war had come at last to the front line in northern Iraq":
"I am so happy," Ismail Qadir, 32, a refugee from Kirkuk, said. "If this brings the end of Saddam Hussein's regime even one minute closer, it is great news for us all."
In the town's Communist party headquarters, fighters ran from their barrack rooms, grabbing assault rifles and magazines as their building's windows rattled and shattered.
"It's what we want, but we need more of," Taha Muhammad Qarim, the secretariat leader, said. "The Americans should give it to the Iraqis like this three times a day and then we might see things change."
Even the commies are on our side. This does recall the battle against Hitler, doesn't it?
Scenes From the Liberation
"British troops are said to be firing on Basra in support of a 'popular uprising' against Saddam Hussein's troops by the people of Iraq's second city," ITV News reports:
Thousands of people took to the streets of the key strategic city in the early evening and began rampaging through areas heavily populated by known sympathisers of the country's regime.
By nightfall dozens of buildings were on fire as the predominantly Shia Muslims of the south took their revenge after years of domination by Saddam Hussein's Sunni Muslim ruling Ba'ath party.
Saddam's forces fired mortars at civilians, ITV reports, which "gave the troops of the 7th Armoured Brigade--the famous Desert Rats--the perfect opportunity to move into the city and take control of a battleground whose capture is vital to the allies."
The Times of London, meanwhile, reports from northern Iraq, where Kurds watching allied bombing "jeered and clapped, delighted that the war had come at last to the front line in northern Iraq":
"I am so happy," Ismail Qadir, 32, a refugee from Kirkuk, said. "If this brings the end of Saddam Hussein's regime even one minute closer, it is great news for us all."
In the town's Communist party headquarters, fighters ran from their barrack rooms, grabbing assault rifles and magazines as their building's windows rattled and shattered.
"It's what we want, but we need more of," Taha Muhammad Qarim, the secretariat leader, said. "The Americans should give it to the Iraqis like this three times a day and then we might see things change."
Even the commies are on our side. This does recall the battle against Hitler, doesn't it?
HAHA: From yesterday's Best of the Web Today (distributed by e-mail by the WSJ):
The Cola Wars
"Maoist rebels in India destroyed Coca Cola bottles and blasted a Pepsi warehouse as mainly small-scale protests against the US-led war on Iraq were held across Asia," Agence France-Presse reports from Hyderabad, India.
Why in the world would they attack Pepsi? Pepsi is just a distraction from the war on Coke. Not only is there no evidence that Coke and Pepsi have collaborated; they are actually enemies! Besides, the attack on Pepsi will only squander the world's sympathy for Maoist rebels and create more recruits for Coke on the Indian "street." This reckless and unlawful aggression against Pepsi serves no purpose except to realize Coke's fondest hopes."
The Cola Wars
"Maoist rebels in India destroyed Coca Cola bottles and blasted a Pepsi warehouse as mainly small-scale protests against the US-led war on Iraq were held across Asia," Agence France-Presse reports from Hyderabad, India.
Why in the world would they attack Pepsi? Pepsi is just a distraction from the war on Coke. Not only is there no evidence that Coke and Pepsi have collaborated; they are actually enemies! Besides, the attack on Pepsi will only squander the world's sympathy for Maoist rebels and create more recruits for Coke on the Indian "street." This reckless and unlawful aggression against Pepsi serves no purpose except to realize Coke's fondest hopes."
QUOTE: Jonah Goldberg:
"As Walter Russell Mead has written, there is a Jacksonian tradition in America which demands victory. As Mead noted: "When their blood is up, Americans are the fiercest warriors on earth." We killed 900,000 Japanese civilians in the last five months of World War II --and that's without counting Hiroshima and Nagasaki (a sobering fact for those who fear that killing a few thousand Iraqi civilians might "cost us the peace" in terms of permanent Iraqi resentment). Limited wars, by Mead's reckoning, fatally wounded three presidencies since 1945 --Truman's, Johnson's, and Nixon's. Plus, the first President Bush's high approval ratings after the first Gulf War eroded quickly in part because it was perceived that we had quit the game at halftime. But no president in U.S. history has ever been punished for seeking total victory. "
"As Walter Russell Mead has written, there is a Jacksonian tradition in America which demands victory. As Mead noted: "When their blood is up, Americans are the fiercest warriors on earth." We killed 900,000 Japanese civilians in the last five months of World War II --and that's without counting Hiroshima and Nagasaki (a sobering fact for those who fear that killing a few thousand Iraqi civilians might "cost us the peace" in terms of permanent Iraqi resentment). Limited wars, by Mead's reckoning, fatally wounded three presidencies since 1945 --Truman's, Johnson's, and Nixon's. Plus, the first President Bush's high approval ratings after the first Gulf War eroded quickly in part because it was perceived that we had quit the game at halftime. But no president in U.S. history has ever been punished for seeking total victory. "
QUOTE: Kanan Minaya knocks it out of the park, again:
"To be sure, I am worried. Like every other Iraqi I know, I have friends and relatives in Baghdad. I am nauseous with anxiety for their safety. But still those bombs are music to my ears. They are like bells tolling for liberation in a country that has been turned into a gigantic concentration camp. One is not supposed to say such things in the kind of liberal, pacifist, and deeply anti-American circles of academia, in which I normally live and work. The truth is jarring even to my own ears. "
"To be sure, I am worried. Like every other Iraqi I know, I have friends and relatives in Baghdad. I am nauseous with anxiety for their safety. But still those bombs are music to my ears. They are like bells tolling for liberation in a country that has been turned into a gigantic concentration camp. One is not supposed to say such things in the kind of liberal, pacifist, and deeply anti-American circles of academia, in which I normally live and work. The truth is jarring even to my own ears. "
24.3.03
QUOTE: Something to be proud of, from the Weekly Standard:
""I'm going to be proud if they think I am an American soldier," Ahmed says. "I have no fear to go there. I believe we live one life and we die one time. And if I die, I die for a good cause. For my family and for my people."
Ahmed carries a picture of his girlfriend around his neck. He shows it with evident pride and recalls seeing her for the first time at a Starbucks in Beaverton, Oregon. He shares his memories of the giddy days of new love--playing pool and bowling, making eggs at 2:00 a.m., seeing "My Big Fat Greek Wedding."
He and several Iraqi friends gathered regularly at the Beaverton Starbucks to talk about life, politics, and recently of course, this war. Some of them didn't share his enthusiasm for the mission. None of them wants to keep Saddam in power, but several of his friends don't approve of his willingness to go fight with U.S. troops. The normally soft-spoken man becomes very animated. He dismisses their criticisms, calling them "cowards."
"Let me ask you a question--why the American people, why the American solider have to die in our homeland? I say, we have to die there. So I said to them, [he points] you and you and you, you have to volunteer so less American people go. If you are American solider, you go to Basra, why you have to die there?"
So Ahmed moves forward today. He'll be home soon. "
""I'm going to be proud if they think I am an American soldier," Ahmed says. "I have no fear to go there. I believe we live one life and we die one time. And if I die, I die for a good cause. For my family and for my people."
Ahmed carries a picture of his girlfriend around his neck. He shows it with evident pride and recalls seeing her for the first time at a Starbucks in Beaverton, Oregon. He shares his memories of the giddy days of new love--playing pool and bowling, making eggs at 2:00 a.m., seeing "My Big Fat Greek Wedding."
He and several Iraqi friends gathered regularly at the Beaverton Starbucks to talk about life, politics, and recently of course, this war. Some of them didn't share his enthusiasm for the mission. None of them wants to keep Saddam in power, but several of his friends don't approve of his willingness to go fight with U.S. troops. The normally soft-spoken man becomes very animated. He dismisses their criticisms, calling them "cowards."
"Let me ask you a question--why the American people, why the American solider have to die in our homeland? I say, we have to die there. So I said to them, [he points] you and you and you, you have to volunteer so less American people go. If you are American solider, you go to Basra, why you have to die there?"
So Ahmed moves forward today. He'll be home soon. "
LINK: This is the kind of lit criticism I love.
"Breton had been the first French writer of note to denounce the infamous trials engineered by Stalin; Mandelstam had gone further to assert truth in the face of totalitarian lies. There was even a strange coincidence between the lives of Breton and Mandelstam, of the kind the surrealists would have loved, had it been less grim. Breton was famous for the time he slapped the Russian Stalinist writer Ilya Ehrenburg, on the streets of Paris in 1935, after Ehrenburg had described the surrealists as drug addicts and pederasts. Mandelstam, the year before, had similarly slapped the Stalinist author Alexei Tolstoy. Did Breton know of Mandelstam's act? Probably not, and Breton's slap lacked the genuinely suicidal quality of Mandelstam's, which marked the beginning of the end for the Russian genius."
"Breton had been the first French writer of note to denounce the infamous trials engineered by Stalin; Mandelstam had gone further to assert truth in the face of totalitarian lies. There was even a strange coincidence between the lives of Breton and Mandelstam, of the kind the surrealists would have loved, had it been less grim. Breton was famous for the time he slapped the Russian Stalinist writer Ilya Ehrenburg, on the streets of Paris in 1935, after Ehrenburg had described the surrealists as drug addicts and pederasts. Mandelstam, the year before, had similarly slapped the Stalinist author Alexei Tolstoy. Did Breton know of Mandelstam's act? Probably not, and Breton's slap lacked the genuinely suicidal quality of Mandelstam's, which marked the beginning of the end for the Russian genius."
QUOTE: David Edelstein on Michael Moore:
"My anti-war friends thought that Moore was great while those in my own—feverishly ambivalent—camp weren't so convinced. It would have been different, I think, if a non-blowhard had gotten up there and bellowed, "Shame on you!"—had put his or her career on the line to say that Bush was a liar. But that kind of boorish grandstanding comes too naturally to Moore, a man who didn't have the intellectual honesty to add that Saddam Hussein is a "fictitious president," too—and one who has killed a lot more people than George W. Bush and his father combined. Nothing has ever shaken my faith in my own politics like having Michael Moore in the same camp. When he invoked the Dixie Chicks, I'll bet they wanted to stick their heads in an oven."
"My anti-war friends thought that Moore was great while those in my own—feverishly ambivalent—camp weren't so convinced. It would have been different, I think, if a non-blowhard had gotten up there and bellowed, "Shame on you!"—had put his or her career on the line to say that Bush was a liar. But that kind of boorish grandstanding comes too naturally to Moore, a man who didn't have the intellectual honesty to add that Saddam Hussein is a "fictitious president," too—and one who has killed a lot more people than George W. Bush and his father combined. Nothing has ever shaken my faith in my own politics like having Michael Moore in the same camp. When he invoked the Dixie Chicks, I'll bet they wanted to stick their heads in an oven."
QUOTE: from Slate:
"I don't know whether Saddam Hussein has much to do with al-Qaida. I've said for months that U.S. claims of such a connection are weak. But there's plenty of evidence that Saddam's loyalists are using Iraqi civilians as human shields. And it's time the world recognized that tactic as a cousin of terrorism."
"I don't know whether Saddam Hussein has much to do with al-Qaida. I've said for months that U.S. claims of such a connection are weak. But there's plenty of evidence that Saddam's loyalists are using Iraqi civilians as human shields. And it's time the world recognized that tactic as a cousin of terrorism."
LINK: Eugene Volokh Fisks that Frida Kahlo nonsense.
p.s. Artemesia Gentilesci was a much better painter
p.s. Artemesia Gentilesci was a much better painter
LINK: This is the sort of thing I like to leave you with. The world is not really going to hell in a handbasket. The people who know are beginning to speak out.
QUOTE: From Salon, with one of the things I mentioned to Dara tonight. I especially like "we came out of the grave":
" Yet with the war underway, whatever anti-Bush momentum has been gained on the ground will likely dissipate if Iraqis welcome American troops as liberators. And in these very initial stages, that's exactly what's happened. The Guardian, a liberal British paper, quoted a sobbing man in Safwan, "You're late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious. I want to say hello to Bush, to shake his hand. We came out of the grave."
United Press International quoted an American pastor who went to Iraq as a human shield and left as a hawk. Iraqis, he said, "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler ... Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill." "
" Yet with the war underway, whatever anti-Bush momentum has been gained on the ground will likely dissipate if Iraqis welcome American troops as liberators. And in these very initial stages, that's exactly what's happened. The Guardian, a liberal British paper, quoted a sobbing man in Safwan, "You're late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious. I want to say hello to Bush, to shake his hand. We came out of the grave."
United Press International quoted an American pastor who went to Iraq as a human shield and left as a hawk. Iraqis, he said, "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler ... Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill." "
QUOTE: David Frum in the Telegraph:
"The great geopolitical lesson of the Iraq war is that America, despite its strength, does not wish to be a unilateral power. Americans understand and value the international legitimacy that comes from acting with others - and are prepared to pay the political price for joint action.
On the other hand, the existing structures of multilateralism now stand condemned in American eyes. Jacques Chirac's opposition to American policy went beyond dissent, which Americans will always accept, to outright sabotage - pressuring former French colonies, for example, to follow France's orders against America."
"The great geopolitical lesson of the Iraq war is that America, despite its strength, does not wish to be a unilateral power. Americans understand and value the international legitimacy that comes from acting with others - and are prepared to pay the political price for joint action.
On the other hand, the existing structures of multilateralism now stand condemned in American eyes. Jacques Chirac's opposition to American policy went beyond dissent, which Americans will always accept, to outright sabotage - pressuring former French colonies, for example, to follow France's orders against America."
22.3.03
ANOTHER GOOD GUY SPEAKS: Barham Salih, Prime Minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government, in Friday's Wall Street Journal. We need to go to the wall for people like this:
"Today, we fight alongside you because in a world of cynicism, the U.S., and its genuine allies, understand that they cannot use the Kurdish dead to justify this war and then sell out the Kurdish living. We have been sickened to hear those who armed Saddam preach to us about the horrors of war, to listen to those who helped prop up the dictator prate about international law.
We are fighting for a federal, democratic Iraq that will be at peace with its citizens and its neighbors. For decades the Kurds have argued for a federal Iraq that would protect the rights and identities of all Iraqis. Federalism is now the goal of the Iraqi opposition and received the blessing of Pres. Bush on March 6...
To work, Iraqi federalism must be democratic and plural. We must hold elections quickly, to allow long-silenced Iraqis to speak. Of course, the true test of democracy is when people know they can afford to lose elections. In a democracy, when you lose at the polls the worst that can happen is that you are a "has been." In too much of the Middle East, if elections are even held, lose them and you are a jailbird...
In our rebuilding, as in our liberation, we will need U.S. support. Together we can add to the acheivements of Free Iraq by transforming Iraq from the Middle East at its worst into a beaconof hope for a region that has been too long trapped in fear."
"Today, we fight alongside you because in a world of cynicism, the U.S., and its genuine allies, understand that they cannot use the Kurdish dead to justify this war and then sell out the Kurdish living. We have been sickened to hear those who armed Saddam preach to us about the horrors of war, to listen to those who helped prop up the dictator prate about international law.
We are fighting for a federal, democratic Iraq that will be at peace with its citizens and its neighbors. For decades the Kurds have argued for a federal Iraq that would protect the rights and identities of all Iraqis. Federalism is now the goal of the Iraqi opposition and received the blessing of Pres. Bush on March 6...
To work, Iraqi federalism must be democratic and plural. We must hold elections quickly, to allow long-silenced Iraqis to speak. Of course, the true test of democracy is when people know they can afford to lose elections. In a democracy, when you lose at the polls the worst that can happen is that you are a "has been." In too much of the Middle East, if elections are even held, lose them and you are a jailbird...
In our rebuilding, as in our liberation, we will need U.S. support. Together we can add to the acheivements of Free Iraq by transforming Iraq from the Middle East at its worst into a beaconof hope for a region that has been too long trapped in fear."
QUOTE: First-person account of the San Francisco protests yesterday:
"I work in the Financial District of San Francisco. The antics of the demonstrators yesterday was absolutely appalling. Blocking building entryways, yelling epithets at people, working people like me, who tried to gain access to their buildings. There was some sporadic violence, and one chilling scene, during the early evening commute, of protesters surrounding a young woman in her SUV. She was only trying to inch through the throng of people, ostensibly to get home (or just to get the hell out of there) when a group of these yahoos, many with bandanas or handkerchiefs around their faces, started to pound on the vehicle windows and hood with their signs. One idiot actually got up on the hood and was driven forward a few feet. According to a news crew on the scene, the protesters were debating whether to forcibly remove the driver and have her walk home, leaving her car behind. Luckily, it didn't get that far; a smaller group of protesters prevailed upon the idiots, saying it wasn't right to do, and the woman was then allowed to drive off.
But that's not the worst of it. SFPD confiscated from backpacks of those arrested items such as: knives of various types and lengths; a few crowbars; some bolt-cutters, cans of spray paint; and cans of what appeared to be accelerants of some kind. This morning, the website for one of the local tv stations reported that the police also found a cache of Molotov cocktails. Some peace demonstration.
I consider myself to be a moderate liberal (I know, the "l" word makes your skin crawl) who happens to be a hawk on defense/security issues (where have all the Democratic hawks like Acheson, Truman, JFK, Scoop Jackson, et al, gone?). I'm no fan of either the extreme right or left. But the left is really marginalizing itself (if it hasn't already done so). The intellectual dishonesty ("dude, it's not about Iraq, it's about an unrestrained United States!") makes me want to, well, vomit. Check out sfgate.com to see an opinion piece written by a Silicon Valley venture capitalist about yesterday's protest and protesters. Spot on, as the Brits like to say."
"I work in the Financial District of San Francisco. The antics of the demonstrators yesterday was absolutely appalling. Blocking building entryways, yelling epithets at people, working people like me, who tried to gain access to their buildings. There was some sporadic violence, and one chilling scene, during the early evening commute, of protesters surrounding a young woman in her SUV. She was only trying to inch through the throng of people, ostensibly to get home (or just to get the hell out of there) when a group of these yahoos, many with bandanas or handkerchiefs around their faces, started to pound on the vehicle windows and hood with their signs. One idiot actually got up on the hood and was driven forward a few feet. According to a news crew on the scene, the protesters were debating whether to forcibly remove the driver and have her walk home, leaving her car behind. Luckily, it didn't get that far; a smaller group of protesters prevailed upon the idiots, saying it wasn't right to do, and the woman was then allowed to drive off.
But that's not the worst of it. SFPD confiscated from backpacks of those arrested items such as: knives of various types and lengths; a few crowbars; some bolt-cutters, cans of spray paint; and cans of what appeared to be accelerants of some kind. This morning, the website for one of the local tv stations reported that the police also found a cache of Molotov cocktails. Some peace demonstration.
I consider myself to be a moderate liberal (I know, the "l" word makes your skin crawl) who happens to be a hawk on defense/security issues (where have all the Democratic hawks like Acheson, Truman, JFK, Scoop Jackson, et al, gone?). I'm no fan of either the extreme right or left. But the left is really marginalizing itself (if it hasn't already done so). The intellectual dishonesty ("dude, it's not about Iraq, it's about an unrestrained United States!") makes me want to, well, vomit. Check out sfgate.com to see an opinion piece written by a Silicon Valley venture capitalist about yesterday's protest and protesters. Spot on, as the Brits like to say."
FRANCE WATCH III: Funny as hell, but best not to take this seriously:
"The front page featured pictures of Mr Chirac and Saddam side by side. The accompanying text read: "Cherchez la difference [spot the difference]. One is a corrupt bully who is risking the lives of our troops. He is sneering at Britain, destroying democracy and endangering world peace. The other is Saddam Hussein."
"The front page featured pictures of Mr Chirac and Saddam side by side. The accompanying text read: "Cherchez la difference [spot the difference]. One is a corrupt bully who is risking the lives of our troops. He is sneering at Britain, destroying democracy and endangering world peace. The other is Saddam Hussein."
FRANCE WATCH II: in the Telegraph:
"I am not suggesting for a moment that French humanitarian aid should be turned down. If Mr Chirac chooses to contribute tents and medicines, then more power to his elbow. But it is hard to shake off the suspicion that what he is really after is contracts for French oil and engineering companies. I cannot see what possible right France has to play any important part in the reconstruction of Iraq, having gone out of its way to obstruct every attempt to liberate it from Saddam's tyranny."
"I am not suggesting for a moment that French humanitarian aid should be turned down. If Mr Chirac chooses to contribute tents and medicines, then more power to his elbow. But it is hard to shake off the suspicion that what he is really after is contracts for French oil and engineering companies. I cannot see what possible right France has to play any important part in the reconstruction of Iraq, having gone out of its way to obstruct every attempt to liberate it from Saddam's tyranny."
LINK: I'd like to point out that I've been arguing that the emphasis of the anti-war left is misplaced for a few months now. Nice to see everyone else is catching up.
LINK: A guide to trying to separate military psy-ops from reality, should such a differentiation be possible.
21.3.03
LINK: The JPost gives us an idea of what allies sound like:
"In these early hours of the conflict it is enough to say to America: Israel is with you not only official Israel, but all its citizens."
"This is a just war. It is being undertaken not to expand empire, gain natural resources, colonize, or propagate an alien creed, but to liberate 22 million people from tyranny. Shakespeare's lines in Henry IV come to mind: "Now, for our consciences, the arms are fair, when the intent of bearing them is just."
Israelis feel a special kinship toward America. We stand ready to assist our ally in any way possible. No one can more wholeheartedly empathize with the parents of US soldiers now in battle than Israeli parents whose own children have been where America's are going; if not into Baghdad, then into war."
"In these early hours of the conflict it is enough to say to America: Israel is with you not only official Israel, but all its citizens."
"This is a just war. It is being undertaken not to expand empire, gain natural resources, colonize, or propagate an alien creed, but to liberate 22 million people from tyranny. Shakespeare's lines in Henry IV come to mind: "Now, for our consciences, the arms are fair, when the intent of bearing them is just."
Israelis feel a special kinship toward America. We stand ready to assist our ally in any way possible. No one can more wholeheartedly empathize with the parents of US soldiers now in battle than Israeli parents whose own children have been where America's are going; if not into Baghdad, then into war."
QUOTE: From the Jerusalem Post. I don't (entirely) approve of the sentiment, but it's hard not to feel the passion in the example:
"Going back to Moses, Isaiah and Jeremiah, the Jews have thundered against injustice and railed against oppression. Moses became a leader not when he delivered a fiery speech to a party convention, but when he refused to turn away from a Hebrew slave being beaten and pretending that he just hadn't seen. He smote the Egyptian and rescued the oppressed slave even though by so doing he forever forfeited the pampered life of an Egyptian prince.
Had Moses attended the Jacques Chirac school of biblical policy, he would have sent in arms inspectors to remove the whip from the Egyptian's hands, after which they would have negotiated some lucrative deal to build pyramids together. "
"Going back to Moses, Isaiah and Jeremiah, the Jews have thundered against injustice and railed against oppression. Moses became a leader not when he delivered a fiery speech to a party convention, but when he refused to turn away from a Hebrew slave being beaten and pretending that he just hadn't seen. He smote the Egyptian and rescued the oppressed slave even though by so doing he forever forfeited the pampered life of an Egyptian prince.
Had Moses attended the Jacques Chirac school of biblical policy, he would have sent in arms inspectors to remove the whip from the Egyptian's hands, after which they would have negotiated some lucrative deal to build pyramids together. "
"Jacques Chirac finds himself in the position of a driver lost on a highway in a rainstorm:" The always brilliant Chris Caldwell (who wrote a fantastic article on French anti-semitism in Commentary last year, so knows his stuff) on how France might only be beginning to understand how much trouble it has gotten itself into.
LINK: I generally frown at The New York Times as Pravda West-type stories, but even I've noticed that the paper has been unusually dour, even stubbornly so, over Iraq. I think criticism is fair at this time.
20.3.03
WARNING!: I just found this piece of vile anti-French, pro-war libel. I haven't heard of this joker before, but he sounds like trouble... someone should keep an eye on him.
IF THE NATION ZIGS: You damn well better zag. Nice to know they still haven't met a Stalinist they didn't like
WELL: I was at coffee today (as Dara knows) with one of my friends, the sort of ideological sparring-partner who is really ideal: she's informed, and quite a bit to the left of me, so it always makes for an interesting conversation. Anyway, today we discussed (surprise!) Iraq, and reached consensus on a few points: war is undesirable, but Iraqi democracy (if it can be realized) would be wonderful, and the anti-Semitism gaining currency on the hard-left and -right is completely unacceptable. A good reminder for me, who occasionally feels ailenated from the party and the cause, that most people recognize political necessities.
MUST-READ: The best account of the process behind Iraqi democrats and the new government. Kanan Mikaya... he's the real deal, kids. No one better. Updated daily, no less.
QUOTE: A reminder why John McCain is my favorite politician ever:
"And contrary to the assertion of the senator from West Virginia, when the people of Iraq are liberated, we will again have written another chapter in the glorious history of the United States of America, that we will fight for the freedom of other citizens of the world, and we again assert the most glorious phrase, in my view, ever written in the English language; and that is: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of "
"And contrary to the assertion of the senator from West Virginia, when the people of Iraq are liberated, we will again have written another chapter in the glorious history of the United States of America, that we will fight for the freedom of other citizens of the world, and we again assert the most glorious phrase, in my view, ever written in the English language; and that is: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of "
QUOTE: From Slate:
""The Security Council has not failed," Fischer told fellow council members. "The Security Council has made available the instruments to disarm Iraq peacefully. The Security Council is not responsible for what is happening outside the U.N."
Wait, let's hear that again. The Security Council is not responsible for what is happening outside the U.N.
And to think some people said the United Nations was useless."
""The Security Council has not failed," Fischer told fellow council members. "The Security Council has made available the instruments to disarm Iraq peacefully. The Security Council is not responsible for what is happening outside the U.N."
Wait, let's hear that again. The Security Council is not responsible for what is happening outside the U.N.
And to think some people said the United Nations was useless."
19.3.03
LINK: There was the Tariq Aziz defection rumor, and the 17 who have already surrendered, and, well, this, which will give us all something to speculate on in the near future.
LINK: This probably qualifies as an unbelievably important moment for conservatives, exactly the sort of Sister Soljah-ing that decent leftists need to be doing more of.
GIVE THEM SOME CREDIT: If anybody is able to recognize the violent overthrow of a sovereign state, it would be Russia:
"However, the harshest criticism came from Russia, whose foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, said: "Not one of these decisions authorises the right to use force against Iraq. Not one of them authorises violent overthrow of a sovereign state." "
"However, the harshest criticism came from Russia, whose foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, said: "Not one of these decisions authorises the right to use force against Iraq. Not one of them authorises violent overthrow of a sovereign state." "
18.3.03
LINK: I'm inclined to take Clare Short at her word about this, which goes a long way to establishing the gravity and seriousness of the pro-war cause.
LINK: Hitch lets fly:
"Conspicuous among the latter, and very popular recently, is the assertion that proponents of regime change have been TOO consistent. On every hand, I hear it darkly pointed out that several neoconservative theorists have wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein for a very long time. Even before Sept. 11! Even before the invasion of Kuwait! It's easy to look up the official papers and public essays in which Paul Wolfowitz, for example, has stressed the menace of Saddam Hussein since as far back as 1978. He has never deviated from this conviction. What could possibly be more sinister?
The consistency with which a view is held is of course no guarantee of that view's integrity. But it seems odd to blame Wolfowitz for having in effect been right all along."
"Conspicuous among the latter, and very popular recently, is the assertion that proponents of regime change have been TOO consistent. On every hand, I hear it darkly pointed out that several neoconservative theorists have wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein for a very long time. Even before Sept. 11! Even before the invasion of Kuwait! It's easy to look up the official papers and public essays in which Paul Wolfowitz, for example, has stressed the menace of Saddam Hussein since as far back as 1978. He has never deviated from this conviction. What could possibly be more sinister?
The consistency with which a view is held is of course no guarantee of that view's integrity. But it seems odd to blame Wolfowitz for having in effect been right all along."
LINK: Be prepared to hear much more like this in the coming weeks and months. Good:
"I do not have a monopoly on wisdom or morality. But I know one thing. This evil, fascist regime must come to an end. With or without the help of the Security Council, and with or without the backing of the Labour Party in the House of Commons tonight."
"I do not have a monopoly on wisdom or morality. But I know one thing. This evil, fascist regime must come to an end. With or without the help of the Security Council, and with or without the backing of the Labour Party in the House of Commons tonight."
LINK: I think we can now safely call him Tony "Greatest PM since Churchill" Blair. He's got my vote.
LINK: See, now this whole new France thing has me confused. They're willing to help out if Saddam uses chemical weapons on us--bully. But I thought they didn't have chemical weapons... oh, wait... it was that they were willing to disarm peacefully. Well, give them credit: they know when they've been beat and need to save some face.
LINK: This is why I'd vote for Bush if the election were held today. The sheer contempt for democracy, the hatred expressed for any view deviating from their own, the completely unnecessary racial swipe ("Jewish" neoconservatives, as if the fact of their being Jewish is at all relevant). If Democratic elected officials take this kind of rant seriously, I'm bolting the party.
17.3.03
QUOTES: Irving Howe:
"Let us go even further and grant, again for the sake of argument, that in some underdeveloped countries authoritarian regimes may be necessary for a time. But even if this is true, which I do not believe it is, then it must be acknowledged as an unpleasant necessity, a price we are paying for the historical crimes and mistakes of the past."
"Radicals and liberals may properly and fraternally disagree about many other things; but upon this single axiom concerning the value of democracy, this conviction wrung from the tragedy of our age, politics must rest."
"The politics of confrontationalism bear an inherent drift toward undemocratic eltism. Electoral processes are declared irrelevant, majorities mere formalities."
"Let us go even further and grant, again for the sake of argument, that in some underdeveloped countries authoritarian regimes may be necessary for a time. But even if this is true, which I do not believe it is, then it must be acknowledged as an unpleasant necessity, a price we are paying for the historical crimes and mistakes of the past."
"Radicals and liberals may properly and fraternally disagree about many other things; but upon this single axiom concerning the value of democracy, this conviction wrung from the tragedy of our age, politics must rest."
"The politics of confrontationalism bear an inherent drift toward undemocratic eltism. Electoral processes are declared irrelevant, majorities mere formalities."
QUOTES: Mary McCarthy, from the unbelievably brilliant "My Confession"
"It has never been like that for me; events have never waited, like extras, while I toiled to make up my mind about good and evil. In fact, I have never known these mental convulsions, which appear quite strange to me when I read about them, even when I do not question the author's sincerity."
"The Moscow trials were a historical fact and those of us who tried to undo them were uneasily felt to be crackpots, who were trying to turn the clock back. And of course the less we were listened to, the more insistent and earnest we became, even while we realized we were doing our cause harm. It is impossible to take a moderate tone under such conditions. If I admitted, though, to being a little hipped on the subject of Trotsky, I could sometimes gain an indulgent if flickering attention--the kind of attention that stipulates, 'she's a bit off but let's hear her story.' And now and then, by sheer chance, one of my hearers would be arrested by some stray point in my narrative; the disparaging smile would slowly fade from his features, leaving a look of blank consternation. He would go off and investigate for himself, and in a few days, when we met again, he would be a crackpot too."
"It has never been like that for me; events have never waited, like extras, while I toiled to make up my mind about good and evil. In fact, I have never known these mental convulsions, which appear quite strange to me when I read about them, even when I do not question the author's sincerity."
"The Moscow trials were a historical fact and those of us who tried to undo them were uneasily felt to be crackpots, who were trying to turn the clock back. And of course the less we were listened to, the more insistent and earnest we became, even while we realized we were doing our cause harm. It is impossible to take a moderate tone under such conditions. If I admitted, though, to being a little hipped on the subject of Trotsky, I could sometimes gain an indulgent if flickering attention--the kind of attention that stipulates, 'she's a bit off but let's hear her story.' And now and then, by sheer chance, one of my hearers would be arrested by some stray point in my narrative; the disparaging smile would slowly fade from his features, leaving a look of blank consternation. He would go off and investigate for himself, and in a few days, when we met again, he would be a crackpot too."
QUOTE: George Orwell, "Pacifism and the War"
"I am not interested in pacifism as a 'moral phenomenon.' If Mr. Savage and others imagine that one can somehow 'overcome' the German army by lying on one's back, let them go on imagining it, but let them also wonder occasionally whether this is not an illusion due to security, too much money and a simple ignorance of the way in which things actually happen."
"I am not interested in pacifism as a 'moral phenomenon.' If Mr. Savage and others imagine that one can somehow 'overcome' the German army by lying on one's back, let them go on imagining it, but let them also wonder occasionally whether this is not an illusion due to security, too much money and a simple ignorance of the way in which things actually happen."
16.3.03
In the context of this, and running concomitant with my understanding that I've slacked off far too much on my reading responsibilities, I've been taking a keen look at the last generation of Liberal thinkers before the New Left broke out--New York intellectuals like Mary McCarthy (who was kind of a hottie in her day, I must admit), Irving Howe, Philip Rahv; Democratic party foreign policy mavens like George Kennan (I went to look for books by Dean Acheson, but none of them were in, even the ones the computer said were in. I smell a conspiracy); and writers in the George Orwell mode. Highlights from day one of the re-education program reproduced above.
WELL: The next 48 hours or so are going to be huge. I don't mean to understate here--I doubt overstatement is even possible. This is getting-into-WWII big. I don't think it to be hyperbolic in the slightest to say that the coming war in Iraq (if it comes) will have decisive, long-lasting ramifications. But you all know this.
What I really see coming is a tremendous opportunity for a resurgence of Liberal politics (something I assume everyone who reads this has some interest in)--even a potential renewal for Radical thought and action. The keys to overturning the New Left--critical if anything is to be done--will come from reasoned, personalized debate (not from mass politics--there will be no demonstrations); from a responsible conception of the uses of power (both to strengthen political rights domestically and internationally); most importantly, from an increased respect for the material and spirtual needs of all people, understood without condescention.
What I really see coming is a tremendous opportunity for a resurgence of Liberal politics (something I assume everyone who reads this has some interest in)--even a potential renewal for Radical thought and action. The keys to overturning the New Left--critical if anything is to be done--will come from reasoned, personalized debate (not from mass politics--there will be no demonstrations); from a responsible conception of the uses of power (both to strengthen political rights domestically and internationally); most importantly, from an increased respect for the material and spirtual needs of all people, understood without condescention.
FUN STUFF: This will end up on my Political Philosophy class' website, in theory for discussion. But y'all get a crack at it first:
Like most of you, I’ve been following the debate on whether or not to go to war with Iraq. Most of the debate, when it puts itself in moral terms, deals with Just War theory—a war can be legitimate if there is a real enough threat, if the response is proportional, etc etc. I have seen a number of articles that use this doctrine to justify going to war or not going to war. But it seems to me that framing the debate in this sense misses something larger.
By virtue of being Americans, we have special obligations in the realm of political action. Specifically, we have a vision of what it is that we have governments for in the first place, and how we can judge the legitimacy of any regime in power (I consider Jefferson to have spoken conclusively on these matters in the Declaration of Independence). The catch is that in our case (whether there exist other countries that frame their political obligations in the same way is another question entirely, though I suppose that there are), we have, in the fundamental character of our nation, obligations that are universalizable. It is not simply the case that our government gains legitimacy inasmuch as it protects the political rights of the people through mechanisms they consent to—that is the requirement for legitimacy in any government.
There is an additional layer of complexity, though, when it comes to implementation. Two demands compete: first, the claim of political liberty is so primary that it demands action NOW; but circumstances do not permit action to be equally efficacious in all situations. With this in mind, I would like to propose that there needs to be a theory running concurrent with Just War theory, which recognizes that when the following four conditions obtain, we have a moral obligation to go to war and foster the growth of a republican-democratic government:
1. The existence of a (relatively) pluralistic, secular society
2. The existence of a collection of individuals or groups prepared to take leadership of the democratic-republican government
3. Reason to believe other courses of action will not produce a desirable result (i.e., a change a government)
4. Reason to believe that any military action taken would proceed (relatively) quickly
I don’t claim that the language employed in these four points is impeccable, but only that they represent in reasonably short form the broader principles at play. But it is reasonable to ask why these four conditions are the ones to look to when judging whether to go to war.
The first condition is needed because no republican-democratic government can exist for very long without a civil society. Obviously, one will not spring into being overnight, or perhaps even for a fair amount of time, so making the actual existence of a civil society a prerequisite would be too restrictive. But a pluralistic, secular society will ensure that some of the necessary pieces for civil society are already in place.
An already-existing group of leaders committed to republican-democratic ideals is also a prerequisite, because any form of military provisional government or puppet regime installed into power is completely unacceptable. This sort of leadership class cannot exist without desire for representative government and the leadership skills that are necessary to lead. Again, it is difficult to say how things will work in the long term, but the presence of local leaders provides a relatively good security net against the short-term threats to governmental stability.
Underlying the third and fourth conditions are a recognition that we simply cannot go to war with every regime that is undesirable, though for two different sets of reasons. The third is meant to recognize that diplomatic horse-trading has a role, and that some dictators (as much as this goes against the principle of liberty) are not as bad as others. Pakistan strikes me as the perfect example here: Musharraf is exactly the sort of leader who is amenable to U.S. pressure—in other words, will stay in line when we need him to stay in line, which makes him less of a direct threat. But he also strikes me—through the reading I’ve done on the subject—as the sort of figure who would be prepared to introduce civil and political reforms to his country, which would set the stage for a change of governmental forms not requiring a war. Odious though he may be from the position of liberty, he is a figure we can deal with.
The fourth condition is meant to rule out the obviously militarily bad scenarios, which come in two flavors. The first would be one like the Sudan, where military objectives would be hard to formulate, so achieving success would be hard to quantify—exactly the sort of Vietnam-esque quagmire we want to avoid. There are also the Chinas of the world (North Korea might be a better example), where it is arguable that we could prevail, but the losses incurred would be—by order of magnitude—beyond an acceptable range.
Obviously, this theory didn’t develop in a vacuum. It is an outgrowth of the argumentation I’ve done on the Iraq issue, and I think of Iraq as being a case in which all four of the conditions hold. I’m primarily interested, then, in hearing responses to two particular questions: how does this argument hold up with regard to Iraq (I’m prepared to outline my case for that if requested)? But moreover, how does this function as a moral argument in its own right—does meeting the four conditions necessarily constitute a moral trigger for war?
Like most of you, I’ve been following the debate on whether or not to go to war with Iraq. Most of the debate, when it puts itself in moral terms, deals with Just War theory—a war can be legitimate if there is a real enough threat, if the response is proportional, etc etc. I have seen a number of articles that use this doctrine to justify going to war or not going to war. But it seems to me that framing the debate in this sense misses something larger.
By virtue of being Americans, we have special obligations in the realm of political action. Specifically, we have a vision of what it is that we have governments for in the first place, and how we can judge the legitimacy of any regime in power (I consider Jefferson to have spoken conclusively on these matters in the Declaration of Independence). The catch is that in our case (whether there exist other countries that frame their political obligations in the same way is another question entirely, though I suppose that there are), we have, in the fundamental character of our nation, obligations that are universalizable. It is not simply the case that our government gains legitimacy inasmuch as it protects the political rights of the people through mechanisms they consent to—that is the requirement for legitimacy in any government.
There is an additional layer of complexity, though, when it comes to implementation. Two demands compete: first, the claim of political liberty is so primary that it demands action NOW; but circumstances do not permit action to be equally efficacious in all situations. With this in mind, I would like to propose that there needs to be a theory running concurrent with Just War theory, which recognizes that when the following four conditions obtain, we have a moral obligation to go to war and foster the growth of a republican-democratic government:
1. The existence of a (relatively) pluralistic, secular society
2. The existence of a collection of individuals or groups prepared to take leadership of the democratic-republican government
3. Reason to believe other courses of action will not produce a desirable result (i.e., a change a government)
4. Reason to believe that any military action taken would proceed (relatively) quickly
I don’t claim that the language employed in these four points is impeccable, but only that they represent in reasonably short form the broader principles at play. But it is reasonable to ask why these four conditions are the ones to look to when judging whether to go to war.
The first condition is needed because no republican-democratic government can exist for very long without a civil society. Obviously, one will not spring into being overnight, or perhaps even for a fair amount of time, so making the actual existence of a civil society a prerequisite would be too restrictive. But a pluralistic, secular society will ensure that some of the necessary pieces for civil society are already in place.
An already-existing group of leaders committed to republican-democratic ideals is also a prerequisite, because any form of military provisional government or puppet regime installed into power is completely unacceptable. This sort of leadership class cannot exist without desire for representative government and the leadership skills that are necessary to lead. Again, it is difficult to say how things will work in the long term, but the presence of local leaders provides a relatively good security net against the short-term threats to governmental stability.
Underlying the third and fourth conditions are a recognition that we simply cannot go to war with every regime that is undesirable, though for two different sets of reasons. The third is meant to recognize that diplomatic horse-trading has a role, and that some dictators (as much as this goes against the principle of liberty) are not as bad as others. Pakistan strikes me as the perfect example here: Musharraf is exactly the sort of leader who is amenable to U.S. pressure—in other words, will stay in line when we need him to stay in line, which makes him less of a direct threat. But he also strikes me—through the reading I’ve done on the subject—as the sort of figure who would be prepared to introduce civil and political reforms to his country, which would set the stage for a change of governmental forms not requiring a war. Odious though he may be from the position of liberty, he is a figure we can deal with.
The fourth condition is meant to rule out the obviously militarily bad scenarios, which come in two flavors. The first would be one like the Sudan, where military objectives would be hard to formulate, so achieving success would be hard to quantify—exactly the sort of Vietnam-esque quagmire we want to avoid. There are also the Chinas of the world (North Korea might be a better example), where it is arguable that we could prevail, but the losses incurred would be—by order of magnitude—beyond an acceptable range.
Obviously, this theory didn’t develop in a vacuum. It is an outgrowth of the argumentation I’ve done on the Iraq issue, and I think of Iraq as being a case in which all four of the conditions hold. I’m primarily interested, then, in hearing responses to two particular questions: how does this argument hold up with regard to Iraq (I’m prepared to outline my case for that if requested)? But moreover, how does this function as a moral argument in its own right—does meeting the four conditions necessarily constitute a moral trigger for war?
12.3.03
PLUG FOR TOMORROW: I can't go, because I have to have dinner with my brother and sister-in-law, but everyone else should:
What: Debate on the potential War with Iraq
When: Thursday, March 13 at 7:30 pm
Where: Chemistry 1210
Who:
Pro: Justin Shubow (Philosophy GSI)
Contra: Prof. Tom Weisskopf (Professor of Economics and Director of the
Residential College)
*****
Justin is the GSI for my Political Philosophy class, and he took the pro-war side in the in-class debate we had last week. He's more traditional conservative than the type of liberal/neo-conservative argument you're used to hearing from me, but if he rehashes his previous argument, he'll do a good job showing why options other than war won't do the trick. Anyway, someone go, and let me know how it turns out.
What: Debate on the potential War with Iraq
When: Thursday, March 13 at 7:30 pm
Where: Chemistry 1210
Who:
Pro: Justin Shubow (Philosophy GSI)
Contra: Prof. Tom Weisskopf (Professor of Economics and Director of the
Residential College)
*****
Justin is the GSI for my Political Philosophy class, and he took the pro-war side in the in-class debate we had last week. He's more traditional conservative than the type of liberal/neo-conservative argument you're used to hearing from me, but if he rehashes his previous argument, he'll do a good job showing why options other than war won't do the trick. Anyway, someone go, and let me know how it turns out.
LINK: Now this is funny, David:
this is a fox news special report:
Hume "today the war on fired has suffered a major setback. David was shot down by opposition forces today in the atrium of the chemisty building. lets go to geraldo in the field."
Geraldo: "Thanks Brit. In an inexplicable move today by katie, David was shot down at approx 1:15 pm today. The rejection approached aft, so he didnt even see it coming."
this is a fox news special report:
Hume "today the war on fired has suffered a major setback. David was shot down by opposition forces today in the atrium of the chemisty building. lets go to geraldo in the field."
Geraldo: "Thanks Brit. In an inexplicable move today by katie, David was shot down at approx 1:15 pm today. The rejection approached aft, so he didnt even see it coming."
LINK: Well, it looks like it's come to this. People who know about these things have been writing that the U.S. will temporarily suspend it's membership in the U.N. (should the resolution fail), unless certain reforms are made (remember, Dara, when I suggested a way to disposess France of its Security Council veto? Look for this to be a part of what happens, and look for India to be their potential replacement). If not, the suspension will be made permanent. Something we can all look forward to.
QUOTE: Solzhenitsyn, 25 years ago:
"A decline in courage may be the most striking feature that an outside observer notices in the West today. The Western world has lost its civic courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, in each government, in each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations. Such a decline of courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling and intellectual elites, causing an impression of a loss of courage by the entire society. There are many courageous individuals, but they have no determining influence on public life.
Political and intellectual functionaries exhibit this depression, passivity, and perplexity in their actions and their statements, and even more so in their self-serving rationales as to how realistic, reasonable, and intellectually and even morally justified it is to base state policies on weakness and cowardice. And the decline in courage, at times attaining what could be termed a lack of manhood, is ironically emphasized by occasional outbursts and inflexibility on the part of those same functionaries when dealing with weak governments and with countries that lack support, or doomed currents which clearly cannot offer resistance. But they get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists.
Must one point out that from ancient times a decline in courage has been considered the first symptom of the end?"
"A decline in courage may be the most striking feature that an outside observer notices in the West today. The Western world has lost its civic courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, in each government, in each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations. Such a decline of courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling and intellectual elites, causing an impression of a loss of courage by the entire society. There are many courageous individuals, but they have no determining influence on public life.
Political and intellectual functionaries exhibit this depression, passivity, and perplexity in their actions and their statements, and even more so in their self-serving rationales as to how realistic, reasonable, and intellectually and even morally justified it is to base state policies on weakness and cowardice. And the decline in courage, at times attaining what could be termed a lack of manhood, is ironically emphasized by occasional outbursts and inflexibility on the part of those same functionaries when dealing with weak governments and with countries that lack support, or doomed currents which clearly cannot offer resistance. But they get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists.
Must one point out that from ancient times a decline in courage has been considered the first symptom of the end?"
LINK: Another convert. Did you ever notice that there seems to be a resignation, almost to the point of depression, on the part of those who conclude that force is necessary?
"The United Nations should not be at an impasse. The Western world should not be forced to choose between a rock and a hard place. Both Bush and Blair must share some of the blame for where we now find ourselves.
But the harsh reality is that if the Americans were to be rebuffed and humiliated in the next two weeks, the real victors would not be the UN but Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il and similar despots around the world. The moral case might remain ambiguous and uncertain. The political one has become unanswerable."
"The United Nations should not be at an impasse. The Western world should not be forced to choose between a rock and a hard place. Both Bush and Blair must share some of the blame for where we now find ourselves.
But the harsh reality is that if the Americans were to be rebuffed and humiliated in the next two weeks, the real victors would not be the UN but Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il and similar despots around the world. The moral case might remain ambiguous and uncertain. The political one has become unanswerable."
LINK: The New Republic (my new favorite political magazine), on why dealing with North Korea now could be a good thing, in the long run:
"After watching and possibly helping the United States defuse a threat in their own backyard, the currently wary Russians and Chinese would be far less inclined to see us as a dangerous vigilante. And that goodwill would have repercussions far beyond Iraq. Once we'd built up trust with these two powers--both of whom, incidentally, face home-grown Islamist militant movements--we'd be well on our way to a formidable, if ad hoc, alliance against nuclear proliferation based on our shared interest in thwarting it. (An added benefit: With Russia, China, America, and its ally Britain all singing from the same sheet on WMD proliferation, it's hard to imagine anyone caring much what France thinks anymore.) "
and also:
"By demonstrating that the United States will take every step necessary to prevent nuclear proliferation, particularly among rogue regimes, we encourage the overwhelmingly young and moderate population of Iran in its fight against the unelected hardline mullahs who continue to smother domestic political reform. (Polls show that the average Iranian has a favorable view of the United States--which is to say, that he or she would be open to this kind of encouragement.) The sooner both sides in this struggle realize that the mullahs' rogue posture is hopelessly counterproductive, the sooner the moderates will triumph. "
All of this causes me to speculate that non-proliferation may be a winner for the future. Food for thought.
"After watching and possibly helping the United States defuse a threat in their own backyard, the currently wary Russians and Chinese would be far less inclined to see us as a dangerous vigilante. And that goodwill would have repercussions far beyond Iraq. Once we'd built up trust with these two powers--both of whom, incidentally, face home-grown Islamist militant movements--we'd be well on our way to a formidable, if ad hoc, alliance against nuclear proliferation based on our shared interest in thwarting it. (An added benefit: With Russia, China, America, and its ally Britain all singing from the same sheet on WMD proliferation, it's hard to imagine anyone caring much what France thinks anymore.) "
and also:
"By demonstrating that the United States will take every step necessary to prevent nuclear proliferation, particularly among rogue regimes, we encourage the overwhelmingly young and moderate population of Iran in its fight against the unelected hardline mullahs who continue to smother domestic political reform. (Polls show that the average Iranian has a favorable view of the United States--which is to say, that he or she would be open to this kind of encouragement.) The sooner both sides in this struggle realize that the mullahs' rogue posture is hopelessly counterproductive, the sooner the moderates will triumph. "
All of this causes me to speculate that non-proliferation may be a winner for the future. Food for thought.
LINK: France may be the home of the most cynical and self-interested diplomats in the world today (though, depressingly, they don't lack for competition), but they're still the home of Poussin, and the Ste. Chapelle, and Gustave Flaubert. Give credit where it's due.
11.3.03
10.3.03
LINK: Some nice thoughts about The Lysistrata Project... I always knew I liked Sophocles better than Aristophanes. Now I know why. Like the picture, too.
LINK: ScrappleFace gets it, and David Brooks puts some flesh on the bones:
"THE AMERICAN COMMENTARIAT is gravely concerned. Over the past week, George W. Bush has shown a disturbing tendency not to waffle when it comes to Iraq. There has been an appalling clarity and coherence to his position. There has been a reckless tendency not to be murky, hesitant, or evasive. Naturally, questions are being raised about President Bush's leadership skills.
The United States is in the midst of the certainty crisis. Time magazine is disturbed by "The blinding glare of his certainty," as one headline referred to Bush's unwillingness to go wobbly on Iraq. "A questionable certainty" was the headline in the Los Angeles Times. "This kind of certainty worries Bush's critics," noted U.S. News & World Report. "Moral certainty, for the most part, is a luxury of a closed mind," observed William Lesher, a Lutheran school of theology professor, who presumably preserves a subtle open-mindedness about the Holocaust and other such matters. "
"THE AMERICAN COMMENTARIAT is gravely concerned. Over the past week, George W. Bush has shown a disturbing tendency not to waffle when it comes to Iraq. There has been an appalling clarity and coherence to his position. There has been a reckless tendency not to be murky, hesitant, or evasive. Naturally, questions are being raised about President Bush's leadership skills.
The United States is in the midst of the certainty crisis. Time magazine is disturbed by "The blinding glare of his certainty," as one headline referred to Bush's unwillingness to go wobbly on Iraq. "A questionable certainty" was the headline in the Los Angeles Times. "This kind of certainty worries Bush's critics," noted U.S. News & World Report. "Moral certainty, for the most part, is a luxury of a closed mind," observed William Lesher, a Lutheran school of theology professor, who presumably preserves a subtle open-mindedness about the Holocaust and other such matters. "
9.3.03
QUOTE: John Derbyshire:
"Just watched the much-touted Clinton-Dole exchange on 60 Minutes. What a flop! Clinton: "Tax cut for the rich, blah blah blah." Dole: "We know how to spend our money better than Washington, yada yada yada." You'd think a guy who'd been POTUS and a guy who'd been in the Senate for 150 years would have something interesting to say. I hear better stuff than this standing on line at K-Mart."
"Just watched the much-touted Clinton-Dole exchange on 60 Minutes. What a flop! Clinton: "Tax cut for the rich, blah blah blah." Dole: "We know how to spend our money better than Washington, yada yada yada." You'd think a guy who'd been POTUS and a guy who'd been in the Senate for 150 years would have something interesting to say. I hear better stuff than this standing on line at K-Mart."
LINK: Hilarious. I, of course, have never had this problem. But then again, I'm a philosophy/political science major, and we all know how the honeys love a man who can philosophize...
5.3.03
ANTI-WAR UPDATE! Just walked through the Diag, which looked depressingly full as I was approaching it. Then I realized they were all standing in a really big circle. Needless to say, I was pleased.
Oh, and the debate on Iraq in my philosophy class was divided between people who thought we should go to war now and those who wanted to go to war later. And the one guy who hated Israel. Naturally.
Oh, and the debate on Iraq in my philosophy class was divided between people who thought we should go to war now and those who wanted to go to war later. And the one guy who hated Israel. Naturally.
4.3.03
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)