Max Sawicky has been lauded for his post on How to be Pro-War Without Being a Hypocrite. Since being unhypocritical is important to me, let me make a few comments on what he has to say.
First off, it should be noted that this is meant to be an analog to Glenn Reynolds’ article on how to be anti-war without being a hypocrite, which I myself lauded here. For some reason, Max seems to think this renders his items immune to criticism as to their logic. Unfortunately, he seems bound by the structure of Reynolds’ article, while trying to turn the content on its head; it doesn’t work very well, frankly.
[M]ost “pro-war” advocates seem reflexively pro-Bush and illiberal, rather than committed to the war aims they typically espouse. In other words, war is domestic politics by other means.
I have no great fondness for Bush’s domestic policies. I didn’t vote for him. I hope to God the Democrats can field someone in 2004 that I can vote for instead of him. I guess that makes me unlike most — though certainly I don’t get the impression that Reynolds (or the other member of the Horsemen, I read, Den Beste) is particularly pro-Bush domestically, or illiberal — depending, of course, on how you define that latter term.
1. Support the UN: Don’t preempt a democratic body’s deliberations by supporting declarations that its decisions will be ignored if they prove to be unsatisfactory. Such declarations are simple extortion and ill behoove a nation stiriving to spread democracy throughout the world.
The UN is a democracy? Since when? To paraphrase Monty Python, “I didn’t vote for them.”
Why, if we’re talking about a “democracy,” is the UN Security Council made up of five veto powers (with little specific relationship to representative world populations), plus an odd assortment of other rotating nations? Does that sound like a democracy? Heck, for all that so many folks criticized how the 2000 elections were decided, that process is a hell of a lot more democratic than the UNSC.
The way the UN is structured, there’s nothing the UNSC can do without negotiating away the threat of a US veto (which doesn’t sound particularly democratic, if that’s the ideal you’re looking for). If the UN doesn’t want to support US actions, frankly, I don’t see the big deal.
Instead of denigrating the role of inspectors — the chosen approach of the UN, adopted at the behest of the U.S. — and discounting their practical effectiveness, how about giving them additional support?
Because inspections under 1441 were not meant to disarm Iraq, but to prove that Iraq had in fact disarmed. It’s baldly obvious that they have not, and Iraq is not in the full, complete compliance with the inspection regime that 1441 demanded. Continuing to support inspections merely plays Hussein’s game, and accomplishes almost nothing.
2. Support the peoples of Iraq. Take note of announcements to the effect that military government, not democracy, will follow regime change in Iraq. Take note of the alarm of the Iraqi opposition, heretofore lauded as the hope for the nation, over their exclusion from post-war planning. Protest the evolving betrayal of the Kurdish people associated with the payoff of the Turkish government.
The anti-war folks have been deriding the Bush administration for failing to have a post-war plan. “You’re going to just abandon them! How can democracy flourish in such a divided country?” So a story is floated that the plan is to impose a military government, as in post-WWII Japan and Germany, to eliminate the Baathist regime, and build the foundations for a return to democracy. So now the anti-war folks are up in arms about that.
They were also up in arms that the Iraqi emigre opposition was being listened to so closely or given so much support. “Those folks are out of touch with the people of Iraq. They have no support there. They’ve got their own self-aggrandizing agendas. They’re not democractically elected.” So now that they’re not automatically being made the new rulers of Iraq, it’s considered a bad thing?
The Kurdish situation is different. Ideally, I wouldn’t mind seeing an independent Kurdistan. The world community, though, is generally loathe to see new countries carved out of old ones, and certainly Turkey, both one of our allies and a key to an Iraqi war, doesn’t want to see an independent Kurdistan.
Frankly, the Kurds will be better off with a free and united Iraq than they are now (where they are “free” only because of the US interdiction of Iraqi air power over the north). And there’s always time for autonomy discussions in the future.
Demand that serious reconstruction efforts begin in Afghanistan, along with planning for more of the same for a post-Saddam Iraq. Demand that the fruits of exploitation of Iraq’s petroleum riches be reserved for the people of Iraq, not foreign oil companies.
I have no problem with that.
In a similar vein, why not get serious about U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s flagrant violations of fundamental constitutional rights? If we are for democracy and liberty in Iraq, why not in the U.S.A.? Let’s face it, your overcooked-noodle criticism of the Administration in this context gives milquetoast a bad name.
Well, it’s a bit off-topic, but, sure, I’m not happy with the sorts of things that the DoJ has been doing, or floating. Technically it’s only unconstitutional if it’s so ruled by a court, but anyone can throw the label around, I suppose. Certainly, though, Reynolds has been no friend of Ashcroft, and calling it a limp criticism is sorely unfair. It is possible to support a war on Iraq and be opposed to aspects of homeland security in the US.
3. Support democracy: Saddam is a dictator. (Some Republican senators’ prior statements to the contrary notwithstanding). You can bet that, if Saddam was not overthrown, a lot of people who currently support that overthrow would demand democratic elections for Iraq. But if it’s good to demand them now, surely it’s right to demand guarantees for them afterwards, rather than settle for a U.S. colonial administration or some new autocrat. Right?
See #2.
Is Germany a democracy? Is Japan? If you’re concerned that the US is not going to be dedicated to serious, long-term reconstruction efforts in Iraq, what makes you think the US is going to have some sort of long-term “colonial administration” there instead?
If those are the three best suggestions Max can come up with (even setting aside his casual ad hominems of how “the pro-war movement” looks like “a gaggle of armchair, video-game playing jingoists”), I’m not particularly impressed. Nor do I see any place where I, for one, am being hypocritical.
Dave – check my archives over the past week or two: the Kurds are being screwed beyond belief. After our coming forward and stating we were going to be helping them, we’re doing anything but.
There’s going to be war in the north that isn’t about Hussein. Iran has a large Kurdish population as well as Turkey, and just moved a brigade up to the frontiers “to secure them.”
It’s not pretty, and the administration is totally screwing this up.
Rock and a hard place. The Administration cannot support an independent (or even largely autonomous) Kurdistan, just for the reasons you note, Turkey and Iran. The need to bring down the Hussein regime outweighs the ideal of their self-determination.
Will there be problems that arise from that? Very possibly. What’s the best way to handle it? Well, at the moment, there’s very little leverage that the US has on Iraq or on Iran in this matter, and not much more on Turkey, and all three states are sticking it to the Kurds as is (as you note). The best that can be done for the Kurds is freeing Iraq and hoping that the new local alignment provides some new opportunities for the Kurds.
And, no, I’m not happy about the USAF letting the Turkish air force launch special missions to bomb Kurdish villages thought to be terrorist HQs — but, again, that’s less of a concern than the overall Iraq mission, and if the plan is in fact to have a US military occupation of Iraq, not only does that make US dependence on Turkish bases that much less critical (thus removing some of the leverage that Turkey has to make us stand by), but it makes Turkish assaults into a US-occupied Iraq a lot less likely to get tacit acceptance.
One would hope.
One would hope. I’m not overly optimistic, in light of how we handled Afghanistan, for one thing.
Now we’ve also stuck it to those Iraqi dissidents who we told we’d work with to get things running.
All along the administration has been saying, “we’re going to bring democracy to the region.” Now, we’re not. Personally, I always thought it ridiculous to try and do that, considering there’s zero history of it in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and most other Arab nations. But the current plan — to keep Baathists around in key positions — reminds me of Patton’s plan to keep Nazi officials in power, so he could use them against the Soviets.
I know, the Nazi metaphor I railed against, but this one actually sort of fits. Fighting bad with bad isn’t what we’re about, and if recent comments about Syria and Iran are to be believed, they’re likely high up on our lists of future targets, and a Baathist regime in Iraq makes me antsy beyond belief.
I truly feel that this administration is clueless in regards to the Middle East — they’re trying to apply either Cold War principles, or their own hubris (more likely a mix of the two) on a regiion incapable of handling either.
And that just spells disaster to me.
Check out recent Howard Dean speeches, btw — http://www.mydd.com has one that’s incredible. This guy’s for real and has the legs to knock down Bush.
Again, when the administration was courting the Iraqi dissidents, they were slammed for being out of touch with actual Iraqis. Now that the dissidents aren’t being automatically set up as the new government, the administration is being slammed for betraying them.
When the administration was thought to be planning to just open things up for elections in Iraq, they were slammed for being naive and setting the stage for chaos. Now that the administration is thought to be planning to have an interim military government in place, they’re being slammed for being anti-democratic.
When the administration was thought to be planning to kick out the entire Baath government around the country (which basically means anyone who was allowed to be in the government), they were slammed for fomenting anarchy. When they were thought to be planning to leave everyone in place except for Saddam and his sons, they were slammed for playing games with human rights abusers. When they were thought to be planning to kick out a lot more of the leadership, especially human rights abusers, but leaving others in, they’re slammed for leaving the Baathists in place.
If there is going to be a war (for the sake of argument), what would you suggest would be the best course of post-war action?
As to Dean, he sounds interestnig, but … what is it about France, Russia, and China agreeing to along with the US on Iraq in a UNSC resolution that would lend it actual moral justification? Realpolitik, sure. But that’s the very “Cold War principles” you were attacking.