Comments on: My Cold Dead Hands and Yours

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 05 May 2004 02:07:48 +0000

Steve, I’m having a hard time recognizing the portrait of our troops you’ve drawn—unconstrained by law, unlikely to leave anytime soon, and prone to killing and humiliating the people of Iraq doesn’t sound like our occupation. I was actually thinking about the ATF in Waco (and, in particular, two Americans’ read on that particular situation), but your mileage may vary. People’s perceptions, especially those who consider themselves oppressed by a government they don’t feel a connection to, may not bear much of a resemblence to reality.

By: Dan the Man

Dan the Man — Tue, 04 May 2004 15:26:26 +0000

“`Dan the Man’, it looks like those licensing regulations were under an American-imposed government. You got the point.

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 04 May 2004 15:08:18 +0000

‘Dan the Man’, it looks like those licensing regulations were under an American-imposed government. Unless Saddam was using ‘http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html’.

By: BP

BP — Tue, 04 May 2004 08:14:03 +0000

The ethos of the American Minuteman, as it is understood by modern conservatives (and perhaps that understanding is false, but it informs our worldview even so), is not “jockey for power,” it is “die for liberty.” Power is liberty, Mr. Lyman. Powerlessness means submission to whomever has more power, or death. Power is the reason why US tanks are rolling into Baghdad, and not Iraqi tanks into Washington. Power facilitates freedom of action, lack of power constrains it. You cannot fight for ‘liberty’. That’s a figure of speech. Liberty is an abstraction. You can’t fight for a figure of speech. You can only fight for control: of resources, of terrain, of assets. He who has control can determine the course of his own actions: liberty. He who has no power will have his choices determined largely by others. It will become worthwhile for the average Iraqi to support the US when the US has a large-scale monopoly of violence within Iraq. Only then can the US be a guarantor of liberty. Otherwise the US is just another player in the power-grab.

By: Dan the Man

Dan the Man — Tue, 04 May 2004 05:15:55 +0000

“An assertion not supported by the facts, mot especially in the theocracies and fascist states of the Middle East.” Wrong. Every fascist and theocratic country in the Middle East regulates guns. “In addition, “citizens” almost never overthrow governments.” Wrong. “Nine times out of ten, when the dust has settled after a “popular” revolution, there’s some army dude sitting on the throne, not some citizen dude.” Of course the army dude is a citizen. Duh.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Tue, 04 May 2004 03:56:11 +0000

Steve, I’m having a hard time recognizing the portrait of our troops you’ve drawn—unconstrained by law, unlikely to leave anytime soon, and prone to killing and humiliating the people of Iraq doesn’t sound like our occupation. But even if that were an accurate description, those facts wouldn’t explain why people have taken up arms against the US. After all, the fact that Saddam’s regime was unconstrained by law, permanent, and absolutely bloodthirsty never led these same individuals to take up arms. Those factors can’t be the motivation. It must be something else. I confess, I don’t know what the average guy in Fallujah thinks. But we do know, because we have polling data, that the majority of Iraqis favor a short and successful occupation by the US. The insurgents do not share those goals.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 04 May 2004 02:26:43 +0000

And I’m wondering what kind of sympathy you’re capable of, since you seem to misunderstand the thinking amd the sentiments of both the gun-toting libertarian in the US and the gun-toting insurgent in Iraq. Thomas, I don’t think Kieran was addressing the narrower concern of sympathy for men fighting for the cause they believe in that the Stalinists or Fascists had. My read is that Kieran was trying to signal via his Jim Henley link (as libertarian isolationist Henley has been hitting this point fairly repeatedly of late) that some of the strong supporters of the Second Amendment in this country might have similar reactions were if someplace—say Waco—invaded by a group of outsiders who seemed to them to be unconstrained by law, unlikely to leave anytime soon, and prone to killing and humiliating their fellow townsmen. Would it engender enough anger and resentment to cause people to pick up a rifle and take a potshot? Not if it was the ATF, but what if it was the UN? And that’s where the “personal liberty” and “local autonomy” questions start to come up. If you think that the overwhelming majority of those bearing arms against American soldiers and marines are Islamicists and Baathists, obviously this doesn’t hold, but at what point does the average gun-toting regular guy in Fallujah start to serious contemplate joining up with the insurgents to get a crack at a Marine patrol? Or, as I fear, have we already crossed that point for a lot of people?

By: Thomas

Thomas — Mon, 03 May 2004 23:02:41 +0000

Kieran, in that limited sense, I have sympathy for the Islamofascists and the Ba’athists, as I’d have had sympathy with the Nazis and the Fascists in WWII, and as I’d have had with the Stalinists later. That is, I can understand why they act the way that they do. Irrational systems of thought are often understandable and predictable. I just don’t see how any of that is connected to an affection for personal liberty or local autonomy. I don’t see anything inconsistent with those sentiments—which obviously aren’t shared by those battling US forces in Iraq—and the sentiment that “All these islamofascists understand is force.” I also don’t think there’s anything inconsistent with that sentiment and the sentiment “I can understand how our occupying army would provoke this kind of resistance, and we probably should have forseen it.” I’m not at all surprised that those who reject our values would reject our occupation, and I was never under the illusion that everyone in Iraq shared our values. That they don’t share our values may well mean that we shouldn’t refer to our own values in attempting to change their behavior. And I’m wondering what kind of sympathy you’re capable of, since you seem to misunderstand the thinking amd the sentiments of both the gun-toting libertarian in the US and the gun-toting insurgent in Iraq.

By: Kieran Healy

Kieran Healy — Mon, 03 May 2004 22:12:55 +0000

It’s foolish to think that all revolution or all resistance fighting is equally honorable. This is not a hard concept to grasp, and the failure to grasp it is what I find disappointing. Well, I take your point and believe me I grasp the idea. But, while there’s sympathy as support someone’s position, there’s also sympathy as a capacity to put yourself in someone’s place and see, before endorsing or condemning them, whether you can understand why they are acting the way they are. I find that gun-toting libertarians (not my words!) seem inclined to line up with sentiments like “All these islamofascists understand is force” or “I don’t understand why they haven’t just embraced our unbeatable system of freedoms” more than “I can understand how our occupying army would provoke this kind of resistance, and we probably should have forseen it.”

By: Robert Lyman

Robert Lyman — Mon, 03 May 2004 20:54:52 +0000

BP, Perhaps your analysis is entirely correct; I certainly don’t know enough to contradict it. But Kieran asked why gun-toting libertarian-minded conservatives (like myself) don’t show more sympathy for the insurgency in Iraq. The answer is simple: they aren’t fighting for anything I recognize as worthwhile. The ethos of the American Minuteman, as it is understood by modern conservatives (and perhaps that understanding is false, but it informs our worldview even so), is not “jockey for power,” it is “die for liberty.” I’m in sympathy with the latter, but not the former, unless the thrust for power is connected with the desire to implement, to borrow a phrase, “liberty and justice for all.” I think that should have been obvious, and so I wonder why Kieran had to ask the question at all, unless his understanding of conservatives is severely stunted and/or jaundiced. PS: it is possible that some of the insurgents are committed to liberty and equality, and think the US is an obstacle to both. I think that’s misguided, but I’m certainly sympathetic to their cause in that case.

By: BP

BP — Mon, 03 May 2004 19:17:54 +0000

Mr. Lyman, there’s a lot of jockeying for power in Iraq, and people are choosing sides. For all the usual reasons: a slice of the pie if they happen to be on the winning team, not to wind up at the bottom of the heap when the shakeout has finished, a chance to remodel (part of) Iraq in the image they desire. They are however unlikely to choose sides, fight, and die, simply so that American bloggers thousands of miles away from Iraq can feel good about themselves.

By: Robert Lyman

Robert Lyman — Mon, 03 May 2004 17:08:07 +0000

BP, Three points: 1) Sadr seems determined to set up an Iran-style theocracy. His soldiers appear to be fighting to make him a dictator. 2) Just because Saddam is in custody doesn’t mean that it is somehow impossible to fight for his return to power. Until he’s dead, it’s always a possibility: See, for instance, Napolean. Nor is it impossible for Ba’athists to fight to put a different “Saddam” in power. 3) If the Iraqis want Hillary, I say, let ‘em have her. She’d really be an enormous improvement over Saddam, and hell, maybe she could midwife a real democracy over there. I’d much rather live under an absolute HRC monarchy than any current Middle Eastern government other than Israel’s, maybe the Iraqis feel the same way.

By: BP

BP — Mon, 03 May 2004 16:49:08 +0000

But I’d never in a million years bear arms under the standard of dictatorship and oppression, as many Iraqis seem to be doing. Saddam has been in US custody for some time, Mr. Lyman. Whoever the insurgents are fighting for, it ain’t him. Maybe they’re fighting for Hillary. God forbid, of course.

By: Robert Lyman

Robert Lyman — Mon, 03 May 2004 16:03:03 +0000

Kieran, This is a disappointing question coming from someone I often disagree with, but usually can respect. I’m a conservative who keeps an AK in the back of the gun safe “just in case.” But that’s NOT “just in case” the government becomes democratic, or “just in case” a mass murder gets caught in town and put in jail, or “just in case” my buddies and I decide to impose a fascist or theocratic regime on our neighbors. I can’t speak for the Iraqis shooting at our troops, but I think most of them are either Ba’athists or Islamofascists. I think the Iraqis who conform most closely to mainstream American conservative views on proper government are indeed bearing arms, but as police and soldiers on the side of the U.S., not as Sadrite militants. It’s foolish to think that all revolution or all resistance fighting is equally honorable. This is not a hard concept to grasp, and the failure to grasp it is what I find disappointing. I would support a violent uprising to overthrow a dictator (although Jack’s conception of a despot is just asinine), and I would fight for my country if it were invaded. Yes, I’d even fight if Hillary Clinton were president, God forbid. She might be my worst political enemy, but there are certainly worse enemies in the world that her. But I’d never in a million years bear arms under the standard of dictatorship and oppression, as many Iraqis seem to be doing.

By: BP

BP — Mon, 03 May 2004 10:14:51 +0000

You do realize, of course, that it’s quite normal for a theocratic or fascist state to not grant citizens a right to bear arms because they don’t want the citizens to overthrow their government right? An assertion not supported by the facts, mot especially in the theocracies and fascist states of the Middle East. In addition, “citizens” almost never overthrow governments. Nine times out of ten, when the dust has settled after a “popular” revolution, there’s some army dude sitting on the throne, not some citizen dude.