Comments on: War crimes http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/war-crimes/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:51:43 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Mark http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/war-crimes/comment-page-3/#comment-37836 Mark Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:30:07 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1987#comment-37836 Kevin, "State policy is a different matter. You cannot reasonably separate the merits of a policy from the people who will carry it out." This is a rather odd statement. There is nothing relevantly different between a state policy and, say, an engineering policy. Both seek to implement a plan, both involve human actors with motivations and personal characteristics; arguments about both are subject to rules of symbolic and quantificational logic. My problem with explanations for terrorism from the left is not that they originiate from the left; it's that they are incoherent. The biggest problem, as you probably suspect, is that poverty does not strongly correlate with terrorist activity. Imo, this is one of the reasons the left has been so intellectually paralyzed by Islamist terrorism; religion, wealth, class and the mode of production in the Arab world are causing problems for marxist analysis. But if you want to champion a leftist explanation for terror, feel free. I'd be interested to see if it can be done. I have good reason to condemn the French, Russians & Chinese: they traded the continued enslavement of the Iraqi people in exchange for petrodollars and military contracts under the UN Oil-for-food scam & sweetheart military deals, rather than support his overthrow. This is about as close to modern slave-trading as I've seen. Slave-trading, imo, is beyond redemption. "On one side of your utilitarian ledger goes the total for Saddam and on the other goes the casualties, and only those, attributable to negligence. When it comes to putting your finger in the scales you are none too subtle." I'm open to including other casualties in the calculation. If you want recalculate based on your own understanding of who Saddam had killed and who he would or would not, go ahead. I can hardly object to reasonable estimates. But those estimates must be reasonable. The "containment" argument is not. It assumes the Coalition was going to leave thousands of troops on Iraq's border indefinitely. It also assumes that Saddam was deterable in this regard; but since the massed threat of 200,000 troops didn't persuade him to change his ways, I'm not sure why you think he'd turn into a pacifist all of a sudden, particularly after the world's attention was elsewhere. My faith in nations to swiftly and effectively respond to genocide is also not as strong as yours, as seen in Rwanda and Sudan (the latter intervention opposed by my old friends, of course, for the same reasons I mentioned previously. Xenophobia indeed.) "You have a forecasting model for Saddam’s murders based on past performance, but in contrast to models used by reputable statisticians, it gives equal weight to older and more recent observations." As I said, I see no reason to exclude certain of Saddam's killing years from the calculation (rather than use his entire career) other than to achieve a favourable anti-war result. It is an arbitrary move. You tipped your hand by an improper appeal to unecessary "reputable statisticians" rather than justifying the exclusion yourself. I agree, the WMD discussion is probably pointless. The 17 shells containing cyclosarin found by the Polish troops in July, and the sarin IED exploded by US military in May, the mysterious WMD loaded truck discovered by the Jordanians, and the Kay report citing evidence of WMD related programs confirms that Saddam probably still had WMD aspirations and the remnants of a degraded WMD program kicking around for later activation. Many of the world's Intelligence services reached a more sanguine conclusion. Enough to go to war in a post 9-11 world? Maybe, maybe not. Combined with other arguments? Imo, yes. I'm not sure why Saddam would lose these aspiratins as well as the ability to pursue WMD programs had we followed your plan to invade only the South. You'll have to explain that one a bit more. So, your half-invasion plan relies on several dubious scenarios (Saddam surrendering WMD aspirations; not killing Sunnis). Also, I note that you objected to the war because of alleged incompetent post-war planning; how would this be any different for your half-invasion solution? Insurgent activity is quite active in Shiite areas, as we see in Najaf. "The challenge is to make any kind of case at all that foreign occupation, and the brutality that is an inescapable part of counterinsurgency, is at all likely to lead to democracy. With a lot of luck it might..." Your contention that it is only with alot of luck that democratization can occur in the face of insurgency is simply an unfounded assertion. You could be right, but you'd need more. In response, I'd note that democratization can occur in the face of insurgency: witness the early nascent American experience. Opposition by anti-democratic groups is insufficient to disprove my contention. Kevin, “State policy is a different matter. You cannot reasonably separate the merits of a policy from the people who will carry it out.” This is a rather odd statement. There is nothing relevantly different between a state policy and, say, an engineering policy. Both seek to implement a plan, both involve human actors with motivations and personal characteristics; arguments about both are subject to rules of symbolic and quantificational logic. My problem with explanations for terrorism from the left is not that they originiate from the left; it’s that they are incoherent. The biggest problem, as you probably suspect, is that poverty does not strongly correlate with terrorist activity. Imo, this is one of the reasons the left has been so intellectually paralyzed by Islamist terrorism; religion, wealth, class and the mode of production in the Arab world are causing problems for marxist analysis. But if you want to champion a leftist explanation for terror, feel free. I’d be interested to see if it can be done. I have good reason to condemn the French, Russians & Chinese: they traded the continued enslavement of the Iraqi people in exchange for petrodollars and military contracts under the UN Oil-for-food scam & sweetheart military deals, rather than support his overthrow. This is about as close to modern slave-trading as I’ve seen. Slave-trading, imo, is beyond redemption. “On one side of your utilitarian ledger goes the total for Saddam and on the other goes the casualties, and only those, attributable to negligence. When it comes to putting your finger in the scales you are none too subtle.” I’m open to including other casualties in the calculation. If you want recalculate based on your own understanding of who Saddam had killed and who he would or would not, go ahead. I can hardly object to reasonable estimates. But those estimates must be reasonable. The “containment” argument is not. It assumes the Coalition was going to leave thousands of troops on Iraq’s border indefinitely. It also assumes that Saddam was deterable in this regard; but since the massed threat of 200,000 troops didn’t persuade him to change his ways, I’m not sure why you think he’d turn into a pacifist all of a sudden, particularly after the world’s attention was elsewhere. My faith in nations to swiftly and effectively respond to genocide is also not as strong as yours, as seen in Rwanda and Sudan (the latter intervention opposed by my old friends, of course, for the same reasons I mentioned previously. Xenophobia indeed.) “You have a forecasting model for Saddam’s murders based on past performance, but in contrast to models used by reputable statisticians, it gives equal weight to older and more recent observations.” As I said, I see no reason to exclude certain of Saddam’s killing years from the calculation (rather than use his entire career) other than to achieve a favourable anti-war result. It is an arbitrary move. You tipped your hand by an improper appeal to unecessary “reputable statisticians” rather than justifying the exclusion yourself. I agree, the WMD discussion is probably pointless. The 17 shells containing cyclosarin found by the Polish troops in July, and the sarin IED exploded by US military in May, the mysterious WMD loaded truck discovered by the Jordanians, and the Kay report citing evidence of WMD related programs confirms that Saddam probably still had WMD aspirations and the remnants of a degraded WMD program kicking around for later activation. Many of the world’s Intelligence services reached a more sanguine conclusion. Enough to go to war in a post 9-11 world? Maybe, maybe not. Combined with other arguments? Imo, yes. I’m not sure why Saddam would lose these aspiratins as well as the ability to pursue WMD programs had we followed your plan to invade only the South. You’ll have to explain that one a bit more. So, your half-invasion plan relies on several dubious scenarios (Saddam surrendering WMD aspirations; not killing Sunnis). Also, I note that you objected to the war because of alleged incompetent post-war planning; how would this be any different for your half-invasion solution? Insurgent activity is quite active in Shiite areas, as we see in Najaf. “The challenge is to make any kind of case at all that foreign occupation, and the brutality that is an inescapable part of counterinsurgency, is at all likely to lead to democracy. With a lot of luck it might…” Your contention that it is only with alot of luck that democratization can occur in the face of insurgency is simply an unfounded assertion. You could be right, but you’d need more. In response, I’d note that democratization can occur in the face of insurgency: witness the early nascent American experience. Opposition by anti-democratic groups is insufficient to disprove my contention.

]]> By: kevin donoghue http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/war-crimes/comment-page-3/#comment-37835 kevin donoghue Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:19:37 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1987#comment-37835 “I’m glad we both agree that the French, Germans and Chinese are despicable.” Mark, I’d appreciate it if you would refrain from associating me with your xenophobia. What I said was that I hold no brief for the French, Russians and Chinese, any more than I do for the Americans. The fact that you lob another nation into your diatribe at least means you can hardly be accused of discrimination. You concede that if “negligently caused casualties exceeded the total number of lives that would have been lost under Saddam, then you could argue the war wasn’t morally justified.” That is a rather grudging concession. On one side of your utilitarian ledger goes the total for Saddam and on the other goes the casualties, and only those, attributable to negligence. When it comes to putting your finger in the scales you are none too subtle. That shows up again in your response to D-squared. You have a forecasting model for Saddam’s murders based on past performance, but in contrast to models used by reputable statisticians, it gives equal weight to older and more recent observations. You offer a justification, of sorts, for this: that Saddam killed when he was politically vulnerable and when he thought he could get away with it. That theory, in itself, is not bad at all, but when you come to apply it you ignore the fact that Saddam was quite effectively contained during the 1993-2003 period. Any repeat of his conduct in 1989 and 1991 would have triggered an attack and he knew that. Remember, at the very least the case for invasion has to beat the case for containment. As you know I believe the case should be tested by a higher standard than that: a comparison with the best alternative, not just the one that Bush Senior and Clinton favoured. “The main problem with the half-invasion plan to which you allude is that it takes the worst of both war and peace: innocent people die as the tanks roll across sourthern Iraq, and it leaves Saddam in place to further his WMD aspirations, explore terrorist contacts and brutalize his own people.” Innocent people die in any plausible scenario. The differences relate to scale. And while of course it is true that Saddam brutalised Sunnis as well as Shiites, he had much more support in the Sunni triangle. You say he killed when he was vulnerable but ignore the fact that he was less vulnerable there. They didn’t hate him nearly as much. They might even have kept him on as their ruler, the Emperor of Fallujah, Ramadi and Baghdad. That’s the downside to the plan – every plan has one. When you go on to say that he would then have been able to further his WMD aspirations and explore terrorist contacts I have to conclude that dialogue with you is largely pointless. Has it escaped your attention that he wasn’t making much headway on those fronts even when he had the South? Are you one of these guys who think he could have refined yellowcake uranium in the garden shed? I don’t doubt that you could make a “good case that democratization will most likely lead to lower ME terrorism.” The challenge is to make any kind of case at all that foreign occupation, and the brutality that is an inescapable part of counterinsurgency, is at all likely to lead to democracy. With a lot of luck it might, but a plan which relies so heavily on luck is indefensible. There are lots of theories about terrorism, from left, right and centre. For someone who likes to label arguments “ad hominem” it is remarkable how often you refer to the provenance of ideas. I notice that abb1 is trying to figure out where yours come from. But the merits of a theory have nothing to do with its origin. State policy is a different matter. You cannot reasonably separate the merits of a policy from the people who will carry it out. “I’m glad we both agree that the French, Germans and Chinese are despicable.” Mark, I’d appreciate it if you would refrain from associating me with your xenophobia. What I said was that I hold no brief for the French, Russians and Chinese, any more than I do for the Americans. The fact that you lob another nation into your diatribe at least means you can hardly be accused of discrimination. You concede that if “negligently caused casualties exceeded the total number of lives that would have been lost under Saddam, then you could argue the war wasn’t morally justified.” That is a rather grudging concession. On one side of your utilitarian ledger goes the total for Saddam and on the other goes the casualties, and only those, attributable to negligence. When it comes to putting your finger in the scales you are none too subtle. That shows up again in your response to D-squared. You have a forecasting model for Saddam’s murders based on past performance, but in contrast to models used by reputable statisticians, it gives equal weight to older and more recent observations. You offer a justification, of sorts, for this: that Saddam killed when he was politically vulnerable and when he thought he could get away with it. That theory, in itself, is not bad at all, but when you come to apply it you ignore the fact that Saddam was quite effectively contained during the 1993-2003 period. Any repeat of his conduct in 1989 and 1991 would have triggered an attack and he knew that. Remember, at the very least the case for invasion has to beat the case for containment. As you know I believe the case should be tested by a higher standard than that: a comparison with the best alternative, not just the one that Bush Senior and Clinton favoured. “The main problem with the half-invasion plan to which you allude is that it takes the worst of both war and peace: innocent people die as the tanks roll across sourthern Iraq, and it leaves Saddam in place to further his WMD aspirations, explore terrorist contacts and brutalize his own people.” Innocent people die in any plausible scenario. The differences relate to scale. And while of course it is true that Saddam brutalised Sunnis as well as Shiites, he had much more support in the Sunni triangle. You say he killed when he was vulnerable but ignore the fact that he was less vulnerable there. They didn’t hate him nearly as much. They might even have kept him on as their ruler, the Emperor of Fallujah, Ramadi and Baghdad. That’s the downside to the plan – every plan has one. When you go on to say that he would then have been able to further his WMD aspirations and explore terrorist contacts I have to conclude that dialogue with you is largely pointless. Has it escaped your attention that he wasn’t making much headway on those fronts even when he had the South? Are you one of these guys who think he could have refined yellowcake uranium in the garden shed? I don’t doubt that you could make a “good case that democratization will most likely lead to lower ME terrorism.” The challenge is to make any kind of case at all that foreign occupation, and the brutality that is an inescapable part of counterinsurgency, is at all likely to lead to democracy. With a lot of luck it might, but a plan which relies so heavily on luck is indefensible. There are lots of theories about terrorism, from left, right and centre. For someone who likes to label arguments “ad hominem” it is remarkable how often you refer to the provenance of ideas. I notice that abb1 is trying to figure out where yours come from. But the merits of a theory have nothing to do with its origin. State policy is a different matter. You cannot reasonably separate the merits of a policy from the people who will carry it out.

]]> By: abb1 http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/war-crimes/comment-page-3/#comment-37834 abb1 Thu, 12 Aug 2004 08:56:56 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1987#comment-37834 Mark, You’re right, I don’t have an argument. To argue with someone you have to live on the same planet and cogitate within the same (or very similar) axiomatic system. From where I’m sitting you appear to be typing your stuff out of some Escher-style universe where your basic logic is based on a bizarre mix of rationales of a far-right white (“western”) supremacist skinhead and a far-left “all-knowing all-good vanguard party” trotskyist. How do you argue with a trotskyist, Mark? How do you argue with a skinhead? It’s a waste of time. Now, Mark, let me ask you this: if we hop into our time machine and return to, say, the year 1810 – would you advocate a military action by enlightened egalitarian French aimed to destroy slave-owning American Puritanofascists? Or would you prefer the aforementioned Puritanofascists to keep enslaving innocent people for several more decades while evolving on their own? Just curious. Thanks. Mark, You’re right, I don’t have an argument. To argue with someone you have to live on the same planet and cogitate within the same (or very similar) axiomatic system. From where I’m sitting you appear to be typing your stuff out of some Escher-style universe where your basic logic is based on a bizarre mix of rationales of a far-right white (“western”) supremacist skinhead and a far-left “all-knowing all-good vanguard party” trotskyist. How do you argue with a trotskyist, Mark? How do you argue with a skinhead? It’s a waste of time. Now, Mark, let me ask you this: if we hop into our time machine and return to, say, the year 1810 – would you advocate a military action by enlightened egalitarian French aimed to destroy slave-owning American Puritanofascists? Or would you prefer the aforementioned Puritanofascists to keep enslaving innocent people for several more decades while evolving on their own? Just curious. Thanks.

]]> By: Mark http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/war-crimes/comment-page-3/#comment-37833 Mark Thu, 12 Aug 2004 04:37:53 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1987#comment-37833 dsquared, (Yes, I should give credit to Geras - a pro-war leftist.) Your selection of a certain set of years from which to extrapolate future deaths under Saddam is arbitrary. I based estimates of future mass murder on his entire career. It is my contention that Saddam killed when he was politically vulnerable and when he thought he could get away with it; a man who poured toxic chemicals on children wasn't likely to change his ways. If you want to justify including certain years and excluding others, go for it. I'm sure you'll give us a fine justification for doing so. My favourite is "Saddam had finished killing". I won't hide from the knowledge that innocent Iraqis and soldiers died as a result of a war I supported. But I'll be damned if I'm going to watch anti-war leftists squirm away from the uncomfortable consequences of their position - leaving Saddam in power to kill, rape, torture and enslave. dsquared, (Yes, I should give credit to Geras – a pro-war leftist.) Your selection of a certain set of years from which to extrapolate future deaths under Saddam is arbitrary. I based estimates of future mass murder on his entire career. It is my contention that Saddam killed when he was politically vulnerable and when he thought he could get away with it; a man who poured toxic chemicals on children wasn’t likely to change his ways. If you want to justify including certain years and excluding others, go for it. I’m sure you’ll give us a fine justification for doing so. My favourite is “Saddam had finished killing”. I won’t hide from the knowledge that innocent Iraqis and soldiers died as a result of a war I supported. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to watch anti-war leftists squirm away from the uncomfortable consequences of their position – leaving Saddam in power to kill, rape, torture and enslave.

]]> By: dsquared http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/war-crimes/comment-page-3/#comment-37832 dsquared Thu, 12 Aug 2004 04:10:00 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1987#comment-37832 <i>Using HRW figures (probably a conservative estimate), Saddam slaughtered 230,000 people; about 10,000/year during his reign</i> Mark, we've been through this in the post linked above by John. The HRW figures are decent, but you can't use them unadjusted as the basis for a murders/year figure, because the figure includes Kurds killed in 1989 and Shia revolutionaries killed in 1991. If you look at murders/year in the period 1993/2003, then the figure is much lower; closer to 2,000 than 10,000. So unless you think that deaths in 1989 can morally be part of the rationale for a war 14 years later (not entirely a ridiculous point of view; as far as I can tell it's pretty close to what Norman Geras thinks), then you have to use the lower figure. Using HRW figures (probably a conservative estimate), Saddam slaughtered 230,000 people; about 10,000/year during his reign Mark, we’ve been through this in the post linked above by John. The HRW figures are decent, but you can’t use them unadjusted as the basis for a murders/year figure, because the figure includes Kurds killed in 1989 and Shia revolutionaries killed in 1991. If you look at murders/year in the period 1993/2003, then the figure is much lower; closer to 2,000 than 10,000. So unless you think that deaths in 1989 can morally be part of the rationale for a war 14 years later (not entirely a ridiculous point of view; as far as I can tell it’s pretty close to what Norman Geras thinks), then you have to use the lower figure.

]]> By: Mark http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/war-crimes/comment-page-3/#comment-37831 Mark Thu, 12 Aug 2004 03:03:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1987#comment-37831 I think at least we are beginning to see where we disagree. I'm willing to concede that liberating Iraq without a reasonable (not perfect) plan could become part of the larger issue of moral justification. But the issue should properly be subsumed under the broader utilitarian or deontological argument for or against war. For example, if one concluded that more lives were lost than would otherwise have been lost, post-war, as a result of this planning negligence, then it could affect the utilitarian argument. However, since politics almost always involves choice between alternatives, the negligence would have to be set against the lives lost under Saddam's continued rule (assuming, as you seem to do, that negligent planning was a reason not to go to war). If these negligently caused casualties exceeded the total number of lives that would have been lost under Saddam, then you could argue the war wasn't morally justified. If you want to make this argument, I'd be willing to listen to it. Otherwise, I'm not sure what justificatory role the alleged lack of plan plays. You can, of course, explore alternative policies to outright war and liberation. But these alternatives also stand to be critiqued by either deontological, utilitarian or other moral theories. The main problem with the half-invasion plan to which you allude is that it takes the worst of both war and peace: innocent people die as the tanks roll across sourthern Iraq, and it leaves Saddam in place to further his WMD aspirations, explore terrorist contacts and brutalize his own people. I agree, though, that if Iraq deteriorates further, it might conceivably alter the moral case for war. Again, however, one would have to place the total amount of suffering against the suffering that would have been endured under Saddam's continued rule. Using HRW figures (probably a conservative estimate), Saddam slaughtered 230,000 people; about 10,000/year during his reign. Since the alternative to war (as anti-war leftists well knew) was his continued rule, we have to assume he would have continued to kill, torture and rape with about the same frequency for at least the medium term. If you want to argue that Iraqis would have been better off with Saddam, feel free. Most Iraqis would disagree with you, though - at least from the polls I've seen so far. I'm not sure I have to argue to a certainty that democratization will lead to lower ME terrorism. I would have to make a reasonably good case that democratization will most likely lead to lower ME terrorism, but I think I can do this, regardless of what putative experts claim (democracies tend not to attack one another or engage in ME-style terrorism; ideas tend to spread through geographic and intellectually related communities more rapidly than would otherwise be the case). Since there don't seem to be any credible competing theories that explain ME terrorism - least of all from the left - I'm not sure this is as difficult as you seem to think. I'm glad we both agree that the French, Germans and Chinese are despicable. I think at least we are beginning to see where we disagree. I’m willing to concede that liberating Iraq without a reasonable (not perfect) plan could become part of the larger issue of moral justification. But the issue should properly be subsumed under the broader utilitarian or deontological argument for or against war. For example, if one concluded that more lives were lost than would otherwise have been lost, post-war, as a result of this planning negligence, then it could affect the utilitarian argument. However, since politics almost always involves choice between alternatives, the negligence would have to be set against the lives lost under Saddam’s continued rule (assuming, as you seem to do, that negligent planning was a reason not to go to war). If these negligently caused casualties exceeded the total number of lives that would have been lost under Saddam, then you could argue the war wasn’t morally justified. If you want to make this argument, I’d be willing to listen to it. Otherwise, I’m not sure what justificatory role the alleged lack of plan plays. You can, of course, explore alternative policies to outright war and liberation. But these alternatives also stand to be critiqued by either deontological, utilitarian or other moral theories. The main problem with the half-invasion plan to which you allude is that it takes the worst of both war and peace: innocent people die as the tanks roll across sourthern Iraq, and it leaves Saddam in place to further his WMD aspirations, explore terrorist contacts and brutalize his own people. I agree, though, that if Iraq deteriorates further, it might conceivably alter the moral case for war. Again, however, one would have to place the total amount of suffering against the suffering that would have been endured under Saddam’s continued rule. Using HRW figures (probably a conservative estimate), Saddam slaughtered 230,000 people; about 10,000/year during his reign. Since the alternative to war (as anti-war leftists well knew) was his continued rule, we have to assume he would have continued to kill, torture and rape with about the same frequency for at least the medium term. If you want to argue that Iraqis would have been better off with Saddam, feel free. Most Iraqis would disagree with you, though – at least from the polls I’ve seen so far. I’m not sure I have to argue to a certainty that democratization will lead to lower ME terrorism. I would have to make a reasonably good case that democratization will most likely lead to lower ME terrorism, but I think I can do this, regardless of what putative experts claim (democracies tend not to attack one another or engage in ME-style terrorism; ideas tend to spread through geographic and intellectually related communities more rapidly than would otherwise be the case). Since there don’t seem to be any credible competing theories that explain ME terrorism – least of all from the left – I’m not sure this is as difficult as you seem to think. I’m glad we both agree that the French, Germans and Chinese are despicable.

]]> By: kevin donoghue http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/war-crimes/comment-page-3/#comment-37830 kevin donoghue Wed, 11 Aug 2004 23:49:37 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1987#comment-37830 Mark, you say: “Looking at how decisions are made and at the policy-makers themselves may be interesting, but it doesn’t tell us much about the justifications of a particular policies.” For you, a policy is evidently something that can be approved without reference to the attendant circumstances. For me, not so. I have seen many splendid statements regarding politicians’ intentions. If you ask me do I think the sentiments which GWB expresses concerning freedom are admirable sentiments, yes indeed I do. It takes more than fine speeches to make a case for war. At a minimum, it requires a clear statement of the goals and a plan for accomplishing them which stands up to inspection. I don’t need to remind you of the optimistic twaddle that was circulated before the hostilities commenced, nor of the twists and turns which have followed as the US has sought credible Iraqi partners to work with. My guess is that you file items like this under Mistakes Made With the Best of Intentions. You don’t see it as a moral issue. But I do. For those on the receiving end, there is a lot at stake. Failing to do your homework is inexcusable. If you don’t know how you are going to finish a thing like this, it is utterly wrong to start it. I don’t mean sloppy. I mean wrong. If you seriously want to understand my point of view, not just to whack the ball back at me, then you have to understand the strength of my feelings on this point. “I’m not sure you are correct on the issue of the ability of citizens to vote their own democracy out of existence. It’s not theoretically possible in most liberal democracies of which I’m aware; the idea of liberal principles is firmly set in constitutions &/or executive or legal precedents.” Again, you are looking at politics as a matter of what’s written on pieces of paper. Sure, the switch from a democracy to a dictatorship generally involves illegality at some point. But once a sufficiently unscrupulous bunch of politicians has been voted into office, the switch is as good as done. At that stage the only remedy is rebellion. “If you want to argue that we must not interfere, you won’t be able to escape moral considerations, because you’ll have to live with the brutalities that the new dictatorship will inevitably produce.” I have never argued that. I do argue that to interfere without adequate preparation is morally culpable and that it vitiates the enterprise itself. “It can’t be seriously argued that something other than the war created the pre-conditions necessary for the beginnings of freedom & civil society, and thence, democracy.” Agreed. It can however be argued that other courses of action were preferable. I don’t want to go exploring counterfactuals in detail, but let me cite just one example. I don’t have the details to hand, but I recall reports that at some stage it was proposed that the invasion should be confined to the Shiite south of Iraq, creating an autonomous region like that which the Kurds had. The idea was to leave the Sunni triangle to Saddam, thereby diminishing his stature and possibly setting him up for a coup. That struck me as a far more sensible idea than trying to take control of the country with a force which experts felt was too small for the job. The loss of life would surely have been a lot less. Was that idea really a runner? I don’t pretend to know. But I am entirely convinced that a better plan could have been found than the one that was adopted – giving Ahmed Chalabi a ride to Baghdad, disbanding the Iraqi army and hoping for the best. Again, I suspect you don’t see this as a moral issue. I do. To go to war using Plan A is morally wrong if a better plan exists, or even if there is a reasonable possibility of finding one. What was done could very easily end up doing more harm than leaving Saddam in place. There is a real risk that we have yet to see the worst of this thing. As you say, a discussion of the claim that “political dysfunction is the most significant cause of ME terrorism” could make for an interesting debate. To make it relevant in the present context you would have to argue that the ME will be less dysfunctional thanks to the invasion of Iraq. That’s a pretty tough case to make. I have heard lots of prayers along those lines, but I’ve never seen an argument worth bothering with. Last I heard even Michael Ignatieff had recanted. I’m sure Thomas Friedman is still plugging away, though. You finish with a denunciation of the French, Russians and Chinese. I hold no brief for them, any more than I do for America. In the world of international relations, what Thucydides said all those years ago still rings true: the strong do what they can and the weak endure what they must. That emphatically does not mean that anything goes: one can debate international ethics from different standpoints, but there is no way you can claim moral justification for sloppiness that results in heavy loss of life. Judging by your closing comments you probably don’t agree that America behaves as Thucydides predicted. There’s an interesting debate there too, but that’s for another day. Mark, you say: “Looking at how decisions are made and at the policy-makers themselves may be interesting, but it doesn’t tell us much about the justifications of a particular policies.” For you, a policy is evidently something that can be approved without reference to the attendant circumstances. For me, not so. I have seen many splendid statements regarding politicians’ intentions. If you ask me do I think the sentiments which GWB expresses concerning freedom are admirable sentiments, yes indeed I do. It takes more than fine speeches to make a case for war. At a minimum, it requires a clear statement of the goals and a plan for accomplishing them which stands up to inspection. I don’t need to remind you of the optimistic twaddle that was circulated before the hostilities commenced, nor of the twists and turns which have followed as the US has sought credible Iraqi partners to work with. My guess is that you file items like this under Mistakes Made With the Best of Intentions. You don’t see it as a moral issue. But I do. For those on the receiving end, there is a lot at stake. Failing to do your homework is inexcusable. If you don’t know how you are going to finish a thing like this, it is utterly wrong to start it. I don’t mean sloppy. I mean wrong. If you seriously want to understand my point of view, not just to whack the ball back at me, then you have to understand the strength of my feelings on this point. “I’m not sure you are correct on the issue of the ability of citizens to vote their own democracy out of existence. It’s not theoretically possible in most liberal democracies of which I’m aware; the idea of liberal principles is firmly set in constitutions &/or executive or legal precedents.” Again, you are looking at politics as a matter of what’s written on pieces of paper. Sure, the switch from a democracy to a dictatorship generally involves illegality at some point. But once a sufficiently unscrupulous bunch of politicians has been voted into office, the switch is as good as done. At that stage the only remedy is rebellion. “If you want to argue that we must not interfere, you won’t be able to escape moral considerations, because you’ll have to live with the brutalities that the new dictatorship will inevitably produce.” I have never argued that. I do argue that to interfere without adequate preparation is morally culpable and that it vitiates the enterprise itself. “It can’t be seriously argued that something other than the war created the pre-conditions necessary for the beginnings of freedom & civil society, and thence, democracy.” Agreed. It can however be argued that other courses of action were preferable. I don’t want to go exploring counterfactuals in detail, but let me cite just one example. I don’t have the details to hand, but I recall reports that at some stage it was proposed that the invasion should be confined to the Shiite south of Iraq, creating an autonomous region like that which the Kurds had. The idea was to leave the Sunni triangle to Saddam, thereby diminishing his stature and possibly setting him up for a coup. That struck me as a far more sensible idea than trying to take control of the country with a force which experts felt was too small for the job. The loss of life would surely have been a lot less. Was that idea really a runner? I don’t pretend to know. But I am entirely convinced that a better plan could have been found than the one that was adopted – giving Ahmed Chalabi a ride to Baghdad, disbanding the Iraqi army and hoping for the best. Again, I suspect you don’t see this as a moral issue. I do. To go to war using Plan A is morally wrong if a better plan exists, or even if there is a reasonable possibility of finding one. What was done could very easily end up doing more harm than leaving Saddam in place. There is a real risk that we have yet to see the worst of this thing. As you say, a discussion of the claim that “political dysfunction is the most significant cause of ME terrorism” could make for an interesting debate. To make it relevant in the present context you would have to argue that the ME will be less dysfunctional thanks to the invasion of Iraq. That’s a pretty tough case to make. I have heard lots of prayers along those lines, but I’ve never seen an argument worth bothering with. Last I heard even Michael Ignatieff had recanted. I’m sure Thomas Friedman is still plugging away, though. You finish with a denunciation of the French, Russians and Chinese. I hold no brief for them, any more than I do for America. In the world of international relations, what Thucydides said all those years ago still rings true: the strong do what they can and the weak endure what they must. That emphatically does not mean that anything goes: one can debate international ethics from different standpoints, but there is no way you can claim moral justification for sloppiness that results in heavy loss of life. Judging by your closing comments you probably don’t agree that America behaves as Thucydides predicted. There’s an interesting debate there too, but that’s for another day.

]]> By: Mark http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/war-crimes/comment-page-3/#comment-37829 Mark Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:20:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1987#comment-37829 abb1, if you want to contribute, you'll have to at least attempt to make an argument. Kevin, Looking at how decisions are made and at the policy-makers themselves may be interesting, but it doesn't tell us much about the justifications of a particular policies. I don't think you're trying to make the primitive "Bush lied, therefore the war is wrong" argument, but I suspect you can see where my concern would be regarding "bad morals" and speculative attributions of motives. Enough said. I'm not sure you are correct on the issue of the ability of citizens to vote their own democracy out of existence. It's not theoretically possible in most liberal democracies of which I'm aware; the idea of liberal principles is firmly set in constitutions &/or executive or legal precedents. So, for example, citizens of Canada could elect MPs to create disenfranchising laws, but those laws wouldn't survive a challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms. Most basic freedoms are going to be protected under these provisions regardless of the views of an electoral majority. Now, as a practical matter, if a most Canadians rose up and demanded that Paul Martin (current PM) and his heirs be made King (something Canadians, given their recent voting habits, might just be stupid enough to do), the democratic system might collapse under the pressure, but that wouldn't make it politically or morally right. Or, to put it another way, the West would have good moral and political grounds, based on its own intellectual traditions, to seek to prevent such an occurence. If you want to argue that we must not interfere, you won't be able to escape moral considerations, because you'll have to live with the brutalities that the new dictatorship will inevitably produce. True, democracy has to take hold through the efforts of native peoples, but if Iraq does become a democracy, surely it's because of the war. It can't be seriously argued that something other than the war created the pre-conditions necessary for the beginnings of freedom & civil society, and thence, democracy. The war didn't bring democracy, but it made it at least possible for democracy to take hold. "Do you really think American policy-makers value the Iraqi democratic process above US strategic and economic interests?" I think the Iraqi democratic process is bound up with US strategic interests. In fact, this is at the heart of Bush's idealist foreign policy that the left has often derided. If the left but responded to this central argument - that political dysfunction is the most significant cause of ME terrorism, and that democracy, therefore, is, in addition to being a political-moral good, also a strategic good - it would make for an interesting debate. As it is, I haven't seen the left plausibly contend that this argument is fundamentally flawed; so, provided democracy takes hold in Iraq, a major strategic goal with be achieved. To that extent, Bush will have been successful. If you're telling me that this new strategic democratic good could conceivably conflict with another economic good, then I won't argue. But I note that if the Administration simply valued its economic interest above this new strategic-democratic interest, it would have been better off joining the French, Russians and Chinese in signing deals with Saddam, and thereby participating in the rape of the Iraqi people. I mean, the UN already had a program set up for it: UN Oil-for-Food. Beyond this, wouldn't it have been much easier to continue taking cheap oil from the Saudis without upsetting the balance of regional stability? So, the US has already demonstrated that it is willing to put its long-term strategic-democratic interests ahead of at least its short-term economic interests. abb1, if you want to contribute, you’ll have to at least attempt to make an argument. Kevin, Looking at how decisions are made and at the policy-makers themselves may be interesting, but it doesn’t tell us much about the justifications of a particular policies. I don’t think you’re trying to make the primitive “Bush lied, therefore the war is wrong” argument, but I suspect you can see where my concern would be regarding “bad morals” and speculative attributions of motives. Enough said. I’m not sure you are correct on the issue of the ability of citizens to vote their own democracy out of existence. It’s not theoretically possible in most liberal democracies of which I’m aware; the idea of liberal principles is firmly set in constitutions &/or executive or legal precedents. So, for example, citizens of Canada could elect MPs to create disenfranchising laws, but those laws wouldn’t survive a challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms. Most basic freedoms are going to be protected under these provisions regardless of the views of an electoral majority. Now, as a practical matter, if a most Canadians rose up and demanded that Paul Martin (current PM) and his heirs be made King (something Canadians, given their recent voting habits, might just be stupid enough to do), the democratic system might collapse under the pressure, but that wouldn’t make it politically or morally right. Or, to put it another way, the West would have good moral and political grounds, based on its own intellectual traditions, to seek to prevent such an occurence. If you want to argue that we must not interfere, you won’t be able to escape moral considerations, because you’ll have to live with the brutalities that the new dictatorship will inevitably produce. True, democracy has to take hold through the efforts of native peoples, but if Iraq does become a democracy, surely it’s because of the war. It can’t be seriously argued that something other than the war created the pre-conditions necessary for the beginnings of freedom & civil society, and thence, democracy. The war didn’t bring democracy, but it made it at least possible for democracy to take hold. “Do you really think American policy-makers value the Iraqi democratic process above US strategic and economic interests?” I think the Iraqi democratic process is bound up with US strategic interests. In fact, this is at the heart of Bush’s idealist foreign policy that the left has often derided. If the left but responded to this central argument – that political dysfunction is the most significant cause of ME terrorism, and that democracy, therefore, is, in addition to being a political-moral good, also a strategic good – it would make for an interesting debate. As it is, I haven’t seen the left plausibly contend that this argument is fundamentally flawed; so, provided democracy takes hold in Iraq, a major strategic goal with be achieved. To that extent, Bush will have been successful. If you’re telling me that this new strategic democratic good could conceivably conflict with another economic good, then I won’t argue. But I note that if the Administration simply valued its economic interest above this new strategic-democratic interest, it would have been better off joining the French, Russians and Chinese in signing deals with Saddam, and thereby participating in the rape of the Iraqi people. I mean, the UN already had a program set up for it: UN Oil-for-Food. Beyond this, wouldn’t it have been much easier to continue taking cheap oil from the Saudis without upsetting the balance of regional stability? So, the US has already demonstrated that it is willing to put its long-term strategic-democratic interests ahead of at least its short-term economic interests.

]]> By: abb1 http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/war-crimes/comment-page-3/#comment-37828 abb1 Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:25:00 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1987#comment-37828 There's nothing lofty about these principles. Just the usual "white man's burden" bullshit - brutal, appalling and long-discredited form of Judeo-Christian fascism (I like this term, thanks Mark). There’s nothing lofty about these principles. Just the usual “white man’s burden” bullshit – brutal, appalling and long-discredited form of Judeo-Christian fascism (I like this term, thanks Mark).

]]> By: kevin donoghue http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/war-crimes/comment-page-3/#comment-37827 kevin donoghue Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:41:53 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1987#comment-37827 Mark, I start with your closing questions to me since they are the heart of the matter: “Are you suggesting that citizens of a country should have the ability to vote themselves, over the objections of their fellow minority citizens, and their unborn future generations, into dictatorship? If so, how does this square with your understanding of the US system of government specifically, and liberal democracies in general?” If the citizens of a democracy are foolish enough to vote extremists into office they thereby vote their democracy out of existence. It is not a question of whether I think they should have that ability, they have it whether I like it or not. Liberal democracies have developed a number of safeguards such as an independent judiciary and a free press. But ultimately the system depends on the strength of its citizens’ belief in its merits. It is quite hard to guess whether any particular people will make a go of democracy. India has done it despite poverty, illiteracy and sectarian strife. Please note however that the British did not “install” democracy in India. The Indians got rid of them and installed their own democracy. So don’t be puzzled by my saying that Iraq may become a democracy despite the fact that Bush may still be in power. King George III was still in power when the USA became a democracy, of a sort; that doesn’t mean he had much say in the matter. That democracy, warts and all, reflected the facts on the ground following his forces’ departure. It seems to me you disregard some harsh facts of political life, in particular the extent to which power corrupts. You say for example: “If Iraq doesn’t want US bases on its soil, or refuses to sell oil to America, there won’t be a whole lot Bush or anyone else can do.” There is quite a lot he can do if Iraq’s leaders are not to his taste. Remedies range from assisting the opposition to assassination. Do you really think American policy-makers value the Iraqi democratic process above US strategic and economic interests? While I grant you that the US has an interest in promoting democracy, it has more mundane interests also. You say that all Bush needs is “a semi-functional democracy in the Arab ME to serve as an example to Arabs that their nature state isn’t slavery.” Seriously, that’s ALL he needs? You ignore the factors which have sustained American involvement in the region for over half a century. The point of referring to the past is not to apply some daft logic of the form: “Bush is a liar so overthrowing Saddam must be wrong.” It is to suggest that we can learn about how decisions are made by looking at the way they have previously been made. That also tells us something about the decision-makers, which is highly relevant since policies are not created or implemented by abstract principles, however lofty, but by individuals. Mark, I start with your closing questions to me since they are the heart of the matter: “Are you suggesting that citizens of a country should have the ability to vote themselves, over the objections of their fellow minority citizens, and their unborn future generations, into dictatorship? If so, how does this square with your understanding of the US system of government specifically, and liberal democracies in general?” If the citizens of a democracy are foolish enough to vote extremists into office they thereby vote their democracy out of existence. It is not a question of whether I think they should have that ability, they have it whether I like it or not. Liberal democracies have developed a number of safeguards such as an independent judiciary and a free press. But ultimately the system depends on the strength of its citizens’ belief in its merits. It is quite hard to guess whether any particular people will make a go of democracy. India has done it despite poverty, illiteracy and sectarian strife. Please note however that the British did not “install” democracy in India. The Indians got rid of them and installed their own democracy. So don’t be puzzled by my saying that Iraq may become a democracy despite the fact that Bush may still be in power. King George III was still in power when the USA became a democracy, of a sort; that doesn’t mean he had much say in the matter. That democracy, warts and all, reflected the facts on the ground following his forces’ departure. It seems to me you disregard some harsh facts of political life, in particular the extent to which power corrupts. You say for example: “If Iraq doesn’t want US bases on its soil, or refuses to sell oil to America, there won’t be a whole lot Bush or anyone else can do.” There is quite a lot he can do if Iraq’s leaders are not to his taste. Remedies range from assisting the opposition to assassination. Do you really think American policy-makers value the Iraqi democratic process above US strategic and economic interests? While I grant you that the US has an interest in promoting democracy, it has more mundane interests also. You say that all Bush needs is “a semi-functional democracy in the Arab ME to serve as an example to Arabs that their nature state isn’t slavery.” Seriously, that’s ALL he needs? You ignore the factors which have sustained American involvement in the region for over half a century. The point of referring to the past is not to apply some daft logic of the form: “Bush is a liar so overthrowing Saddam must be wrong.” It is to suggest that we can learn about how decisions are made by looking at the way they have previously been made. That also tells us something about the decision-makers, which is highly relevant since policies are not created or implemented by abstract principles, however lofty, but by individuals.

]]> By: abb1 http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/war-crimes/comment-page-3/#comment-37826 abb1 Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:33:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1987#comment-37826 Fighting fire with fire, western-liberal-democratic way: <blockquote> <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1504&e=5&u=/afp/20040811/ts_afp/us_attacks_militias_040811060411">US wants to build network of friendly militias to combat terrorism</a> </blockquote> <blockquote> WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) urged Congress to authorize 500 million dollars for building a network of friendly militias around the world to purge terrorists from "ungoverned areas" and warned Muslim clerics against providing "ideological sanctuary" to radicals. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a key architect of the Iraq (news - web sites) war, told the House Armed Services Committee the money would be used "for training and equipping local security forces-- not just armies -- to counter terrorism and insurgencies." </blockquote> Well, this wouldn't be the first time, would it? Time-proven imperial practice. Notice the world "insurgencies": anyone who dares to challenge US supremacy anywhere in the world is an insurgent. Nice. Fighting fire with fire, western-liberal-democratic way:
US wants to build network of friendly militias to combat terrorism
WASHINGTON (AFP) – The Pentagon (news – web sites) urged Congress to authorize 500 million dollars for building a network of friendly militias around the world to purge terrorists from “ungoverned areas” and warned Muslim clerics against providing “ideological sanctuary” to radicals. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a key architect of the Iraq (news – web sites) war, told the House Armed Services Committee the money would be used “for training and equipping local security forces—not just armies—to counter terrorism and insurgencies.”
Well, this wouldn’t be the first time, would it? Time-proven imperial practice. Notice the world “insurgencies”: anyone who dares to challenge US supremacy anywhere in the world is an insurgent. Nice.

]]> By: Mark http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/war-crimes/comment-page-3/#comment-37825 Mark Wed, 11 Aug 2004 03:25:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1987#comment-37825 John, I've noted your attempts to equate Sadr's drive to implement fascist Islam and the Coalition's attempts to implement democracy. I think it's based on a facile misinterpretation of philosophical post-modernism, probably filtered through marxist academia. But that's just a guess: I'm happy to hear your view of epistemology upon which you base this position. Until then, my provisional assessment of your "moral equivalence" argument is that it is incoherent. Prove me wrong. I only ask that you please link the main philosophical positions and counter-positions to justify your critique. The problem for the left, and for you, is this: if there is no basis upon which to distinguish between Sadrist theocracy and liberal democracy, then why should anyone pay the slightest attention to what you say? I mean, if you're telling me any politial-moral view is as good as any other, ("It all depends on one's point of view"), why should your analysis or advice count for anything? All you're giving me is an intellectual shrug of the shoulders. Isn't the left reasoning itself out of the game? Why should I read Marx, as opposed to, say, Hayek? I've already alluded to my view of the "solution" to this problem: affirm, despite the lack of philosophical gounds, Western liberal democratic values. I can muster a few decent practical arguments for democratic liberalism, but, ultimately, if you, or Hamas, or Sadr presses me, I won't be able to bring up "fundamental Truth"; but neither will anyone else. So then we return to the question we've always had: do you want to live in a world of Sadrist militias, or with imperfect, fallible liberal democracies? Your call. John, I’ve noted your attempts to equate Sadr’s drive to implement fascist Islam and the Coalition’s attempts to implement democracy. I think it’s based on a facile misinterpretation of philosophical post-modernism, probably filtered through marxist academia. But that’s just a guess: I’m happy to hear your view of epistemology upon which you base this position. Until then, my provisional assessment of your “moral equivalence” argument is that it is incoherent. Prove me wrong. I only ask that you please link the main philosophical positions and counter-positions to justify your critique. The problem for the left, and for you, is this: if there is no basis upon which to distinguish between Sadrist theocracy and liberal democracy, then why should anyone pay the slightest attention to what you say? I mean, if you’re telling me any politial-moral view is as good as any other, (“It all depends on one’s point of view”), why should your analysis or advice count for anything? All you’re giving me is an intellectual shrug of the shoulders. Isn’t the left reasoning itself out of the game? Why should I read Marx, as opposed to, say, Hayek? I’ve already alluded to my view of the “solution” to this problem: affirm, despite the lack of philosophical gounds, Western liberal democratic values. I can muster a few decent practical arguments for democratic liberalism, but, ultimately, if you, or Hamas, or Sadr presses me, I won’t be able to bring up “fundamental Truth”; but neither will anyone else. So then we return to the question we’ve always had: do you want to live in a world of Sadrist militias, or with imperfect, fallible liberal democracies? Your call.

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/war-crimes/comment-page-3/#comment-37824 John Quiggin Wed, 11 Aug 2004 02:09:31 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1987#comment-37824 "If a group of young armed men came to Anytown, USA, destroyed shops, shot women and children, razed the village, and attempted to implement a radical strain of Christianity, complete with priest/judges enforcing “divine” justice, what would your response be?" From the viewpoint of Al-Sadr's supporters, and substituting "godless capitalism" for "Christianity", this is pretty much what the US has done. Do you think a bloody campaign against them is going to change this view? Or do you think you can exterminate them altogether? “If a group of young armed men came to Anytown, USA, destroyed shops, shot women and children, razed the village, and attempted to implement a radical strain of Christianity, complete with priest/judges enforcing “divine” justice, what would your response be?” From the viewpoint of Al-Sadr’s supporters, and substituting “godless capitalism” for “Christianity”, this is pretty much what the US has done. Do you think a bloody campaign against them is going to change this view? Or do you think you can exterminate them altogether?

]]> By: Mark http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/war-crimes/comment-page-3/#comment-37823 Mark Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:03:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1987#comment-37823 Re: smoking line. No worries. Thanks for the apology. I'll attempt to take the tone of my responses down as well. On to the substantive bits: Re: ad hominems. Just so we're clear - I think, in an argument about the justification for war, that accusing Rumsfeld & Co. of having "bad morals" or speculative attribution of motives constitues ad hominem abusive and circumstantial, respectively. I think you may be confusing credibility with validity. But we've both made our cases, so I'm content to move on. I leave out the Administration's putative incompetence because it seems connected to your later point that Bush is not capable of creating democracy in Iraq (although, oddly, you then allow that Iraq may still become a democracy "in a couple of years"; since Bush may be in power, it's not clear if this speculation will change with the next election). Since I don't believe you've adequately made out a case for this, there's not much I can say in response. I will concede that there have been mistakes, but, imo, it's not clear that the Administration, together with willing Iraqis, is now, or has been in the past, precluded from successfully implementing democracy. Lastly, I note that you haven't provided justification for your speculations that disparate Iraqi interests and American interests would necessarily lead to a meltdown of the Iraqi democratic process. If Iraq doesn't want US bases on its soil, or refuses to sell oil to America, there won't be a whole lot Bush or anyone else can do. Re-fighting the war would be absurd. If this happens, you can quote me from this thread and I'll have to eat my words. Realistically, I don't think Bush needs these things; all he needs is a semi-functional democracy in the Arab ME to serve as an example to Arabs that their nature state isn't slavery. Re: constraint of Iraqi political choice. IIRC, the Administration has said that Iraqis will not be free to choose another dictator (Islamic, Baathist, marxist, or otherwise). I'm not sure why you find this controversial. Are you suggesting that citizens of a country should have the ability to vote themselves, over the objections of their fellow minority citizens, and their unborn future generations, into dictatorship? If so, how does this square with your understanding of the US system of government specifically, and liberal democracies in general? dsquared, It's not clear that democracy in Iraq is beyond our power. If you disagree, feel free to make an argument supporting your position. Your comparison of Iraq to Vietnam would be more interesting if you outlined the exact points of comparison. Or we can all use telepathy to divine them. John, I think I answered your question, above. If other militias engage in crimes of the same magnitude, and attempt to usurp the democracy-building process, they should meet the same fate. Let me ask you this: If a group of young armed men came to Anytown, USA, destroyed shops, shot women and children, razed the village, and attempted to implement a radical strain of Christianity, complete with priest/judges enforcing "divine" justice, what would your response be? Re: smoking line. No worries. Thanks for the apology. I’ll attempt to take the tone of my responses down as well. On to the substantive bits: Re: ad hominems. Just so we’re clear – I think, in an argument about the justification for war, that accusing Rumsfeld & Co. of having “bad morals” or speculative attribution of motives constitues ad hominem abusive and circumstantial, respectively. I think you may be confusing credibility with validity. But we’ve both made our cases, so I’m content to move on. I leave out the Administration’s putative incompetence because it seems connected to your later point that Bush is not capable of creating democracy in Iraq (although, oddly, you then allow that Iraq may still become a democracy “in a couple of years”; since Bush may be in power, it’s not clear if this speculation will change with the next election). Since I don’t believe you’ve adequately made out a case for this, there’s not much I can say in response. I will concede that there have been mistakes, but, imo, it’s not clear that the Administration, together with willing Iraqis, is now, or has been in the past, precluded from successfully implementing democracy. Lastly, I note that you haven’t provided justification for your speculations that disparate Iraqi interests and American interests would necessarily lead to a meltdown of the Iraqi democratic process. If Iraq doesn’t want US bases on its soil, or refuses to sell oil to America, there won’t be a whole lot Bush or anyone else can do. Re-fighting the war would be absurd. If this happens, you can quote me from this thread and I’ll have to eat my words. Realistically, I don’t think Bush needs these things; all he needs is a semi-functional democracy in the Arab ME to serve as an example to Arabs that their nature state isn’t slavery. Re: constraint of Iraqi political choice. IIRC, the Administration has said that Iraqis will not be free to choose another dictator (Islamic, Baathist, marxist, or otherwise). I’m not sure why you find this controversial. Are you suggesting that citizens of a country should have the ability to vote themselves, over the objections of their fellow minority citizens, and their unborn future generations, into dictatorship? If so, how does this square with your understanding of the US system of government specifically, and liberal democracies in general? dsquared, It’s not clear that democracy in Iraq is beyond our power. If you disagree, feel free to make an argument supporting your position. Your comparison of Iraq to Vietnam would be more interesting if you outlined the exact points of comparison. Or we can all use telepathy to divine them. John, I think I answered your question, above. If other militias engage in crimes of the same magnitude, and attempt to usurp the democracy-building process, they should meet the same fate. Let me ask you this: If a group of young armed men came to Anytown, USA, destroyed shops, shot women and children, razed the village, and attempted to implement a radical strain of Christianity, complete with priest/judges enforcing “divine” justice, what would your response be?

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/08/war-crimes/comment-page-3/#comment-37822 John Quiggin Tue, 10 Aug 2004 21:21:27 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1987#comment-37822 Mark, let's get specific. The groups I listed as having similar accusations made against them included the Kurdish peshmerga - the evidence that members of this group have engaged in ethnic cleansing (not systematic, but on a larger scale than Qawliya) is pretty clear-cut. Are you willing to advocate "destroying" this group? Mark, let’s get specific. The groups I listed as having similar accusations made against them included the Kurdish peshmerga – the evidence that members of this group have engaged in ethnic cleansing (not systematic, but on a larger scale than Qawliya) is pretty clear-cut. Are you willing to advocate “destroying” this group?

]]>