Euston, We Have A Problem

Headline in Sunday’s Washington Post

Merits of Partitioning Iraq or Allowing Civil War Weighed

I hope the decents are glad.

What Russell said. Also this: while I think the yoostabee phenomenon in the US is far more widespread than the “all power to the Iraqi maquis” phenomenon on the fringe left, there’s no reason why a decent leftist shouldn’t criticize the latter along with the former. Also this, too: I don’t think the phrase “decent left” should be hijacked by, or attributed to, the liberal Iraq hawks. If anyone wants to talk more about Michael Walzer’s work in 2001-02, as well we should, it’s worth looking at this timely essay of September 2002 (published in, of all places, The New Republic). That’s the essay in which the “just war” theorist argues that “change of regime is not commonly accepted as a justification for war. The precedents are not encouraging: Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Chile, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia all reflect the bad old days of cold war ‘spheres of influence’ and ideologically driven military or clandestine interventions. Regime change can sometimes be the consequence of a just war–when the defeated rulers are moral monsters, like the Nazis in World War II. And humanitarian interventions to stop massacre and ethnic cleansing can also legitimately result in the installation of a new regime. But now that a zone of (relative) safety has been carved out for the Kurds in the North, there is no compelling case to be made for humanitarian intervention in Iraq. The Baghdad regime is brutally repressive and morally repugnant, certainly, but it is not engaged in mass murder or ethnic cleansing; there are governments as bad (well, almost as bad) all over the world. . . . The administration’s war is neither just nor necessary.”

Pretty decent stuff, all in all. So much for George Packer’s claim that opposition to the war could be attributed to the work of “second-rate minds.”

I think that the most offensive comment is this:

The violation of basic human rights standards at Abu Ghraib, at Guantanamo, and by the practice of “rendition”, must be roundly condemned for what it is: a departure from universal principles, for the establishment of which the democratic countries themselves, and in particular the United States of America, bear the greater part of the historical credit.

Talk about having it both ways and defining deviancy down: calling the Bush administration’s contempt for the Convention Against Torture “a departure from universal principles” while crediting the United States for having helped establish these principles!

“I guess I need to look more closely at one or the other or both.”

Ditto. I know Walzer’s arguments fairly well (thanks for the reminder of that 2002 TNR piece, Michael), but I’ve let the Euston thing mostly pass me by. I suppose it’s possible that Walzer’s (and some others’) affiliation with it is driven at least in part by, as John suggests, something peculiarly American. Perhaps something complicated in the respective genealogies of the British and American lefts; perhaps something as simple as the fact that British “decent leftists” have to sort out their feelings regarding the perplexing (and still war-supporting) Tony Blair, while American DLs only have to deal with the comparatively simple problem of their position having been tainted by Bush?

This is so sweet, so touching… I think I’ll cry now.

…

Yes, we all are good, decent people, maybe not the journalists, but certainly the academics; well, except for those vocal Ward Churchill-types, of course, they are simply despicable. But those of us who facilitated the ongoing mayhem, destruction of international system of collective security and murder of hundreds of thousands of people need not be ashamed because their motives were pure. Yes, I can see it. Thank you, John.

Well… as an apology for supporting the war in Iraq, the Euston Manifesto is weak stuff. It was a bad decision on its face & has been handled worse. That said, the Manifesto strikes me as being fairly sound & not at all an implausible thing for Walzer to sign: it’s a good way forward.

By way of expanding this discussion, I’ll present an anecdote & a thought-experiment.

Anecdote:

I was recently having drinks with a pal of mine & I said “I’d have no problem killing an Iraqi insurgent–in fact, I think we should kill more of them, if only we could find an efficient way to do so.” Said pal just about spit out his drink. This reaction marks, for me, a lot of the frustration behind those who wrote the Euston Manifesto (or that moved Walzer to write his essay on the “Decent Left”). If a group of people have decided that they feel free to target civilians in open violence, they have forfeited the right to be free of such violence in return. Whether they are the Al-Qaida attackers of 9-11 or those who explode bombs on the streets of Baghdad (or Jerusalem) doesn’t matter: once you have pledged yourself to murder, you have no right to object to the favor being returned to you. Is this at all a controversial opinion?

Thought-Experiment:

Why aren’t there massive street protests demanding that a U.N. coalition force take over the U.S. occupation of Iraq? We have obviously lost the world’s trust in the handling of that country–but does anyone think things would be better if we just plain pulled out than things would be if we pulled out and 100,000-200,000 international forces replaced us? Of course, even better would be the trust-building exercise of putting 50,000-100,000 American troops under U.N. control, but given the current administration that is entirely unlikely.

It’s funny that the post above mentioned that ‘most’ of the decents are academics. I think that has an element of truth but it’s only part of the truth. In the UK at least, some are academics, but some are journalists, some are lawyers, some are in ‘thinktanks’ etc. etc. In other words, the decents seem to be a more or less random sample of the ‘white collar’ opiniotariat, the ‘columnists’ and ‘intellectuals’ who all sit about and decide what we all think. And here the key issue is (as I’m sure Abb1 will be the first to point out) class, (and, for that matter, gender….the ‘decents’ are overwhelmingly male, which wouldn’t matter if it wasn’t for the slightly testosterony tone of much of their discourse). (they are pretty much all white, too).

But the real problem I have with this Manifesto isn’t the fact that it’s badly written or even that it is flagrantly misleading, or hypocritical. The key problem I have with it is: what is it for? Like the ‘Unite Against Terror’ petition which preceded it, the key point about it would be seem to be to simply have a petition. It leads on to no political actions. It recommends no concrete policy. It has nothing to say about (e.g.) Iraq except ‘keep on keeping on’: i.e. keep on doing what we have been.

Except….in the UK of course this is not entirely true. There is a political ideology that the EM is very clearly associated with (I think this point has not been made entirely clear to people outside the UK). That political ideology is New Labour, and specifically the foreign policy of Tony Blair. Some of the signers of this document are or were actually members of the Labour party (again, I don’t think this point has been fully picked up on by readers outside the UK).

In other words, despite all the fine words, and fulsome rhetoric, the point of this document is purely and simply to get people to vote Labour, and support Tony Blair. The timing is interesting too. As long as the EMers can persuade people that the major issue of our day is Islamic terrorism and not (as a quick look at the British papers would lead you to believe) the impending disintegration of the Labour party at the council elections, then obviously this helps Blair.

The mindless support of the document from the Guardian and the Observer (which, at least in the latter case, is NOT a liberal newspaper) is based purely on the fact that these papers have a blind spot about Blair, based on ’97, and they have been completely unable to face up to his recent failings (especially about Iraq).

In any case, this document will be quickly forgotten. But the people behind it will keep up the pressure, NOT on people who read this blog (who they aren’t interested in) but their real target: the group of people who surround Gordon Brown. The purpose of this manifesto in the short term is to shore up Blair’s failing support, but in the long term its purpose is to ensure that if and when Gordon Brown is Labour leader he will continue to follow in Blair’s golden footsteps and not deviate and ruin his ‘glorious legacy’.

Abb1–Well, yes, this gets to the crux of the argument, vis. Iraq: if you think the insurgents are fighting on behalf of territorial integrity, national unity and liberation–then yes, they have every right to fight back. And to be resisted by those who feel otherwise. This is the sad fact of state power. The question for liberals (and the left, writ large) is: “Whose side are you on?” It’s not at all clear to me that the insurgents in Iraq are on my side–especially as killing of civilians has increased so sharply over the last year or so (that said: we should deeply question the shiite death squads who are on “our” side, too). Certainly Al-Qaida & the Taliban, in the question of Afghanistan, are not on my side or any side I’d like to associate with.

But then, this is why I was quite clearly against the invasion of Iraq to begin with… it presented an unwinnable war, from any sane examination of the outcome (especially given the state of international support at the time–and on the question of the manner of–our invasion).

Brendan — In the U.S., the nearest parallel I can think of is the 1968 election: in which McCarthy (and the New Left) submarined Humphrey as a pro-corporate, pro-war stooge. But can anyone argue that Nixon was a better bargain? Would you rather see the Tories in power again? This is, of course, something of an oversimplification–but it’s a good start at the discussion in question.

Joel Turnipseed wrote:

If a group of people have decided that they feel free to target civilians in open violence, they have forfeited the right to be free of such violence in return.

Joel, someone less generous than I might think your “group of people” might be a reference to the senior members of the Bush administration. If you are advocating violence against them, including their most senior member, well it’s something about which the Secret Service takes a very dim view.

Think, dear boy, think about what you are typing.

‘Brendan—In the U.S., the nearest parallel I can think of is the 1968 election: in which McCarthy (and the New Left) submarined Humphrey as a pro-corporate, pro-war stooge. But can anyone argue that Nixon was a better bargain? Would you rather see the Tories in power again? This is, of course, something of an oversimplification—but it’s a good start at the discussion in question.’

Well hoooooold on a minute there, tiger. First thing to get straight is that there is an element of truth to the old Republican saw about the Democrats being the party of war: it’s not quite a canard.

The equivalent is certainly true in Britain. Labour (under Blair) has (I think) invaded more countries than any other government since WW2. Thatcher wasn’t even close.

The situation is not as clear as you make out in ’68 either. Now, my understanding is that Nixon went into the ’68 election battle as the peace candidate. His amorphous but impressive sounding phrase ‘peace with honour’ certainly led many people to believe that he would withdraw from Vietnam (and they weren’t entirely wrong….after all, eventually, Nixon did withdraw American forces from Vietnam).

Now Nixon was lying (or at least being economical with the truth) but people didn’t know that at the time. Whereas there was no doubt about the Democrats: Vietnam was their war, they started it, and they would continue it.

In the Britain of today, the fact is that David Cameron (and the Tory party in general) are a kind of joke party. They are a laughing stock. Their main purpose is so that Blair can drag them out of the closet every so often to frighten people who might be tempted to vote against him. You could see it at ‘Harry’s Place’. If you read only that blog you would think that the Tories and Labour were neck and neck and only frenzied canvassing could prevent a Tory landslide. Actually there was no threat: Labour were alwyays going to win and they did (the situation is slightly different now).

Luckily in the UK there are still serious political parties you can vote for that didn’t support the war. The position is much worse in the US: it really doesn’t matter who you vote for, the pro-war people are going to get in, cos they are ALL pro-war. Since, for the meantime, the Democrats and the Republicans are the only game in town (this might not be the case forever, of course), all I can think of is some long term plan to take back the Democrat party, but this might not achieve results for years or decades.

In short, I am extremely dubious about this ‘if you don’t vote Labour then the Tories might get in’. For a start, there are lots of other options. Like ‘If you don’t vote labour then labour’s majority will be slashed and Blair will have to start paying attention to his party.’ or ‘if you don’t vote labour there might be a hung parliament, and the lib dems (and the smaller parties) might be able to put pressure on Blair’s foreign policy.’

Can you adduce some reason why I am wrong to see this wrongness?

Because it is wrong?

In fact, it is sufficiently completely wrong that it is hard to actually derive a simple relationship between it and the truth, it’s kind of like trying to explain to someone discussing 17C french politics under the assumption that the competing parties were relabelled 20C US Democrats and Republicans exactly where they are going wrong.

joel turnipseed: “Why aren’t there massive street protests demanding that a U.N. coalition force take over the U.S. occupation of Iraq? ”

Perhaps because that just ain’t gonna happen?

Luc writes:

I think it is a mischaracterization to call Walzer anti-war in the Iraq case.

Yes, he didn’t consider the case made by the US for war a just one. He preferred the “little war” of sanctions, no fly zones and inspections under the threat of war over a real war.

And thereby reminds us why it’s important to criticize the “all power to the Iraqi maquis” left — or, in this case, the George Galloway / Ramsay Clark “let Saddam be Saddam” left. If you were not only against invasion but also against inspections and no fly zones in 2002 (I won’t defend the sanctions across the board, because chlorine should never have been on the dual-use list and because France and Russia had been skirting the edges of the 661 committee for half a decade, so the sanctions managed to kill civilians while enriching the regime), then you simply weren’t taking seriously the history of Ba’athite repression and genocide — and you were probably driving any number of good people into the pro-war camp, as well. I got this treatment full in the face from Ed “Everything You Know About Srbrenica Is Wrong” Herman in late 2002, when he argued that my opposition to war in Iraq was a form of support for war in Iraq. The experience didn’t lead me to join the Packer-Berman wing of Dissent (phew! no academics there), but it did lead me to conclude that one wing of the left had become worse than useless in opposing tyranny.

The problem with the sanctions had nothing to do with chlorine or France. The problem was combining the policy of sanctions with policy of ‘regime change’.

You impose sanctions to modify regime’s behavior, and that’s the only goal; when you impose sanctions and tell the regime that changing behavior won’t help, then what you’re doing is nothing but collective punishment and terrorism.

As well as Walzer, Marc Cooper and Al[a]n Johnson would presumably disagree.

Well no. All three of them seem to agree that

a) immediate withdrawal is out of the question and should not even be discussed

b) no serious domestic political consequences should follow from the Iraq war.

and at times

c) people criticising the Iraq War should pipe down because they are implicitly supporting the insurgents.

That puts you fair and square on the “Iraq bus” in my book.

I don’t mean to sound like Sir Bufton-Tufton (retired) writing to the Daily Telegraph, but the thing that strikes me about the EM is that it is the most badly written public document I have ever read. Apart from being humourless, pompous and cliched it also contains sections that appear to be more or less meaningless. The rest of it is mainly made up of truisms or bizarre detours into copyright law.

My favourite section is this:

‘Development can bring growth in life-expectancy and in the enjoyment of life, easing burdensome labour and shortening the working day. It can bring freedom to youth, possibilities of exploration to those of middle years, and security to old age. It enlarges horizons and the opportunities for travel, and helps make strangers into friends.’

Well that’s nice to hear.

My other favourite sentence is this:

‘We have no truck, either, with the tendency to pay lip service to these ends, while devoting most of one’s energy to criticism of political opponents at home (supposedly responsible for every difficulty in Iraq), and observing a tactful silence or near silence about the ugly forces of the Iraqi “insurgency”. ‘

Which contains at least two blatant grammatical (and/or syntactic, depending on your point of view) errors, rending the whole sentence completely meaningless. There is at least one other sentence that is equally devoid of meaning.

I think Orwell’s essay on politics and the English language should be referred to here.

If I remember correctly, the ‘regime change’ policy was announced immediately after the war. Then it was briefly dropped by Clinton and then re-enacted, still under Clinton.

Well, yeah, sanctions against South Africa targeted very specific government policies. The goal was to change these policies, not to remove Botha.

There is supposed to be an argument that the sanctions were in fact instrumental in preventing Saddam from reconstituting his weapons inventory. (I am nowhere near sufficiently acquainted with the facts of the matter to evaluate that argument.)

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2006/04/17/the-euston-manifesto/

Hmmhm. Re-re-read.

Maybe you meant the dual-use list doing the killing, and the corruption doing the enriching?

If so, apologies for the lost time, and scrap that stupid post of mine above.

Abb1, I think the goal of the sanctions on South Africa was to overthrow apartheid, which would necessarily mean white racists probably wouldn’t win elections.

The sanctions as actually imposed on Iraq were murderous and at least initially they were intended to cause suffering. (Barton Gellman wrote a piece on this for the June 23, 1991 Washington Post which I cite whenever this comes up.) I think the stated goals shifted back and forth, but my impression was the Clinton Administration never intended to lift them with Saddam in power. I believe Powell started talking about smart sanctions when Bush II came in, recognizing that the US was losing the PR battle over the suffering issue. (And rightly so). Then 9/11 happened and all of a sudden, Saddam was ready to bust out and take over the world with his gigantic arsenal.

Andrew, so now you’re backing off from actual real-life events to the ‘doctrine’. Everyone has a great doctrine, you know. I suspect you wouldn’t judge groups you disagree with by the doctrines they put forward.

“The squeeze will carry on until the people of the country themselves recognize that this is going to go on until they get the leadership changed.”

Chief of British Defence Staff, Admiral Michael Boyce, referring to the ongoing bombing campaign in Afghanistan.

“And shockingly, U.S. military doctrine does not involve the deliberate killing of Muslims civilians “

I’ve always loved statements like this, highlighting as it does that it’s ok to kill civilians by the truckload as long as you don’t do it on purpose.

Also, having lived there for a while immediately post sanctions, I’m pretty unconvinced it was the sanctions that forced change in South Africa – especially as there was all sorts of fundamental exclusions in things such as the AAA act etc.

John M, you do have to recognize that there is a rather striking difference between American counterinsurgency as conducted in Iraq and Russian counterinsurgency as conducted in Chechnya.

That said, the US military continues to kill far too many civilians, especially because it puts such an absolutely priority on its own forces’ security zones (hence killing innocent drivers at checkpoints etc.). And it pretends that because it makes an effort to minimize civilian casualties, it then bears no institutional responsibility whatsoever for those casualties which do occur. And, more gravely by far, US politicians pretend that they have no responsibility for the civilian casualties inevitably caused by military action, and do not have to weigh those casualties against whatever benefits they (in their tiny deluded minds) think will result from military action.

With respect to Walzer, the American “decent left” tended *not* back the war in Iraq with the exception of Paul Berman and George Packer (who has now like a rat left the sinking ship.) The Brits, on the other hand, were more bellicose–Norm Geras being the most visible example.

What unites all these people, however, is a Wilsonian conception that the USA has the right to intervene militarily on behalf of human rights, blah-blah. They were all, including Michael Berube and Chris Bertram, *for* NATO’s war in the Balkans.

Now you have the drums beating for a new “humanitarian” war in the Sudan. As was the case with Yugoslavia, the war–if it does occur–will not be about saving lives but protecting profits.

brooksfoe: “You lost me there. But I have a feeling I’d rather stay lost, and that you are about to launch into an explanation which will threaten to send me fleeing into the arms of the Eustonites.”

What is so hard to understand? The March 25, 1991 Independent stated:

The irrational and autocratic Serbian leader is effectively preventing Yugoslavia’s federal government from implementing the economic reforms which could rapidly turn it into a thriving country. Although in the past he has shown an interest, at least verbally, in Western-style reforms, Mr Milosevic is now clinging firmly to the old Marxist state system which gives him immense power and support from many people, like pensioners, who would suffer from change. The impact of privatisation and a free market, says Professor Veselinov, “would overthrow Milosevic and socialist ideas.”

I think the extent to which political conversations cross national boundaries is seriously under-estimated. Especially by americans

I think we’re talking apples and oranges. American political conversations about terrorism carry into Holland, Nigeria or Thailand in various ways, transmogrified by local context. French political conversations about liberal economics carry into America, transmogrified in reverse. But an American intellectual’s condemnation of the latest Islamic Jihad suicide bombing is filtered out by thick walls of non-communication and (mutual) ignorance. It doesn’t mean much. It’s more like a loyalty oath to prove your bona fides to your own national public. And that I find distasteful.

Incidentally, I think Americans vastly OVERestimate the degree to which their parochial political conversations about, say, persecution of Christians will carry over meaningfully into, say, China or Vietnam. Americans are more likely than Europeans to imagine their terms of conversation to be universal, not less.

#56 A completely meaningless comparison which also handily misses the point I was making. See the final sentence of #50 for further explanation.

Thus Louis Proyect the Unrepentant Marxist:

What unites all these people, however, is a Wilsonian conception that the USA has the right to intervene militarily on behalf of human rights, blah-blah. They were all, including Michael Berube and Chris Bertram, for NATO’s war in the Balkans.

Now you have the drums beating for a new “humanitarian” war in the Sudan. As was the case with Yugoslavia, the war—if it does occur—will not be about saving lives but protecting profits.

Thanks, Louis! It’s a dirty job, taking the side of Serbian mass murderers against Bosnian Muslims and then taking the side of Sudan’s National Islamic Front in Darfur, but I suppose somebody’s gotta do it. I just don’t understand why anyone does it in the name of the left. If you’re a big genocide fan, there are so many far-right parties willing to accommodate you. But I suppose for some people, the Red-Brown Alliance is its own reward.

Just one thing: as far as I can tell, the internationalist left believes that broad international coalitions (not just the one with the UK, Poland, and the Marshall Islands) have the right to intervene militarily on behalf of human rights, and we don’t speak of “human rights, blah-blah” in the manner of Pinochet or Rios Montt. We don’t really care whether Milosevic is stopped by the United States or by Sweden, and we wish anybody, anybody at all, had had the decency (cough) to take out the radio station in Rwanda. And sure, we’ll criticize any so-called leftist who argues that what happens in Franco’s Spain is purely Franco’s business.

and then taking the side of Sudan’s National Islamic Front in Darfur, but I suppose somebody’s gotta do it.

Michael, I don’t know about the Balkans and don’t propose to learn but you are dangerously underinformed if you believe that the problems in Darfur are caused solely or mainly by the NIF. The civil war was started by the SLA in West Darfur and then joined by the Islamist JEM. The Sudanese government (which is no longer exclusively NIF, though it is NIF-dominated) started arming irregular loyalist militias (the Janjaweed), and supporting them with helicopter gunships, but the Janjaweed are not NIF members in general and only roughly under the control of the Sudanese government. (Actually, the Janjaweed seem to have obeyed the recent ceasefire much better than almost anyone else, and the most present threat to the Darfurians over the last few months has been a) SLA rebel troops shooting at aid workers and stealing UN vehicles and b) the Sudanese government reneging on their promise to keep a no-fly zone in hunting SLA troops and shelling villages).

The recent Abuja peace talks were not scuppered by the NIF; they were, precisely, scuppered by SLA and JEM rebel leaders who had been led to believe that American popular opinion was on their side (and therefore that they might get their demands to be allowed to keep their weapons for a six year “transition period” rather than integrating into the Sudanese Army). What I’m trying to say here is, we could quite possibly have had a workable peace in Darfur this weekend, but it fell apart and it is hard to escape the possibility that part of the reason why it fell apart was that the pulpits of the USA were ringing to the sound of people blaming everything on the NIF.

Andrew, what do you think about Admiral Boyce’s quote? Here it is again:

“The squeeze will carry on until the people of the country themselves recognize that this is going to go on until they get the leadership changed.”

Or this quote here, for example:

The “Salvador option” would let US special forces train those elements in Iraq who traditionally oppose Sunni dominance of the rest of the country.
[…]
The option is apparently inspired by memories of the Reagan-era fight against Left-wing rebels in El Salvador, which was won with the help of US-trained “death squads”. They killed not only guerrillas, but also many civilians believed to be offering them support.

One military source said: “The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists. From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation.”

Or read this report by Seymour Hersh.

Does it sound to you like civilians are not being targeted? Well, denial is not a river in Egypt.

No, AndrewR, it seems to me that (air) bombing campaigns have shown themselves in nearly every instance to kill many many civilians.
Therefore, when one makes the decision to bomb they are knowingly choosing many many “accidental” death. At which point, for me, they are not “accidental”.

Could I just add one basic point? That seems to have escaped everyone’s notice?

Why are suicide bombers always referred to as suicide bombers in these discussions? I mean, who gives a shit if the guy with the bombs kills him/herself? It’s a free country (well not Iraq, ha ha ha). Suicide is not illegal. If someone wants to kill themselves it’s their business.

The key point is not that they are suicide bombers but that they are bombers. Can we all get that straight?

Or is the addition of the word ‘suicide’ to create a thick psychological wall between ‘their’ bombers and ‘ours’?

Incidentally, Zdenek, one of the many reasons the Euston Manifesto is a piece of shit is that when ‘we’ bomb them, all we get is context, explanation, and justification, as to why we ‘had’ to do it and why it wasn’t ‘really’ a war crime or whatever. When it comes to ‘their’ crimes, however, then all context must be removed, and providing any justification or explanation is to be a traitor.

brendan- true EM assumes that there is a distinction between right and wrong and moreover that we can know what that distinction is ; something clearly you have a problem with .

Incidentally, Zdenek, since you are quite the philosopher, you might care to look up the logical fallacy of ‘Circulus in demonstrando’ in which one’s conclusion is smuggled into one’s initial premise(s). This fallacy is rife everywhere, but it is more rife amongst the decents than almost anywhere else at the moment.

The key point you guys want to prove is that ‘we’ are more moral than ‘them’. And that, for example, when ‘they’ bomb ‘us’, then this is an act of pure unmotivated evil, but when ‘we’ bomb ‘them’ then it’s a perfectly reasoned act of blah blah blah.

Now this may be true or it may not. But in in case it is a proposition and evidence must be produced to demonstrate its truth (or not).

But the EMers (and the ‘decents’ generally) invariably act as if this argument has been proven (you do so yourself, above). Actually they tend to act as if anyone who doubts it is insane or evil. But this disproof of moral equivalency is of course what they set out to prove in the first place.

I would guestimate that about 80-90% of the decents argument is based on this logical fallacy and is therefore simply meaningless rhetoric.

(Note: incidentally, the fact that it is a fallacy in this form doesn’t prove that it is therefore false. It may well be the case that insurgent actions are immoral in a way our bombing of Fallujah (e.g.) is not. But either way, this is a proposition that must be argued for or against. You can’t simply assume its truth, and then walk around repeating your ad hominem (another fallacy) attacks over and over (yet another fallacy, Argumentum ad nauseam) in the hope that this will sometimes make it true.

Committing suicide while bombing is just wrong; that’s not how decent people bomb.

Or, zdenek, let’s put it this way: nothing is easier or more pointless than for western Christians and Jews to “take the moral point of view” regarding the actions of Mideastern Muslims while talking to other western Christians and Jews. This accomplishes nothing. There is some meaning to “taking the moral point of view” regarding Islamic terrorism if you’re speaking on Al-Qaeda; there is none whatsoever if you’re speaking on Fox News. Again, there’s a difference here between the US and Britain, in that Britain has home-grown jihadists, so the domestic debate is to some extent the debate with Islamic extremism. In the US, it’s just talking to ourselves.

brendan- what you are saying is that if I say that torturing children is morally wrong I beg the question ( this is the fallacy you are talking about ) against the guy who says that torturing children is ok . In other words the burden of proof acording to Brendan is with the first guy . If this is what you think then I was correct to ascribe some sort of moral autism to you.

“leave” that is. Yes, leave.

brendan: It may well be the case that insurgent actions are immoral in a way our bombing of Fallujah (e.g.) is not.

This would be a very long case to make, and every plank of it would be rather obvious. A precis: 1. The Iraqi insurgency deliberately targets noncombatants, and, yes, this is more evil than targeting combatants and unfortunately killing some civilians too (the case against nuclear weapons e.g. being otherwise flimsy). reese’s comment on murder vs. manslaughter is apposite. 2. Violence carried out in an arbitrary fashion by ill-regulated secret groups who admit no legal authority and do not state their intentions is more evil than violence carried out by well-regulated and identifiable groups which declare their intentions and submit to legal boundaries on their actions. Some US and British soldiers have been prosecuted by their own forces for violating laws which safeguard detainee rights; some have violated those laws but not been punished; the vast majority have obeyed those laws. This places them on a different moral plane than insurgents who kill in an arbitrary fashion without explaining themselves. The rule of law is good; anarchic violence is bad. 3. Obviously, the Iraqis cannot be expected to magically coalesce into orderly police forces; the advent of insurgents owes a lot to the Coalition’s dissolution of the Iraqi army and its failure to establish order. Still, anarchic insurgents are worse than regular police or armed forces, absent some strong moral cause which the insurgents are fighting for and the armed forces are fighting against. 4. The best case you could make for an insurgent would be a nationalist who targets US troops. I would think of such a person as misguided, not evil, since driving US troops out of his country is not going to accomplish anything positive at this point. 5. The invasion of Fallujah was a bad thing. But it’s debatable how much reckless disregard for civilian lives there was; and even reckless disregard for civilian lives is a big step up from deliberately slaughtering civilians.

And for abb1, yes, suicide bombing is scarier than plain ol’ bombing. I don’t want to get into why, but try for a moment to just accept your own natural obvious reactions rather than “interrogating” them all the time.

brooksfoe# 81 — I am sitting here and smiling because you sound like you belong with us the decent left.

Well, Brooksfoe, it may feel scarier to you, and that’s between you and your shrink. Rational people find the guy launching missiles from the safety of his bunker much more dangerous.

In case I wasn’t clear, my snark in #84 wasn’t really directed at Brooksfoe (with whom I largely agree).

Again, there’s a difference here between the US and Britain, in that Britain has home-grown jihadists, so the domestic debate is to some extent the debate with Islamic extremism.

Finally someone gets it.

What’s more, in the UK there actually is a link between the far left and Islamic extremists, often converts, typified by Respect party candidate Yvonne Ridley.

Now we have established the actual political context of the Euston manifesto, can we have a sensible discussion of it? Or would people rather go on talking about how the principles imply torturing children, or whatever?

That’s a fine discussion to have.

Lets’s start by you saying whether you agree with the Blair quote or not. Would you say that what he said is a consequence of the manifesto principles, or a contradiction of them?

John Holbo,

Haven’t you read enough fantasy literature to know that war is an end and not a means?

The great success of the Iraq war from this North American resident’s point of view is that its Over There. All the people that want a piece of Uncle Sam know they don’t need to come over here to get in a fight.

What’s more, in the UK there actually is a link between the far left and Islamic extremists, often converts, typified by Respect party candidate Yvonne Ridley.

I haven’t heard about Yvonne Ridley, but as a general concept, I am just curious: does it make sense to isolate Islamic (any any other kind of) extremists or to bring them to the political process?

In the US, for example, there is a link between various white supremacy/nationalist groups and the Republican party; on one hand it gives them legitimacy, on the other hand it makes them feel represented, so that they may decide against blowing up some building one of these days.

What’s the rule here?

‘Would you say that what he said is a consequence of the manifesto principles, or a contradiction of them’.

Insofar as I understand the Euston Manifesto (and as I’ve pointed out, it’s an inherently ambiguous document) then it’s against them. Blair’s comments (especially the ‘culture and way of life’) comments are also blatantly culturally relativist.

However, I also read Harry’s Place, and David Aaronovitch. I have read Christopher Hitchen’s note that Blair (apart from the railways (!)) is doing a great job and Nick Cohen remarking that New Labour is ‘doing about as good a job as anyone could’ (not a direct quote, but the real quote, in ‘Unite Against Terror’ isn’t much better).

I know all these people are Blair-ites in other words (and no they didn’t all used to be. But they are now). They are ideologically and institutionally committed to New Labour foreign policy.

I also know (and I do know this, incidentally, and could prove it at tedious length) that there is almost literally nothing you could not say about George Galloway that you could not say, in the broadest sense, about Blair. Except worse.

Mollycoddling foreign dictators? Check. Financial corruption? Check. Bending UK foreign policy to that of a foreign power? Check. Lying to Parliament? Double check (i.e. the Blair government). Embarassing appearance on Big Brother? OK I’ll give you that one.

The difference being of course that RESPECT is a tiny political party probably going nowhere and Galloway has no real power and is not likely to ever have any, whereas Blair runs the country.

Therefore I infer that the EM is a hypocritical document.

Also, as the old saw has it, it is both an original and good document, but where it is good it is not original and where it is original it is not good. As someone pointed out once, in order to find out whether something is a truism, reverse the statement and see how it sounds.

For example, according to the EM there are plenty of people who would argue:

‘We try to make excuses for, and to indulgently “understand”, reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy — regimes that oppress their own peoples and movements that aspire to do so.’

But there are no such movements. Don’t get me wrong. There are plenty of people who do it (most of all new Labour) they don’t proclaim it. In making this statement, the EMers are saying nothing but providing a political truism that anyone could support.

The problem is not the general principles, which are truisms. The point is the particular case. For example, the next sentence goes: ‘We draw a firm line between ourselves and those left-liberal voices today quick to offer an apologetic explanation for such political forces.’

Such as Tony Blair for example?

Now, to use your beloved George Orwell. Orwell wrote that he could not objectively prove it, but he nevertheless knew for a fact that the Catholic Church was on Franco’s side in the Spanish Civil War. Likewise, I cannot actually objectively prove it. Nevertheless, I know that the EM signers (certainly the people who wrote it) are Blair-ites, and that they wrote it because all their talk of human rights and so forth sounds much better than writing ‘We stand fully behind Tony Blair in his attempt to introduce an ethical foreign policy to the Labour Party. We draw a firm line between Tony Blair, on the one hand, and those who attack him on the other….’

Meaning is use. Those pro-Soviet writers in the ’40s and ’50s wrote a lot about human rights and democracy too, but everyone knew that their real goal was to get everyone to support the foreign policy of the Soviet Union, and they knew it because they attacked everyone’s foreign policy except that of the Soviet Union.

Likewise the goal of the EM writers is to get the Left to support Tony Blair, and until they provide some (or any) criticism of Tony Blair’s foreign policy I will continue to believe that that is their real purpose.

Therefore I infer that the EM is a hypocritical document.

That’s quite a stretch of interpretation, given that the document itself doesn’t actually even mention any of the concepts you are arguing about.

Now, if you wanted to say that some of the supporters of the document were hypocritical, you might in some cases be right, and in others you might be wrong. Just as the document has probably been signed by some people who don’t pay for their round, or breathe with their mouth open, and some people who don’t.

92. suggested that the document was incomprehensible to non-Brits, and there is something in that, if you are one of the people who tend to instinctively read things as if the subtext was always short-term political strategy.

95. gets close to the heart of that strategy sub-text, in the differing ways US and UK political parties have managed their extremists.

In principle it might be a hard question as to which approach was actually better, if it wasn’t for the proven fact that the US left-liberal party is the one that would lose an election to a semi-trained incontinent chimpanzee, and if it did somehow win, would be unable to implement a single policy Attila the Republican would disagree with.

Violence carried out in an arbitrary fashion by ill-regulated secret groups who admit no legal authority and do not state their intentions is more evil than violence carried out by well-regulated and identifiable groups which declare their intentions and submit to legal boundaries on their actions.

Interesting, a lot of people have exactly opposite opinion on this (Leo Tolstoy, for example). They think that violence perpetrated by governments is 100% evil as its only purpose usually is oppression, while violence perpetrated by ‘angry people’ (rebels, insurgents, etc.) is only half-evil, as it’s usually a natural reaction to oppression.

And it’s not true that insurgents don’t state their intentions, they always do. Most of them want foreign troops out Iraq; some also want foreign troops out of all Muslim countries, yet others want all western military/ political/ economic/ cultural influence out of the Muslim world altogether. Somewhere along this line there must be a point of compromise that a large majority of them would accept. That’s all there is to it.

‘Of those available, Labour, though a more Eustonite Labour, one that made less excuses for allied dictators, would be better. How about you?’

Well I don’t know. Probably the Lib Dems.

But the point is that you are not exactly providing a crushing refutation of my argument that the EM is (‘objectively’, as the Marxists used to say) a pro-New Labour document.

#28 Andrew Reeves wrote:

There is, though, something of a moral difference between someone who deliberately places a bomb on a minibus and someone who orders the bombing of a military target that then misses and hits the minibus.

Hypothetically. In practice, the author of the orders to hit military targets which has resulted in the killing of tens of thousands of innocent civilians is also the author of orders that have targeted innocent civilians.

OTOH, when starting a war, there is the knowledge that no matter how careful you are, innocent civilians will almost certainly die so in some sense launching any war is a “deliberate targeting of civilians.”

Yes. There is, perhaps, a moral question about how good one’s intentions are. They make a good road-surface on the road to Hell.

In fairness, credit where credit’s due. The USA has fought some of her wars of the past 60 years with a reckless indifference to civilian casualties. With Korea it was a re-hash of the strategic bombing of WWII. In Vietnam Nixon used widespread bombing of the North in an unsuccessful effort to change Hanoi’s negotiating stance.

These days the US armed forces take greater care to avoid civilian deaths. As a consequence the Iraqi civilian death toll is only, say 100,000 – the US military’s actual figure is a secret, than say 1 million. Clearly 100,000 deaths is better than 1 million. Whether 100,000 deaths and a trashed country is a good outcome is a question best left to those closer on the ground, say the Iraqis themselves.

Just to make it clear, I don’t really know much about Lib Dem foreign policy, which is why I answered your question ‘I don’t know’. I’ll find out more about it before I vote in the election.

‘Labour, New Labour, and Blairite are all rather different things. Which one are you claiming?’

However, I thought my accusation to YOU (and the EMers in general) would have been crystal clear. My accusation is that the document represents that wing of the Labour party most strongly associated with the foreign policy of Tony Blair. I’m perfectly aware that in terms of domestic policy, the EMers tend to lean ever so slightly to the left: they are probably Brownites more than Blairites.

But in terms of foreign policy, I am unaware of any aspect of Blair’s foreign policy that the EMers have any problems with (or at least that any of them have criticised).

Hmmmm….I don’t doubt that YOU have problems with these things Soru (although these must be viewed in the context of ‘Q: Of all the political parties that are available for you to vote for in the UK, which one’s views are most congruent with your own, as regards foreign policy? A: Of those available, Labour.’).

However, I am unaware of online texts in which Nick Cohen, David Aaronovitch, Oliver Kamm (et al) questioned the war in Iraq, let alone ‘failure to secure an international treaty governing the arms trade.’

However if they do exist please let me know and I will retract this statement.

(ps while looking for such statements you might also want to check out the following references: ‘http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1860681,00.html’, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1451279,00.html, http://www.unite-against-terror.com/whysigned/archives/000028.html, http://www.slate.com/id/2117328/. It is not difficult to find pieces by most of the major proponents of the ‘decent left’ viewpoint engaging in slavish genuflection at the altar of Saint Tony).

Interesting, a lot of people have exactly opposite opinion on this (Leo Tolstoy, for example). They think that violence perpetrated by governments is 100% evil as its only purpose usually is oppression, while violence perpetrated by ‘angry people’ (rebels, insurgents, etc.) is only half-evil, as it’s usually a natural reaction to oppression.

Tolstoy was an idiot on such questions. Rebels and insurgents are for the most part aspiring dictators or mafiosi. There are of course exceptions. The rebels and insurgents least likely to be mafiosi are those most likely to dress their troops in uniforms, have well-defined orders of battle, rules, and command structures, and internal systems of justice and taxation in the territory they hold – i.e. to be the most like governments. See Ho Chi Minh, George Washington, William of Orange, Fidel Castro, etc. If you would rather be behind the lines in a chaotic ill-organized zone where bunches of guys have just grabbed their rifles to shoot at the Americans or whoever else they dislike, than behind the lines in a well-organized disciplined armed revolt like the Nepalese Maoists with clear rules and lines of command, then you’re nuts.

I would rather be on the receiving end of a sustained USAF bombing raid than on the receiving end of a sustained bombing raid by suicidal pilots who aimed to kill as many civilians as they possibly could. I would rather be on a street in Gaza with the IAF trying to target a car carrying a Hamas leader than in the World Trade Center with Mohammed Atta aiming his 767 at me. Yes, “the odds are better”.

Meanwhile in the real world, not the world of contrived analogies, victims of conventional bombing outnumber victions of sucide bombings by 4 or 5 orders of magnitude.

Syd–Not really an all-caps (or screaming type) & I was making an even more limited claim than I think you (or others) suspect. It’s just this: if a soldier or Marine in Iraq kills an insurgent, it’s not (outside the horrible nature of killing, per se) troubling to me as a matter of justice & moreover, I think that if they’re following the rules of war/rules of engagement (e.g., they’re not psychopaths or otherwise out of control, or prone to use methods that guarantee non-combatant casualties–and I should point out here that the Marine Corps, for its part, specifically limits the use of long-range artillery/airpower in counter-insurgency doctrine for precisely this reason), I don’t put U.S. and allied troops in Iraq on the same moral footing as Al-Qaeda/Ba’athist insurgents.

Which is to say: Iraq is an unjust war, stupidly entered and badly led (Gonzalez torture memos, Rumsfeld’s browbeating of U.S. generals into an untenable fighting position, etc.), but that even within that framework, there are those who have fought the war justly and those who have been (and will be killed) whose deaths are justified (that is, the Iraq war is not wrong because it involves the killing of insurgents, but for a whole host–and it’s quite a list!–of other reasons).

Brooksfoe–Have you ever participated in a sustained USAF (or even USMC close air support) bombing? Having done so at both Twenty-Nine Palms and in the Persian Gulf, I can tell you that there are few things you’d rather avoid than this. Out on a limb here, but I think stupidity like this is something the movies are somewhat responsible for: when Hollywood shows even artillery exploding, it blows puffs of smoke or knocks someone off their feet or takes branches off a tree–but a 155mm shell has a kill radius of 50 meters and a casualty radius of 100 meters & will destroy a 6-8 inch concrete wall; a single MK84 bomb makes a crater 50 feet wide, 30 feet deep, and kills to radius of 400 meters (or: more than a quarter-mile). Which is why they just shouldn’t be used outside of total warfare (or even: ever against civilian targets). The use of incindiary/HE bombs–much less nukes–in even WWII was, to my mind, totally uncalled for for this very reason: when you get a sense of the scale of destruction involved (between 40 and 90 percent of Japan’s major industrial cities), it’s just not possible to countenance (and here I’m really looking forward to reading Grayling’s new book, which I haven’t seen reviewed anywhere in the States).

Sorry quotes from Cohen circa 2001 don’t count. Still to come was his aggressive statements against the invasion of Afghanistan and his slightly more muted statements against the Iraq war. Cohen’s Pauline conversion to the strange mystical cult of St Tony occurred sometime about 2004-2005 (just about the time the rest of us were starting to come to our senses).