Shorter Oliver Kamm (for the benefit of those who don’t want to wade through “5000 words of Kamm’s unique prose”:http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2006/10/in_defence_of_t.html ):
bq. Many thousands of people have died, Iraq is a mess, and the war was completely mismanaged. Some other war supporters have therefore changed their minds about whether it was a good idea in the first place. Not me! Thanks to the war we in the West no longer have to worry about Saddam having WMDs. So the war was justified.
{ 40 comments }
Daniel 10.26.06 at 7:32 am
Hell, that must have been difficult to write. It is certainly difficult to read, and I am not at all sure I haven’t missed the point. But it seems very much as if Oliver is putting forward the view that we ought to be prepared to kill unspecified, but huge numbers of people in the Arab world in order to ensure our own security. This might or might not be true, but I think anyone can see that it is never going to be popular in the Arab world.
People make far too much of the “difficulty” of predicting that a war’s going to be a disaster, and how that means it’s OK to fuck things up really badly. When someone floats a dot.com on the New York Stock Exchange, it is just as difficult to know whether it’s ever going to make any money. But nevertheless, there are rules and regulations you have to follow to come up with a good faith estimate, and serious legal consequences for lying or even making misleading statements. It really ought to be more difficult to launch a $250billion war than a $250million IPO.
Ray 10.26.06 at 7:59 am
Yes, my shorter Kamm is
“We could kill every single person in Iraq, and it would stilll be worth it as long as we got Saddam Hussein”
Of course, the whole idea of a ‘shorter Kamm’ is something of a contradiction.
Brendan 10.26.06 at 8:04 am
As far as I can tell, once one cuts through the genuinely astonishing amount of verbiage, the key point of Kamm’s argument is this:
‘There is one thing we can say with certainty. In the last few weeks we have gained an insight into the probable future military capabilities of North Korea and Iran. The fact that we no longer have to worry about the military capabilities of Saddam Hussein and his family – not just now but maybe thirty years into the future – is a gain that may be greater than any of us can now conceive of. For that reason, among others, I insist that regime change in Iraq was right and immensely important.’.
The problem is that the crux of the argument (the second and third sentences) have nothing to do with each other. Unless of course Kamm is implying that ‘we’ are soon going to have to do to North Korea and Iran what ‘we’ have done to Iraq.
norbizness 10.26.06 at 8:17 am
Dead-enders.
abb1 10.26.06 at 8:46 am
As
socialismliberalism goes from triumph to triumph, theclassstruggle intensifies as the enemy becomes more and more desperate. This requires more extreme measures.Kevin Donoghue 10.26.06 at 8:48 am
Why do people read Kamm? That’s not a rhetorical question. Really, I’d like to know. I can see that it makes sense to plod through a turgid essay if the writer is known to influence the thinking of policy makers. Is Kamm required reading in Whitehall? If not, what’s the point?
If it’s just the mental equivalent of potholing, fair enough. But an explanation would be nice.
Nat Whilk 10.26.06 at 9:18 am
Again with the “shorter” business? Is this an accepted way of dealing with opposing arguments in your professional writing, Chris?
Chris Bertram 10.26.06 at 9:24 am
Is this an accepted way of dealing with opposing arguments in your professional writing, Chris?
1. In case you hadn’t noticed this is a blog. So it is subject to different standards and conventions than “professional writing”.
2. If, in the course of my “professional writing”, I could precis someone’s turgid 5000-word scrawl with a few well chosen words, and could do so without significant loss of content, I would.
Steven Poole 10.26.06 at 9:33 am
Can someone help me with the substantive difference between the following two arguments?
1) Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, sure, but how can we know that things wouldn’t have been even worse if we hadn’t gone to war? Therefore, the war was the right thing to do.
2) We bombed a minibus full of civilians, sure, but how can we know that if we hadn’t bombed it, one of those civilians would not later have become a terrorist and nuked Los Angeles? Therefore, bombing the minibus was the right thing to do.
Barry Freed 10.26.06 at 10:09 am
You’ll see, no price is too high in the struggle for the attainment of a truly democratic
KampucheaIraq.Barry 10.26.06 at 10:11 am
I gave up after three paragraphs; it hurt too much.
A question – is Kamm a drunk, or has he managed to do a Hitchens without the aid of copious amounts of strong drink?
[Note to commenters: please refrain from making this kind of offensive personal suggestion about Kamm. CB]
Barry Freed 10.26.06 at 10:11 am
Oops- a truly democratic
KampucheaIraq.rilkefan 10.26.06 at 10:28 am
Why bother disputing his substantive points (e.g., the Campbell/O’Hanlon argument) when sneering’s easier?
I was pleased to see him shoot down Geras’s Nazism argument for the war. Not pleased to see the nutpicking re “the resistance”.
Ken Houghton 10.26.06 at 10:32 am
At least a lot of those words are not his.
These, however, are:
Given that the people who predicted the former were those who were tasked with managing the outcome of the latter, I would politely suggest that Mr. Kamm should stay away from the gambling tables.
fred lapides 10.26.06 at 10:39 am
tell that asshole that it was not worth losing a son (2.5 thousand) based on a lie…that if he thinks it is worth it, let him go now in any capacity that allows for misfits to do something–perhaps clean craphouses, where he will feel at home.
Steve LaBonne 10.26.06 at 10:50 am
Maybe other commenters are taking what I’m about to say for granted, but I guess someone should point out that this argument is flagrantly dishonest since we know that the sanctions / inspections regime had already accomplished this after the first Gulf War, following which Saddam was never successful in reconstituting his weapons programs. He had alreay been stymied for a solid decade at the time of the invasion and there is no good reason to believe that would have changed even for “thirty years into the future”.
P O'Neill 10.26.06 at 11:18 am
Barry, you were right the first time with
Kampuchea Iraqbecause soon we’ll be putting one or more of Iran/Syria/North Korea/Pakistan (post coup)/Greater Kurdistan after it.Kevin Donoghue 10.26.06 at 11:40 am
Steven Poole,
I don’t see any substantive difference between the two arguments you mention. However if you want to explore the role of morality in politics it might be best not to start from Kamm Platz.
Why bother disputing his substantive points (e.g., the Campbell/O’Hanlon argument) when sneering’s easier?
Rilkefan,
I think your question may provide the answer to the question I posed above. Perhaps people read Kamm so that they can bask in a sense of their own superiority, both analytical and stylistic.
As to the Campbell/O’Hanlon argument, is it really worth disputing? Of course Operation Iraqi Freedom would have been better managed if a better administration was managing it. But in reality Bush’s war was the only one on offer. As Ken Houghton points out, you only had to listen to the speeches to know that they hadn’t a clue.
Steven Poole 10.26.06 at 11:58 am
if you want to explore the role of morality in politics it might be best not to start from Kamm Platz.
I wish I’d thought of that before precipitately deciding, many moons ago, to restrict my study of political thought exclusively to the works of Oliver Kamm. Oh well, it can’t be helped. What do you recommend I read next?
abb1 10.26.06 at 12:13 pm
The fact that we no longer have to worry about the military capabilities of Saddam Hussein and his family – not just now but maybe thirty years into the future…
Ah, the things people worry about… Next time try Prozac, Oliver.
roger 10.26.06 at 12:23 pm
It was nice to see Norman Geras actually react to reality – and obviously, that has put Kamm wrongside out. However, I thought it was interesting that Geras’ renunciation of the war he supported doesn’t move him to think the anti-war position was right: rather, the ethical political philosopher, according to Geras, would retreat into a massive sidelines pout. Revolutionary pouting – Now, there’s a slogan for the Decents crowd! After all, to be anti-war was to be pro-Saddam!
Such nonsense. It is from this mock dilemma that Kamm gets all his rhetorical energy. In 2002, certainly, the most important thing was to actually win the war in Afghanistan, a tiny little thing that was sorta neglected – with the result, as the NYT Magazine article, in the land of the Taliban, pointed out last week, that the Taliban leadership is now starting to “taste victory”, as the disastrous corruption-cum-incompetence that the U.S. showered on Iraq was, it turns out, showered on Afghanistan too.
But I do think the pro-war side has a point about Iraq – something should have been done with regards to Iraq. For one thing, the dual containment policy should have been decisively broken. The U.S. should have recognized Iran and, as it did with China, establish the foundation for a pretty strong economic relationship. And the U.S. (with, of course, the U.K. following around as a pet poodle – is the U.K. ever going to do anything but?) should definitely have upped its aid to Northern Iraq. Far from a thirty year Reich, Saddam and his sons were running out the clock until their inevitable, and endogenous, overthrow.
It was incredibly easy to see this at the time. But it was also incredibly easy to block all discussion of it – as if the dual containment policy had come down from the mountains with the ten commandments. And, of course, the belligerants hate the idea of peace breaking out – it ruins the American greatness project, with the U.K. pet basking in some of that grand and democratic glory. Just like WWII, except we don’t have to, like, physically fight it.
kid bitzer 10.26.06 at 1:16 pm
isn’t it about time for Kamm himself to show up in comments and favor us with another thousand or so words?
personally, I can’t wait.
Kevin Donoghue 10.26.06 at 1:40 pm
Steven Poole: What do you recommend I read next?
I was thinking more of your writing. Recently you have written pieces inspired, or provoked, by the thoughts of Simon Jenkins on education, Christopher Hitchens on epidemiology and Melanie Phillips on academia. If Oliver Kamm on politics is the next term in the sequence, isn’t there a danger that the limit lies outside the domain of sanity?
It’s up to you of course. If you got the impression I was presuming to tell you what to do to your brain, my apologies. I wouldn’t dream of it. Though drug abuse might be safer as well as being more fun.
There’s another point to consider. Robert Solow explained his refusal to engage with economists of the Chicago School (quoting from memory): “If somebody comes into my office claiming to be Napoleon Bonaparte, I’m not going to start a discussion of the cavalry tactics at Austerlitz; if I do that I’m granting the premise that he is Napoleon.†It seems to me there is a similar problem if you take Oliver Kamm’s views about Iraq as a starting point for the sort of moral issues raised by your first comment.
Ray 10.26.06 at 1:44 pm
I’m wondering, if the death of every man, woman and child in Iraq is an acceptable price to pay to prevent Saddam Hussein from getting his hands on nuclear weapons, would it have been equally okay to kill everyone in the Soviet Union to stop Stalin from getting nukes?
Jim Harrison 10.26.06 at 1:53 pm
During the Truman administration, a great many people in the government and the military were in favor of preventative war against Stalin. Even later, when the Russians already had a few bombs, people like Curtis LeMay pushed for war and came pretty close to achieving their aim. In a sense, the Conquest of Iraq represents a compensatory satisfaction of the frustrated longings of various Cold Warriors and their offspring.
bi 10.26.06 at 4:05 pm
Kevin Donoghue s3z, “Perhaps people read Kamm so that they can bask in a sense of their own superiority, both analytical and stylistic.”
Sounds like a reasonable guess. But there’s a very real danger that this “superiority” will steadily diminish as one reads more and more of his junk. Because, as bad Jim put it, “There is such a thing as negative knowledge.” The sort of superiority complex you describe can be very hazardous indeed to one’s mental health.
Walt 10.26.06 at 5:35 pm
Steven Poole: I suggest reading the labels on Dr. Bronner’s soap bottles. Dilute! Dilute! Dilute!
Steven Poole 10.26.06 at 5:52 pm
Recently you have written pieces inspired, or provoked, by the thoughts of Simon Jenkins on education, Christopher Hitchens on epidemiology and Melanie Phillips on academia.
Guilty, if it’s at all relevant. I’ve also recently written things about Paul Auster, Mark Danielewski, Patrick Cockburn, Bernard Williams, and the history of Paris. I’m not much enamoured of your recommendation to retreat into huffy, disdainful silence in the face of an argument with which one disagrees.
nick s 10.27.06 at 2:27 am
Why bother disputing his substantive points (e.g., the Campbell/O’Hanlon argument) when sneering’s easier?
Why? Because life really is too fucking short.
Especially in Iraq these days.
Callan 10.27.06 at 3:09 am
I thought the cardinal tenets of Decency were:
1/ We alone, unlike the ‘pro-hezbollah left’ and the intellectual heirs of Kissinger and Hurd have a moral compass which points to the true magnetic north of Decency.
2/ We alone care about the poor purple-fingered mites in Iraq yearning to breathe free.
If all Kamm can now offer is a consequentialist argument that over half a million actual Iraqi deaths are justified because they prevent x hypothetical deaths when the Hussein dynasty acquired Massive Weapons of Destruction sometime in the next thirty years, hasn’t he implicitly abandoned both those claims in favour of a Kissingerian realism which effectively says that Iraqi lives are unimportant compared to our position on the global chessboard?
glenn 10.27.06 at 5:03 am
Before the war started, say before 9/11, I don’t think anyone in the US or its allies truly worried about the military capabilities of Iraq nor the crazed ambitions of Hussein, aside from liars, the paranoid, and those paid to worry about it. Unfortuately, the liars and the paranoid now run the Executive branch, which can find some sliver of justification only be re-writing history and trying to build-up Iraq through hindsight. Iraq was never a threat to the US nor to any of its allies. The country was effectively neutered. The US essentially organized a mugging … of a parapalegic.
By Kamm’s logic (term is loosely used), we would be justified in killing any neighbor we didn’t like the look of, just in the off chance he would have happened to become a murderer.
What Bush has been successful at is making the US even more hated by its enemies, making many new enemies, and weakening to a great degree the relationship with its allies.
roy belmont 10.27.06 at 5:30 am
This the opening paragraph of Kamm’s gallant piece on Rachel Corrie; which does display along the way a pretty distinct pro-Israel bias in his p.o.v.
Which may explain some of his superficially irrational defense of the removal of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq from Middle East affairs.
Tom Scudder 10.27.06 at 6:18 am
I don’t think even that’s true. Maybe in the very, very narrow sense that Saddam Hussein’s literal family probably won’t return to power in Iraq (although who can tell – isn’t his daughter in Jordan somewhere?), but is it inherently unreasonable to think that, 30 years down the road, there could be a strongly anti-American and anti-Western government in Iraq that succeeds in producing nuclear weapons? That’s a good 5 years to wait out a US withdrawal, 15 years to win the civil war, and 10 years to come up with the nukes.
Kevin Donoghue 10.27.06 at 7:31 am
I’m not much enamoured of your recommendation to retreat into huffy, disdainful silence in the face of an argument with which one disagrees.
Had I made such a recommendation, you would be quite right to reject it.
Let’s return to the question you posed at the outset. You already have my answer. Kamm might say (in effect but at greater length) that we had compelling reasons to invade Iraq and if we have similarly compelling reasons to bomb a minibus then we should bomb a minibus. Why should he shrink from that conclusion? The IAF frequently bombs minibuses; if Kamm condemns that then maybe you have him cornered. If not then it’s hard to see where you are going with this.
chris y 10.27.06 at 8:46 am
What is most extraordinary (or would be to a naive reader) about Kamm’s screed is the final paragraph. He goes on for longer than flesh and blood can endure about the justifications for the Iraq war, leading us to suppose that this is his primary concern, and then, TA-DAH!!!, he reveals his punchline:
fiat Tony, ruat caelum. what a hack.
Chris Williams 10.27.06 at 9:20 am
Yeah, but on the plus side, ending on a latin tag that I don’t yet understand reminds me that the only thing I like about Kamm is his mother.
rana 10.27.06 at 10:30 am
More or less Let justice be done though the heavens should fail.
stuart 10.27.06 at 12:57 pm
According to Kamm’s logic can we wipe out the entire of the US population, because I would feel safer if they werent around.
abb1 10.27.06 at 2:24 pm
I forgot where I saw this cartoon (possibly by David Rees) where a guy suggests building one huge bomb in the shape and size of the globe with the US part cut out – and detonating it, killing everyone outside the US.
Hey, I just realized: not only we wouldn’t have to worry about the military capabilities of various unpleasant foreigners – that would’ve solved the illegal immigration problem as well, wouldn’t it. And even the problem with US jobs moving abroad.
Too bad for Oliver – he lives in the UK, right? Oh well, sorry, nothing personal.
isakofsky 10.31.06 at 7:48 am
The starting point for serious kammoriography is an analysis of the word ‘we’. Once a bearing is fixed on who he means by ‘we’, or who is the invisible ‘we’ he is referring to, or indeed who is the ‘we’ he thinks he’s part of, then everything else falls into place. Alternatively, there’s another way of analysing it, by getting a take on all the people who aren’t in his ‘we’ (ooh that last bit is the kind of thing that would have my five-year old giggling for hours).
Comments on this entry are closed.