I’ve put up a post on my other weblog on the general subject of anti-war leftishness. I’ve put it over there rather than on CT because it’s fair to say that there are a number of different schools of thought among CT contributors on the general subject of war, and it seems unfair to use the CT brand for views that not everyone might stand behind. Cheers.
Update: And now I’m going to hang it on the reasonably topical peg of this Christopher Hitchens interview.
Well I agree with Daniel’s post, so only 10 other Timberites to go before it’s a consensus. And I don’t think it should be CT policy that we can only post things everyone will ‘stand behind’. I’d be vaguely disappointed if none of the crew thought my cloning posts were completely off the mark, but that wasn’t going to stop me posting them.
Yeh in general, but the war really is a quite divisive issue and I’m trying to err on the side of caution.
Just emailed on this, but since it has gone to comments: I think it is a fine post (not that I necessarily agree with it all) and, anyway, we don’t have a party line. I certainly hope the post appears on CT after all.
Thinking about it, the other reason that I wasn’t going to sully the front page of CT with that post was that I was planning to use it to advance a rather scurrilous theory about Tony Blair (basically, the guy’s never seen a war he didn’t like, and his last son was born about ten months after British troops went into Kosovo; I was going to advance the theory that Blair has the condition, not at all rare among military leaders, of being sexually excited by war). But I forgot to put it in there. Damn. Now I’ll have to do another one …
On the FrontPage interview: remarkable how they keep trying to veer Hitchens off into “Bash the left some more,! It’s what the punters want!”
Also remarkable that Hitchens didn’t grasp the point that Daniel made.
anyway, we don’t have a party line.
What no party line; appalling!
“Also remarkable that Hitchens didn’t grasp the point that Daniel made.”
Seems he thinks the Iraq problem solving effort was completed back in May, now on to the next thing. Whereas a lot of us on the antiwar left thought then that given the actors the Iraq problem solving thing might not have a short term civilized solution, and still don’t. Leading to exceptionally poor and even possibly negative ROI.
These two snippets are choice:
“The anti-war and neutralist forces share the blame here, because there was nothing to stop them saying, very well Mr. President, let us commonly design a plan for a new Iraq and think about what will be needed. Instead, all energy had to be spent on convincing people that Iraq should no longer be run by a psychotic crime family - which if the other side had had its way, it still would be.”
and:
“The job of citizens is to make sure that this American power really is self-determined, and not left either to professionals or to amateurs. We are not watching for the outcome of this war: we are participants in it and had better comport ourselves as such.”
I wrote a bunch of words, but really, you could write books on these two bits. Not nice ones either. Essentially, the poor guy is completely blind to the basic incompetence of the people in charge and shifts blame to everybody else. So what else is new?
I’m also curious who those people are that should be lending a hand and aren’t professionals or amateurs. Oh, that’s right. That would be the incompetents. But they’re already in charge!
“and it seems unfair to use the CT brand for views that not everyone might stand behind.”
Interesting. This seems to imply that each CT member stands behind every other members posts.
Roughly? In their entirety? This is a thematic and Ideologically consistent groupblog?
Hitchens is best ignored.
The necons and the other strong supporters of the Iraq war are simply inconsistent when the focus shifts to North Korea. First, they would likely protest that their reluctance to fight a war against North Korea certainly does not indicate either a lack of patriotism, or that they favor Kim Chong-Il. Second, if they don’t want a war, what is their concrete plan to remove Chong-Il from power? Answer: they don’t have one.
Daniel is 100% correct on this. Getting rid of Hussein was and is a “good thing”. But so? All that ever really mattered was “when” and “how”. And extremely good arguments can be made for “not then, not now”.
What war would the ideal Iraqi regime-change be modelled on? Let’s limit ourselves to the last 50 years. I think you have two choices:
1. China’s invasion of Tibet
2. Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus
It doesn’t matter who was running the show, this thing was doomed from the start.
msw
Christopher Hitchens wrote:
> We are not watching for the outcome of this war: we are
> participants in it and had better comport ourselves as such.
And elsewhere Hitchens quibbed that Bush had come to his secular battle against theocracy by way of Sept. 11, not that Hitchens had signed on for the Crusade of a fundi-friendly administration. So God told Bush to go to war, and Hitch can take credit? This is a snarky way of saying there’s a severe chasm between the war Hitchens is penning, and the really existing War on Terrorism. Gen. Boykin and all.
That’s what frustrated me most about the humanitarian publicists for the war. Some denounce opposition to the war as support for Saddam, when it’s usually a rejection of the accuracy of their copy. No argument that Saddam was a tyrant. No real doubt that the US could beat his forces militarily. But the flourishing of democracy always struck me as a non-sequitor. And there was plenty to screw up after toppling the regime. Winning the war, loosing the peace, as the cliche goes. This administration has always appeared determined do both.
Yet for Hitchens, the incompetence of the administration post-war is, at least in part, the blame of the anti-war crowd, and punishing Bush for this with an ouster come Nov. ‘04 would be immoral. Of all the things for a proponent of this war to fault the anti-war left for, surely the last is a desire to depose Bush & Co.
MSW-
>What war would the ideal Iraqi regime-change be >modelled on? Let’s limit ourselves to the last >50 years. I think you have two choices:
>1. China’s invasion of Tibet
>2. Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus
>It doesn’t matter who was running the show, this >thing was doomed from the start.
Why the limits? How about, oh I don’t know, the regime change in Germany or France following WWII?
But leave that. How can you say ‘this thing’ was doomed from the start when it is succeeding?
Keith Johnson
I think it’s the Poor Man who has correctly labelled Hitchens great fight, as ‘The War Against Straw’
“Why the limits? How about, oh I don’t know, the regime change in Germany or France following WWII?”
Not France—there was no equivalent of the army of free French to be the first into Baghdad and start running the country after the regime change.
And not Germany—there was no equivalent of the Soviet Union to grab half the country and leave the other half terrorized about what might happen if the Allied reconstruction was unsuccessful.
The problem with this arguement that has not been mentioned is that there was no way France, Russia and probably Germany would have supported regime change at a different time. They were pushing hard to lift the sanctions, remember? A Security Council resolution to go to war was an impossibility from the start. Certainly a different president would have fared better with our European allies and probably planned better for postwar rebuilding but, like Kosovo, we would have done it without UN sanction or not done it at all.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review