Dan Drezner weighs in about the reasons for the war in Iraq and, in particular, whether a President might be justified in lying to the country in order to invade. Steven Den Beste believes that the nation wasn’t told the real reason for invading, but that the ends justify the means. Josh Marshall thinks that this is unjustifiable.
Dan argues as follows:
1) They’re both wrong on the ethical question. Marshall and Den Beste assert deception because they both assume a monocausal argument for why the U.S. went to war. The truth is much messier.
Quick, why did the Northern states fight the Civil War — to end slavery or to preserve the Union? Did Germany decide to enter World War I because of its fear of Britain’s existing power, its concern over Russia’s emerging power, or its reliance on a grand strategy that stressed offensive military operations? …
bq. Scratch an honest historian or international relations scholar, and s/he will tell you that all of these answers have some validity. States often go to war for a melange of reasons that go beyond self-defense. …
This is why I can’t accept the “Bush lied” meme. I agree with Marshall and Den Beste that the administration emphasized the WMD issue more than the others. However, Saddam’s treatment of his citizens and the desire to spread democracy to the Middle East were mentioned on a fairly regular basis. There is a clear dividing line between lying and spinning, and the administration’s explanations for why an invasion of Iraq would be a just war fall into the latter category.
On the ethical question then, I guess I side with Den Beste.
Dan begins by saying both Den Beste and Marshall are wrong on the ethical question, but a few paragraphs later he says Den Beste is right. I think he does this because he moves the goalposts along the way. A historical explanation for why any large event — the U.S. Civil War, World War I — happened will most likely be complex and highlight multiple factors. Historians will happily debate them ad nauseam. However, Bush’s critics are not looking in the first place for an explanation of this sort. They want to know what the President’s reasons were for going to war: the reasons he was obliged to give the country as a democratically elected leader. The answer to that question is simpler and more direct than the grand historical issue. This is why Marshall can properly ask:
So, why is this little matter of the uranium statements such a big deal? Because it is a concrete, demonstrable example of the administration’s bad faith in how it led the country to war. To date that bad-faith has been all too apparent on many fronts.
The cold eye of history will judge the war, the reasons for it and its ultimate success or failure. But we don’t live in the light of hindsight. We’re stuck here now, uncertain of the future but lucky enough to live in a political system where leaders are bound at least in principle to give us good reasons for their actions, especially when it comes to something like a war. The likes of Den Beste can put on their cowboy hats, assume they’re part of the in-crowd and confidently assert that the big picture, or the drift of history and geopolitics, or the situation in the long-run, is sufficient to overcome scruples about misleading the public. But one of the chief projects of conservative thought over the past fifty years has been to dismantle the idea that a leader, a social class, or a nation can confidently assume that History is on its side. It’s odd to see the conservatives themselves, of all people, now moving toward the view that the need to adhere to the telos of history trumps the notion of democratic accountability in day-to-day politics.
But, Kieran, you heard all the pre-war speeches, including SOTU. You’ve certainly read about the pre-war justifications ad nauseum since.
From my own SOTU summary:Obviously, the argument was multicausal and always has been. The WMD argument was certainly overemphasized, although I think mainly because it was the angle with the firmest international law/UN foundation. But there was all manner of evidence, long predating this administration, that Saddam had WMD.
The reasons Bush had for going to war may have been multiple. The (not necessarily conclusive) impersonal reasons why war might have been justified could generate an even longer list. But the legal justification advanced by both the US and UK governments was much narrower and people have every right to press them on it.
“But one of the chief projects of conservative thought over the past fifty years has been to dismantle the idea that a leader, a social class, or a nation can confidently assume that History is on its side.”
I guess that’s why they call them “neo-conservatives.”
Nice bit of analysis by Kieran and an important distinction between explanation and justification. I push the moral dimension a bit further in my response at asymptote.
It is astonishing that anyone could even try to defend government leaders who lie as a means of putting their people into a war.
Beyond the obvious ethical implications, there is the practical matter of uniting & organizing a people for long-term conflict. Lies are not a sound foundation for uniting people in a democracy around a blood-letting effort.
Didn’t we learn anything from Vietnam?
One of the problems with deciding to do something “for many reasons”, while especially stressing a relatively or absolutely weak reason which sells well to the public, is that people who understand what’s going on, but disagree, must be discredited, by fair means or foul. Under these circumstances the public discussion has a never-never land quality.
The present focus on the 16 words is unfortunate. What is significant for me is the whole swarm of official, semi-official, and off-the-record communications that came out of the government in the runup to the war, especially right before the Congressional authorization. Many in the general public ended up wrongly believing that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and al Qaeda and that Iraq was a far bigger threat to the rest of the world than he actually was. My judgement is that the deception was deliberate — with Karl Rove in charge, things don’t happen accidentally. The question of whether or not the administration has plausible deniability is not, to me, an important one.
Those of us who are not sympathetic to Bush’s strategic plan, but have some understanding of what it is, are not going to say “If he had told the truth, I would have supported him anyway”. We’re not the insiders, but the once who have been ejected. We have effectively been put in the position of being unable to oppose the policy without accusing the President of bad faith and lying, since all the cards have not been on the table. And the better their lying presentation is, the more paranoid we seem and the more we must rely on the scorned “connect the dots” method of interpretation.
My belief is that Bush came into office with a proactive war policy and that for him 9/11 was scarcely a motive at all. I doubt that I would support the policy if I were told explicitly what it is, but arguing against it while it is undisclosed has made it easy to put me into the paranoid camp. I am hardly able to prove to anyone that I am right, so anyone who believes that the POTUS deserves to get the benefit of the doubt by virtue of his position will have to reject what I say. But what if I’m right?
This kind of method of engineering immediate consent on a sign-on-the-dotted-line basis is ineffective for getting long-term support for a more protracted struggle — part of the story of the Vietnam War.
Den Beste’s article was the most exciting thing I’ve read in months. I love the frisson of expectation in his remark about things getting ugly if a terrorist nukes an American city—I too hope that the world would aspire to the condition of a Tom Clancy novel, and I also hope that the citizens of Terrorista, without our figurative and literal reserves of steel, pay close attention to his words. If you think things would be ugly here, Ahmed, wait until you see what we have in store for you.
Having given the neighborhood bully one of my guns and encouraged him to kill the bully in the next neighborhood, what’s wrong with me shooting up most of my neighborhood in an effort to get it back before he (the neighborhood bully) uses it to shoot any more of his innocent nerds? That’s the argument I’d encourage teachers to use to justify the war
“Dan begins by saying both Den Beste and Marshall are wrong on the ethical question, but a few paragraphs later he says Den Beste is right.”
It’s a somewhat confusing passage but I understood Drezner to say that Den Beste and Marshall were both wrong about the ethical question “because they both assume a monocausal argument for why the U.S. went to war” when there are multiple causes. The conclusions Den Beste and Marshall reach -justified, unjustified - are wrong because they are based on false assumptions.
Drezner doesn’t say that “Den Beste is right”, he says that he sides with Den Beste. I understand this to mean that Drezner also thinks the President’s actions are justified, not that Den Beste’s analysis is correct. This isn’t “moving the goalposts”, it’s a useful analysis.
james joyner is correct, and Kiernan is stubbornly obtuse. Our leaders did “give us good reasons for their actions, especially when it comes to something like a war.” We may not agree with them, we may even be emotionally incapable of agreeing with anything that these leaders say, but it just silly to claim that they didn’t state their reasons for going to war.
It’s intellectually silly that is, but it may be effective politics. Politics is deceitful, seeks to persuade rather than inform, concerns itself with power rather than governance. Those who wish to believe that there has been some scandal may feel encouraged. Those who are susceptible to deceit and persuasion may be convinced.
Just a note, primarily in response to james —
“Good reasons” don’t necessarily equate to “good reasons for war.”
If there are a number of a true statements, followed by “THEREFORE we should go to war,” that doesn’t necessarily hold.
The bigger issue, in my opinion, is not “were these statements [such as the 16 words] correct?” but “under what circumstances should the U.S. feel it is appropriate to declare war and start hostilities against a country which has not attacked us?”
I would rather see the left side of the blogosphere (and the right, as well!) discussing that question. The “16 famous words” are chimeric — they are picked up by the media precisely because they ultimately matter a whole lot less than discussing the conditions under which we should initiate war and invade countries (and kill their leaders and convert them to christianity, etc).
—Kynn
I’m struck by this part of the post:
“[O]ne of the chief projects of conservative thought over the past fifty years has been to dismantle the idea that a leader, a social class, or a nation can confidently assume that History is on its side. It’s odd to see the conservatives themselves, of all people, now moving toward the view that the need to adhere to the telos of history trumps the notion of democratic accountability in day-to-day politics.”
I presume the first sentence refers to the conservative project of debunking Marxism and its ilk. But can’t one have an empirical perception of historical trends that would provide a basis for claims about the trends of history that are not, fundamentally, teleological? If so, wouldn’t that vitiate the implicit claim in the second sentence that conservatives are now contradicting themselves by indulging in teleological views of history?
I love the frisson of expectation in his remark about things getting ugly if a terrorist nukes an American city
Presumably there was an implict “except Berkeley” in there.
Could we arrange for a Congressional Medal to be given to the poor sub-editor who had to get Den Beste’s ravings into a newspaper-sized article?
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