Norman Geras, self-described member of the left and a professor of government at the University of Manchester, on the recent moral failures of the left:
"If war opponents can't eliminate the inconvenient side of the balance, they denature it. The liberation of Iraq from Saddam's tyranny can't have been a good, because of those who effected it and of their obviously bad foreign-policy record: Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua and the rest. It can't therefore have been a liberation. Even allowing the premise to go unchallenged--which in point of fact I don't, since recent U.S. and British foreign policy also has achievements to its credit: evicting the Iraqis from Kuwait, intervening in Kosovo, intervening in Sierra Leone, getting rid of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan--it is a plain fallacy. A person with a bad record is capable of doing good. There were some anti-Semitic rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust. This argumentative move just fixes the nature of the act via a presumption about those who are responsible for it, sparing one the necessity of examining the act for what it actually brings about and of assessing this in its own right. It's a bit like saying that because the guy who returned me the expensive book he'd borrowed has previously stolen things from others--you can fill in the rest yourself, and yes, it's silly."
Words worthy of careful consideration; read the whole thing. Geras makes the point that I've sort of been jumping on for the past couple of weeks: "[...] an uncontrollable animus towards George W. Bush and his administration [...] has produced a calamitous compromise of the core values of socialism, or liberalism or both, on the part of thousands of people who claim attachment to them."
I'm not a Bushophile by any means. But I sincerely believe that this constant denunciation and treatment of the Texan as the Embodiment of Evil is having a strange, warping affect on the sensibilities of many in the press and on the Net to whom I might otherwise lend a more sympathetic ear. He is not The Issue.
I agree that discussions of the chap's personality seem to be getting in the way of discussions about ideas, pros and cons, etc. I also think Geras (and you) make an extremely important point, which is that military actions, just like all others, need to be scrutinized for what they are, and preferably with eyes open to the gradations of benefit, needfulness, loss, and horror that accompany wars of any stripe. In other words, a "D" student can sometimes produce "A" work, and vice versa. (Speaking as a mostly "A" student who was prone to occasionally deciding that a weekend excursion to, say Scotland, was more important than getting all her homework done). (and looking back on it from the safe vantage of adulthood, I was right to let that homework slide)
Posted by: Valencia | August 4, 2003 03:55 PM
This sounds rather like singing the praises of a mugger who donates ten percent of his loot to charity. Just as animosity toward Bush should not blind us to the good that has come out of some of these invasions, neither should the fortuitous benefits blind us to the fact that we were led into this war by liars dragging us by a ring through the nose. I watched Colin Powell tell the UN that Iraq has thousands of TONS of chemical weapons...and now they can't find a speck of it, not even burnt or buried remains. He showed satellite photos of facilities that the gov't now says they can't find, after having supposedly zeroed in on the exact coordinates in order to take the photographs.
The feet-dragging approach Bush has taken toward getting involved in Liberia should show everyone how he feels about using the military for humanitarian purposes.
Indeed, give credit where credit is due. But don't say that because a little credit is due, all crimes should be forgotten.
Posted by: Gaelan | August 15, 2003 03:04 AM
By "satellite photos of facilities that the gov't now says they can't find," I assume you're referring to the munitions storage bunkers at the Taji rocket/missile component factory, the al-Mussayyib and Ibn al Haytham ballistic missile facilities, and the Amiriyah Serum and Vaccine Institute, which are the only facilities Powell showed photos of in his remarks to the UN in February.
In each case, Powell mentioned those sites specifically to demonstrate via the photos how the items stored there were removed and hidden immediately prior to UN inspection. In other words, to demonstrate Iraqi violation of the UN's own resolutions.
We know exactly where the Taji, al-Mussayyib, Ibn al Haytham, and Amiriyah sites are. Is there anything there? Nope. That was the point of Powell's visual aids.
They just recently found ordnance in Germany that was hidden there by the Third Reich almost fifty years ago.
And yet, three months after the official cessation of hostilities, the fact that we haven't been able to find WMDs in an area of almost 170,000 square miles is, for you, conclusive proof that Bush Is A Liar.
Similarly, you find it perfectly reasonable to risk American lives to fix a situation in West Africa because it's "humanitarian." But invading Iraq to remove a tyrant with obvious regional aspirations, a demonstrable appetite for WMD, and links to terrorist organizations (not to mention his predilection for mass graves and torture chambers), is a bad thing. The fact that Iraq provides a strategic platform to deal with far more important state sponsors of terrorism (e.g. Saudi Arabia) doesn't enter into your considerations. And the important idea that the Iraq invasion is only a single campaign in a long-term military strategy designed to eliminate the enemies who would plan the next attack on American soil doesn't seem to have occurred to you.
This is a war, and this is how wars are waged: one battle at a time.
The common factor here seems to be your distaste for Bush, which apparently overrides all other considerations.
You've made my point quite nicely.
Or, to be more precise, you've made Norman Geras' point, almost exactly: "It's a bit like saying that because the guy who returned me the expensive book he'd borrowed has previously stolen things from others--you can fill in the rest yourself, and yes, it's silly."
Posted by: --iaw | August 15, 2003 11:08 AM