Now for the last few:
Last Resortd.r. was pretty dismissive of some of us for not hewing to the facts, but I don't think there is evidence that Saddam was "systematically killing his own people"--or at least killing them beyond the normal Saddam ruling policies. I have conceded and everyone agrees--the guy was a total dictator and brutal to his own people. But that list is fairly long in the world and this alone is hardly the requirement. As for Last Resort, I find this one of the weakest of the Just War qualifications. Sanctions were working. The inspections were working--despite all the games that Saddam played at every level. Containment was working. This was not our last resort--and refusing to comply with UN resolutions--the very same UN that the Bush administration and conservatives everywhere don't actually respect, by the way--hardly seem like a "last resort."
1. How many times was Hussein given a chance to comply to the UN Resolutions without compliance? 17 - enough said. He was given chance after chance and then intelligence suggested he was upping the ante in seeking weapons of mass destruction. He refused to allow inspectors to confirm or deny this intelligence. And again all the while he was systematically killing his own people.
Probability of SuccessNo one doubted that Hussein could be removed from power. This is, and never was the total objective. I suspect that if you got George H.W. Bush to be honest, he would tell you that he would have warned his son that there was not a high probability of success. He certainly was concerned about that in the first Gulf War where his pragmatists and experts warned him that removing Saddam would create a vacuum. Many, many people said that this was a venture fraught with peril, but the President and his people ignored that instead suggested that we would be greeted as liberators. Just as Woodrow Wilson thought his troops landing at Vera Cruz would be greeted.
1. Did the Americans think that they could remove Hussein from power? Of course, and they did. And now he has been tried, convicted and executed in a great act of justice.
2. Was there evidence that Iraq would move toward a democratic state? Yes, and they have made huge strides in that arena, having held elections, with more to come.
And to be fair, there is an argument to be made that had this President not sent in someone like Rumsfeld to do this, we might have had a chance. Had we restored power--AND SECURITY--there is a chance that we could have transfered the existing Iraq government into a working democracy--or democracy-ish. Instead, Bush deBathified the government and dismissed the military--sending thousands of people jobless, armed, and angry at the Americans. And lets not forget the Bush policy of filling the reconstruction posts with Bush loyalists--including asking them their stance on Roe v. Wade rather than their qualifications for service.
Proportionalityd.r. is reaching the most here. While the Kurds were certainly persecuted and ethnically cleansed under Saddam, but they were in no immanent danger of extinction. I have addressed the UN and want to reiterate the irony of conservatives invoking the UN Resolutions--given that many of them would prefer we not even have a UN. And finally, I really detest the line "Iraq is now on its way to democracy, if they would just embrace it." I hate this "blame the Iraqi" approach. It is as if the police went into the wrong house, leveled it, and killed many of the family members. The family had been run by an abusive father, but was functioning. The police come in, kill the father, level the house, and expect the family to function. When they don't, the police chastize the remaining family members.
1. Did the possible good outweigh the bad? Of course they did. This might be the most controversial of the Just War requirements, but again, the Kurds are not extinct, Sadaam is no longer violating the UN resolutions in a hope to resurrect his weapons program and is no longer attacking nations or threatening to do so, and Iraq is now on its way to democracy, if they would just embrace it. Much better than persecuted people in a country that is seeking to persecute others.
We broke this country. We don't get to blame them for that.
3 comments:
Hey Streak- A bit prolific in the postinig lately, aren't we? Makes it difficult to know where to comment!:-). The whole just war theory is a great discussion. I'd like to see you unwrap the history on it a bit more. To me the individual points just seem like another place for justification that follows a preexisting bias- a "feel better" layer to go on top of an existing agenda that isn't as publicly palatable.
I wanted to comment on DR's democracy points, especially the "if they'll just embrace it". I think that your comment regarding security is critical in this discussion, but culture is another vital aspect about which our leadership seems to be incredibly naive or chooses to ignore. Americans of all people should know that democracy is more than who is in charge at the top. It is woven into the fabric of our culture. We practice democratic principles from the church committee to the school board and on up. There is infrastructure from the local level on up to implement democratic principles and the assumption of any individual American is that when they enter a decision making process, at least on on public policy, democratic principles will be implemented. We tend to assume that this is the case everywhere. In many places it is, but in others it's not. I vividly remember a conversation with a Balinese man while the recent upheaval was taking place in Indonesia. I asked him if he was looking forward to democracy coming to the island. (Of course, I was assuming that he'd be ecstatic). He replied that his people "weren't ready for multiple parties". He told me that Balinese were not open to variety in their culture and historically they had solved political divisions with violence. His concern was that political choice would arrive before public security. I'm not saying he was the final authority on his country. To make matters worse in my processing of his comments, he was a highly educated man who had traveled and worked abroad extensively, including the U.S.! For me, as an American who assumed that democracy was best for everyone "if they'd just embrace it", it was a good lesson. It helped me realize that American democracy was instituted in a relatively sparcely populated country that was largely agricultural in nature long before the industrial revolution. Indonesia's changes were internally implemented (no occupying foreign force). Here we are in Iraq not having learned much from history, especially history other than our own. I've used alot of words to get around to saying that thinking simplistically about complicated subjects such as regime change and nation building, is patronistic, reflects at the least ignorance, arrogant, and lethal to many, many people. Later-BB
Two points:
1. I think we contributed greatly to the breaking of Iraq, but I think it was pretty broken to begin with. I also think that our actions certainly did not help and were harmful for us in the long run. I also don't think that "being helpful" should be a prerequisite for going to war. Considering our (and our allies) security interests should be one.
2. BB makes a really good point. It is hard for me to understand why someone would want to live under a repressive regime. Not everyone wants democracy. The mid-east isn't exactly a hotbed of freedom and I don't see it changing any time soon.
To clarify some of what I said, my Balinese friend wasn't saying that he didn't EVER think democracy, particularly the multi-party aspect. He was saying that it he didn't want it to happen overnight. He wanted a gradual transition of some years to allow the principles to move into the culture over time. Even America didn't allow full democracy immediately. White males have dominated the system from the start. Full participation of all "tribes" has been only in recent years and some would debate if we're even there yet. I don't say this to advocate minority rule or dictatorships, but just to point out that it's a bit too easy for Americans to patronize other groups who don't seem to grasp the democracy thing as fast as we think they should. If you are a Sunni in Iraq today, I would assume you're pretty terrified at the prospet of a full democracy without the institution of good security measures first. Anyway, FWIT-bb
Post a Comment