Why I'm a Democrat (Long)

[Beet]

This is a great thread, though someone overwhelming since it covers a huge area. But it should be interesting. Thanks for starting it, Nym.

Beginning with the Iraq war, I suppose Markdel's argument in favor of it was generally tied around the idea of remoulding the Middle East. I say this because you mentioned it, and because it is the only argument that can possibly justify the war.

Iraq was not a threat to the United States. It had no plans to attack the United States. Therefore, an attack on Iraq cannot be justified on the grounds of national security. While his government had contacts to terrorist organizations, these ties did not involve Iraq engaging in terrorism against the U.S. They also do not distinguish Iraq from the governments over a dozen other nations. And by far, it was not worth the vast resources and cost, both fiscally and morally, to break those ties, when those resources were desperately needed in the real challenges the U.S faces in the world. Conquering Iraq  increased the terrorist presence in Iraq, as well as killing about 10,000 people, many of them innocent civilians.

Violating U.N. resolutions was not a justification for attacking Iraq. I only bring this up because the debate was dominated around this issue in the winter of 2002-2003, when the actual decision making was being done. This entire debate was a farce, and deeply soured me to the war.

Saddam Hussein's human rights violations did justify an attack on Iraq, but not in the spring of 2003, because his vast mistreatment of his own people by and large did not occur during that time frame. They occured, by and large, in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in 1988 may have justified military action to protect them, just as Sudan's genocide today justifies military action in the Sudan government. In 1991, Saddam's brutal suppression of the revolt in southern Iraq justified a military intervention to protect the Shias who had taken part in it. Military action will always be justified in a humanitarian crisis where the military cost of intervention will be lower than the cost of allowing the crisis to go unchecked. However, these calamities were not ongoing in the spring of 2003. The military cost of intervention far exceeded the benefits wrought, except perhaps in the full lifting of sanctions.

I should also say that the sanctions were not justified against Iraq. Though Saddam did not deserve to benefit from the lifting of sanctions, his people did. An endless regime of sanctions was perhaps the most cruel policy the international regime could have imposed on the Iraq people. It cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Now to the argument that the attack on Iraq will reshape the Middle East. First note that this is a utilitarian argument; the Iraqis and Americans who died in the war and continue to die in the aftermath will never see the "new" Middle East. They paid for this vision with their lives, and also against their will. However appealing such a vision may be, there will always be good, Christian people, who in their conscience cannot support it. I mention Dostoevsky.

Getting past this hurdle (which is possible, if you imagine killing Hitler), there are still a number of issues here. While theoretically, the establishment of a liberal democracy in the center of the region, if successful, will have a critical long-term impact on the region, its impact is moulded by the manner in which a new government is formed. This government will always be tied to the United States and the United States invasion. It will not be a indigenous government rising from the ashes of a just national humiliation, such as the postwar government of West Germany. It keeps no Emperor like Japan. It will be a government imposed upon by a war that was carried out without the sole possible justification (helping the Arabs with long-term nation building) as either its stated or credible reason. The 'credible' reason that was (and is) percieved is the self-interest of a nation that is at best indifferent, at worst hostile and dangerous, in the eyes of the Arabs. A nation that installed the government for its own reasons. Nation-building can work if the government being overthrown is the antithesis of some indigenous identity that will replace it, or if the action is truly and credibly justified as a response to some ongoing moral crisis (since ideas can form a new basis for a nation as well... but the ideas must be genuine). In Bosnia, there were the Bosnian muslims, and the genocide was something that the West credibly intervened on, on moral grounds. This is not the case in Iraq. Although there are the Kurds, it is an Iraqi state we are trying to build, not a Kurdish one. We neither recognize Kurdistan nor did we change its automonmous status. The antithesis to the Arab identity was not Saddam Hussein, but is the continuing Israeli occupation, and increasingly, not to small extent due to Bush's policies, the U.S. Ironically, while there is an element of hatred of domestic governments among the Arabs, Hussein's government was one of the least hated due to its strong defiance of Israel (of however questionable morality that defiance took its form in). The neo-con dream is to somehow export liberal democracy to the Middle East, but like angus mentions, it exists alongside nationalism, even in the U.S. In most countries, liberal democracy exists as a form giving expression to a cultural and national core. With the core against a liberal government, it is deprived of its most essential source of support as a democratic government. As a puppet government, fundamentally non-Arab, and even anti-Arab, it has no legitimacy within Iraq, let alone the Arab world. In the end, the neo-con dream, or more accurately the manner in which foreign policy was conducted by the neo-cons in general, has mired the U.S. in a deep, deep quagmire.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

MarkDel,

I guess our difference lies primarily in where we see the threat. I see a greater threat coming from the cost, in fiscal, moral, and repuatational terms, of an unprovoked invasion broadly percieved as unjust, than the former Iraqi regime itself, which was one of the least dangerous of a number of potentially dangerous regimes. I see not an unstable philosophical enemy but a self-interested, small minded brute crippled by the time you beat the sh*t out of him when he tried to pick on the little kid (who did not die). I see a lot of other weak kids around the playground (or wherever this fantasy analogy world is) who hate you just as much and are getting stronger every day, faster than this brute who you crippled is. I see a lot of other strong kids too, not as strong as you, but you have a "strong kids club" with them. You are strong partially because, unlike the brute in question, you and them share a common philosophy and friendship. Your proposal to go kill the crippled brute genuinely tears them... on one hand their loyalty to you, on the other hand, they see this as an abdication of some long-standing principles in the name of misguided interests. Now, what do you think most of the dangerous little kids in the playground (call them "North Korea", "Iran", "Libya", "Syria", or worse, "Al Qaeda") are hoping happens to your big kids club? They are hoping it breaks up. Together you are unbeatable, their only chance is divide and conquer. Suppose there are a bunch of undecided kids on the block. Call them "The Arab masses", and "Al Qaeda" is trying to get them to join HIS club. What do you think they are thinking? Will they not judge whether or not to help you, based on whether you commit this murder or not?

[Beet]

Beet,

Well, first of all, the other "naughty kids" like Iran, Syria, etc...now know that they are not above getting the living sh*t beat out of them either. Plus, they also realize that if Iraq is turned into a "nice, strong kid" and part of the club, that their position with their own family might be weakened. And in fact, their family might begin to realize that they are in fact ABUSED children who have been distracted from their misery by the demonizing of the club, and when it comes right down to it, the head of their household might need to GO.

The problem with your analogy is that "The Club" is not populated by friends who are looking out for our best interests. Some of those friends have grown to resent us for being bigger, stronger, better looking, dating the best looking cheerleader and driving that nice new Porsche. And their resentment had NOTHING to do with ambivalence towards us taking care of the bully...

Well, before the people of these other dictatorial regimes sponatneously rise up upon success of the Iraqi experiment, the Iraqi experiment it has to be successful and legitimate. I have serious doubts about both. Also, I think that most other rich nations, the EU, Japan, Russia, and even China, see it in their interest to be friendly with us and admired us far more than they disliked us. Especially after 9/11. The Bush policy really did change a number of things in that area. Looking at public opinion polls shows a massive shift which has been masked by the stability of the governments. But when these opinions come to the forefront, like they did in Germany and Korea 2002, or Spain and the Philipinnes this past year, they can have real impacts. Winning the global war on terror means getting the Arab people and our allies to feel that we are part of the same solid alliance, and that will happen because our way will be genuinely more attractive than the terrorists' way. Right now Bush's way is not very attractive to a lot of people. I've already said why I don't think the Iraq experient will be the "light at the end of the tunnel" that justifies it all. Well I'm going to bed, its been a good convo...I'll dream of Lord of the Flies. Talk to you later.

[Beet]

I do not agree with affirmative action or basing policy on what happened generations ago. However, I still believe in both legal and social equality.