Understanding the Left's false premises about the war

[Broken Glass Can]

This article does a good job of explaining the phoniness of the anti-war argument:

WHAT IT WAS FOR (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/42740.htm)

March 19, 2005 -- WHAT was the Iraq war about? Two years after the war started, the question is as hotly debated as in 2002 when the use of force to topple Saddam Hussein was first raised as something more than mere rhetoric.

Although this year's anti-war crowds on Western streets have been much smaller than last year's and insignificant compared to 2003, the issue still arouses a great deal of passion as we witnessed in a debate in London the other day.

The anti-war position is still based on the same three claims as 2003.

First, the war was illegal because it was not specifically sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. This means that the 18 mandatory resolutions that the council had passed on Iraq were not even worth the paper they were printed on. Nor is the anti-war party concerned about the fact that legally speaking Iraq had been at war against the United Nations since August 1990. The fact that the British parliament, the U.S. Congress and parliaments in a dozen other democratic nations also voted for the war, often with massive majorities, is also dismissed as irrelevant.

The legal argument is interesting for another reason.

The most ardent advocates of the anti-war case are remnants of the supposedly revolutionary left that, in almost every other case, regard the law as nothing but a bourgeois prop to keep the masses in check. The spectacle of Leninists, Trotskyistes and Maoists beating their chests about the legality of toppling a tyrant is surely a treat for all students of politics.

The second claim used by the anti-war party is that this was all about weapons of mass destruction — which, because they have not been found, destroys the case for military action. The fact that the various U.N. resolutions cited an average of 20 reasons, other than WMDs, for why Iraq was at war with the rest of the world is overlooked. (The U.S. Senate cited 234 reasons for going to war.)

The third claim is that the U.S.-led coalition went to Iraq only to have access to cheap oil. Bearing in mind that average oil prices have hovered around $40 in the past two years, compared to $20 in the two years that preceded the war, should be enough to refute that claim.

The anti-war camp employs a number of tricks to defend its shameful position. For example, it uses the normal human dislike of war in general to foment opposition to this particular war. It also goes to extraordinary length to avoid any mention of Saddam Hussein. It is as if there was no such monster terrorizing the peoples of Iraq and threatening the entire region. By writing Saddam Hussein out of the script, the anti-war camp deliberately misses the point of the enterprise, which was to put an end to one of the most brutal regimes in contemporary history.

Translated into practical politics: If the anti-war camp had gotten what it wanted, Saddam Hussein would have stayed in power for as long as possible. This is because the Baathist regime was one of the few tyrannies that allowed for no internal mechanisms for change. Like the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and Idi Amin in Uganda, which were respectively brought down thanks to Vietnamese and Tanzanian military intervention, the Baathist regime could not have been destroyed without military action by the U.S.-led coalition.

Well, the Iraq war was about lots of things.

As far as I am concerned it was primarily the coup de grace given to the model of Arab despotism based on the one-party system dominated by a "strongman." The ease with which Saddam Hussein's tyranny collapsed destroyed the myth of the Arab "zaim" (chief), thus opening the path for pluralist politics. The effects of this historic change are already felt across the Arab world, from Libya to Yemen, and passing by Tunisia and Egypt.

No one knows how the new political system in Iraq will develop. But one thing is certain: It is not going to develop into another form of despotism. To appreciate the importance of this revolutionary change, it is sufficient to recall that Mesopotamia, the land that is now called Iraq, has always been ruled by despots over 6,000 years of history. Thus the Iraq war was, in a sense, about ending a 6,000-year old tradition.

What was the Iraq war about? The anti-war camp, and others interested in the debate, should read some of the dozens of books that the Iraqis have published over the past two years, recounting their experiences.

Let me mention just two. One is "Thoughts From Baghdad" by Luay Abdul-Ilah, who captures the immediate post-liberation mood of his people in a fast-paced narrative bursting with energy. At one point he writes: "I am standing here in Iraq, smelling the earth after rain, free of fear and full of hope!"

The second book consists of two novellas by Samuel Shimon, an ethnic Assyrian who recalls how he had been tortured by Arab regimes and political groups of all denominations because of his Christian faith and his "Jewish sounding" name. All along the thing that kept him going was his dream of one day going to America to make movies. Two years ago, however, that dream was realized in reverse when America came to Iraq on what many Iraqis regard as a " rescue mission."

[masse75]

This thread should end.

[Edge34]

BGC,

Nicely done. We just had an anti-war "walkout" here at my school, and all I could think about was how ridiculous it is that people use their general dislike of our President and war in general as a base for protesting this war, as the article says.

There's more to it than all the people mindlessly shouting "no war for oil", but I doubt it will ever sink in for them.

[andyfox]

"This means that the 18 mandatory resolutions that the council had passed on Iraq were not even worth the paper they were printed on."

-The United States cares about the UN? Since when? The truth of the matter is that violation of UN resolutions was an excuse for the invasion, not the reason for it.

"Nor is the anti-war party concerned about the fact that legally speaking Iraq had been at war against the United Nations since August 1990."

-So legally speaking, since they were at war with us, Iraq could have invaded the United States too?

"The most ardent advocates of the anti-war case are remnants of the supposedly revolutionary left that, in almost every other case, regard the law as nothing but a bourgeois prop to keep the masses in check. The spectacle of Leninists, Trotskyites and Maoists beating their chests about the legality of toppling a tyrant is surely a treat for all students of politics."

-Yup, those damn Communists again. Anyone who opposed the war is a Communist. One of the great arguments of the 1950s.

"The second claim used by the anti-war party is that this was all about weapons of mass destruction — which, because they have not been found, destroys the case for military action."

-That's because the Bush admnistration made it the primary part of its case. With dubious evidence and dissembling about it, most notably in Colin Powell's embarrasssing presentation at the UN.

"The third claim is that the U.S.-led coalition went to Iraq only to have access to cheap oil."

-Maybe if Wolfowitz hadn't said the difference between Iraq and Korea was that Iraq sits on a sea of oil, people wouldn't be so skeptical. Anyway, nobody doubts that oil has at least something to do with our foreign policy. Why shouldn't it?

Everyone hopes that Iraq turns into an oasis of democracy, freedom and prosperity. Some doubt that it can be done. After all, President Bush himself expressed such doubts, repeatedly and forcefully, when he first ran for the presidency in 2000.

Being anti-war is not phoniness any more than being pro-war is. People can and do have honest disagreements of opinion about the efficacy of certain policies, as Bush's anti-nation building rhetoric in his first run for the presidency demonstrates.

[jesusarenque]

Nice source.

[ACPlayer]

It was not "for" these reasons. These "reasons" are a pack of excuses mare up after the fact to try and justify the failure of the actual reasons for the war.

[fluxrad]

This is all cognitive dissonance and you guys damned well know it.

The U.S. was sold a B.S. war based on WMD's. The PNAC agenda was clear from day one for anyone with the typing skills necessary to go to newamericancentury.org. I remember saying the same things I'm saying now back on March 17th, 2003 when the bombing began, namely that too many troops were going to die for a tin-pot dictator that represented no threat to the U.S. or his neighbors.

And yes, 1500 troops is too many. But...

We're there now and we can't leave so let's get it done. The people that advocate pulling our troops out right now are delusional and unwise. But I swear to christ I'm going to beat the [censored] out of the next guy I meet who says Bush was right and that our reasons for war have been the same all along.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
-So legally speaking, since they were at war with us, Iraq could have invaded the United States too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone doubt that the only thing that kept Iraq from invading the US was their inability to do so?

[trippin bily]

Sometimes the end justifies the means.
This is one of those times.
True that many of the reasons we went to war turned out to be very bad intel from the CIA and other groups ...
the rumblings of democracy ringing through the middle east
make it worthwile.
Democracies tend not to attack democrocies
Bush may have been the only one naive enough to believe that
democracy was possible.
turns out he was correct.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush may have been the only one naive enough to believe that democracy was possible. turns out he was correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Elections != Democracy.

If in 10 years' time the Iraqis are holding meaningful elections and defending themselves with absolutely minimal U.S. troop presence, then I'll say Bush was right.

[Dead]

Just give all the Iraqis weapons, and let them fight it out amongst themselves.

[zaxx19]

But I swear to christ I'm going to beat the [censored] out of the next guy I meet who says Bush was right and that our reasons for war have been the same all along.


Bush was right....everyday it looks more and more to be surely correct...the middle east is a more stable/progressive place now and has a MUCH brighter future bc of Bush.

If you wanna a piece come and get it....id say it take about 4 typical upper middle class undergrad anti war protesters to even scare me....

I hate internet bravado ...but it had to be said.

[Dead]

What the heck are you talking about?

I read your posts and it's like 3 different personalities f'ing each other.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]

Bush was right....everyday it looks more and more to be surely correct...the middle east is a more stable/progressive place now and has a MUCH brighter future bc of Bush.

If you wanna a piece come and get it....id say it take about 4 typical upper middle class undergrad anti war protesters to even scare me....

I hate internet bravado ...but it had to be said.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I haven't met you.

2. I was being facetious in an attempt to convey my ire at the fact that that 99% of the war advocates I meat are complete and utter windbags.

3. You're absolutely right. The middle east is significantly more "stable" post-invasion...

If by "stable" you mean "a fscking powder keg waiting to blow with and Iran on the verge of having nuclear weapons."

4. Taking out 4 anti-war protesters is pretty hard core. That's like Navy SEAL hard core. Shouldn't you be out killing insurgents with your bare hands and pissing red, white, and blue in a john in Baghdad?

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
What the heck are you talking about?

I read your posts and it's like 3 different personalities f'ing each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Naw. He was just baiting me.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
If in 10 years' time the Iraqis are holding meaningful elections and defending themselves with absolutely minimal U.S. troop presence, then I'll say Bush was right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically this is inline with what Bush says as well. Hopefully you support Iraqi's Democratic movement and disavow the murdering of civilians by the insurgents.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically this is inline with what Bush says as well. Hopefully you support Iraqi's Democratic movement and disavow the murdering of civilians by the insurgents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand your point (Also, I don't think you meant to use "disavow" there).

Are you suggesting there are people (other than right wing Arabs) who do not simply disagree with the mechanism for Iraqi democracy, but rather do not wish to see Iraq become a democracy?

[adios]

disavow

verb

To refuse to recognize or acknowledge: deny, disacknowledge, disclaim, disown, reject, renounce, repudiate. Idioms: turn one's back on. See accept/reject.

So yes I do think the word is appropriate. George W. Bush has basically stated the same thing about whether or not his Iraqi policy will be judged a success as your statement that I quoted.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting there are people (other than right wing Arabs) who do not simply disagree with the mechanism for Iraqi democracy, but rather do not wish to see Iraq become a democracy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, read the posts on this forum and look through the archives. I see virtually no support for a democratic Iraqi government from certain posters and virtually no condemnation of the insurgents targeting innocent civillians from these posters. Basically the blame is placed on the United States and Bush supporters when in reality the insurgents have a clear choice as to whether or not they target civillians. And this is true irregardless of how one feels about the Bush policy of taking out Hussein via the war.

[fluxrad]

Side note: You're still not quite getting the subtleties of the word "disavow." Are you saying I shouldn't acknowledge that innocent people are being killed by insurgents? Or are you saying that I was complicit but should now deny having any knowldge with regard to the bombings? Methinks you were going for "show disdain for" or "condemn" originally, but missed the mark.

[ QUOTE ]
I see virtually no support for a democratic Iraqi government from certain posters and virtually no condemnation of the insurgents targeting innocent civillians from these posters. Basically the blame is placed on the United States and Bush supporters when in reality the insurgents have a clear choice as to whether or not they target civillians. And this is true irregardless of how one feels about the Bush policy of taking out Hussein via the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you want, instead of silent hope that Iraq becomes a democracy, a vociferous show of both disdain for the insurgents and support for the U.S. That's not going to happen since a number of posters on this thread believe Mr. Bush was exceptionally incorrect in invading Iraq. Again, this is not to say that we don't want to see democracy in Iraq, but rather that we don't support U.S. attempts to bring it at gunpoint. That being said, I know of no one who, post invasion, is actively rooting for the U.S. to fail (at least, not on these boards).

Feel free to prove me wrong, but I'm not the one that should have to do the legwork here. You've asserted that others here don't want to see democracy in Iraq. Prove it.

Also, you have got to stop using these words. (http://www.answers.com/irregardless&r=67)

Yes, the rape and murder of the English language is one of my "buttons."

[Zeno]

Good Post.

[ QUOTE ]
"The most ardent advocates of the anti-war case are remnants of the supposedly revolutionary left that, in almost every other case, regard the law as nothing but a bourgeois prop to keep the masses in check. The spectacle of Leninists, Trotskyites and Maoists beating their chests about the legality of toppling a tyrant is surely a treat for all students of politics."


[/ QUOTE ]

These people are still around? I thought they all died out long ago.

[ QUOTE ]
.....most notably in Colin Powell's embarrasssing presentation at the UN.


[/ QUOTE ]

That made me cringe. I often wonder how Powell deals with that whole episode - I mean personally in his inner self - not in any public way or persona.

By the way, Andy - I'm trying to make some 'long' range plans and would like to get meassages to you. Do you still have the same e-mail address? Please PM me as I wish to send you some information. This was the only sure way I have of contacting you. It's all top secret hush hush stuff by the way so don't tell anybody about this post. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

-Zeno

[Chris Alger]

An article that purports to attack "the left's false premises" that fails to quote anyone from the left setting forth a premise or argument obviously isn't worth reading.

But let's continue on until the first whopper:

[ QUOTE ]
First, the war was illegal because it was not specifically sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. This means that the 18 mandatory resolutions that the council had passed on Iraq were not even worth the paper they were printed on.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only if all of those resolutions authorized the U.S. to invade Iraq. Since none of them did, the left must be right. Indeed, we now know that Iraq substantially complied with the resolutions requiring the destruction of WMD stockpiles and facilities, mostly immediately after the Gulf War and certainly by 1998.

This is just another rehash of the White House lie that Iraq was about to become a nuclear power determined to attack the U.S. Since the author doesn't mention what the resolutions really said, and tries to convey a false impression of them, the article is a small example of the sort of integrity and honesty that one needs to tolerate the war. What a superlative job of destroying the arguments against the war!

[tolbiny]

"Yes, read the posts on this forum and look through the archives. I see virtually no support for a democratic Iraqi government from certain posters and virtually no condemnation of the insurgents targeting innocent civillians from these posters."

There is a pretty simple reason for this. There are (likely) no insurgents posting here. There are however many people who hold very different viewpoints from those of us in the anti war crowd, and engageing them in debate (and insults/sarcasm and all the other stuff that comes along) can be usefull, and i think you have a healthy appreciation for the value of debate. Without an opposition there isn't any debate, and i can't think of any poster that you would take seriously who is going to stand up and argue for the insurgents and thier methods. There are quite a few posters who have noted that the insugency should have been expected, given the history of the region, widespread religeous zeolism, and the fact that occupiers are rarely treated well, and that the administration should have taken this into account and better prepared for it.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

you are smart.

[Broken Glass Can]

There may have been 234 reasons put forth by the congress for going to war, and 20 from the UN resolutions, but none of these include the best, and most imperative reason.

We were attacked on 9-11 because of a profound lack of respect, we were seen as soft, our enemy guided by the Mogadishu model. Simply taking out the Taliban did not serve to dispel this belief, as it lacked the retaliatory and punitive character required to restore the respect we had lost. Saddam was seen in the region as a hero, a winner against the Great Satan simply because he had remained in power.

It was essential in my view, that we not only defeat him but humiliate him, and in the process prove our willingness to stand and die to do so.

We have not had a repeat performance on our own soil precisely because we have eliminated the reason we were struck to begin with, dwelling on CAPABILITY misses the mark, as we have not, and cannot ever eradicate their ability to strap a bomb on a jihadi or serve up a remote detonation as in the March 11 Madrid train bombing.

We have eradicated their WILL to strike through humiliation, and have successfully instilled FEAR OF CONSEQUENCES. There is simply no way we could have arrived at this point without the elimination of the big boy in Iraq, IMHO.

[fluxrad]

That is quite possibly one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"There may have been 234 reasons put forth by the congress for going to war....

[/ QUOTE ]
And there might not have been. In fact, there couldn't have been (I have no idea how this number was derived; no Senate resolution has ever mentioned 234 reasons about Iraq). Think about it:
1. Liberate Iraq
2. Democratize Iraq
3. Preclude Iraq form attacking its neighbors
4. Preclude Iraq from attacking us
5. Preclude Iraq from supporting terrorism
6. Destroying Iraq's WMD
7. Showing Saddam and the world how serious we are about ... whatever, by killing tens of thousands Iraqi civilians and taking over his country for a billion dollars a week.

That leaves only 227 more reasons.

Why do you suppose that the pro-war propagnada is always directed toward dumb guys?

[zaxx19]

Yup stupid guys like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove.....

These guys are generally understood as the dumbest people in Washington bu insiders....

I mean when Rumsfeld graduated with honors from Princeton after earning a full ride to attend all the professors were saying : "man that guy is stupid...I cant believe I gave him an A"

and when he won a congressional seat @ 30....his opponenet must have said: "this guy isnt going anywhere in life bc he is so stupid.."

All the serious minded democrats I know definitely think Rove is dumb....

I mean how else would you explain him winning ~93% of the elections he has headed and or provided help with. They also say the DNC should not copy any tactics he used bc then they might win a national election then....

Oh and everybody thinks Cheney is dumb.....I mean he just isnt up to snuff..


You guys can whine all you want about a neo-con conspiracy to take over the world..yatta yatta

But if you think this "Republicans are Dumb" thing has any traction among anyone other than 19 yr old Undergrads who talk more crap than they read you are sorely mistaken.

[sam h]

The idea that there is a single "anti-war" position is facially idiotic. That is strike one against this article and anybody who concurs with it.

Any discussion of reasons for opposition to the war should include the obvious and much articulated criticism that it would inflame anti-American sentiment in the Arab world, hurt our ability to conduct various facets of the anti-terror campaign, and ultimately compromise our foreign policy options well into the future. This is one critique (among others) that pro-War supporters have never been able to handle very well. The vast majority of people who study defense policy and terrorism - that are not affiliated with the government or a hack at a right-wing think tank - believe it was a stupid strategic idea. Dodging this issue is strike two against this article and anybody who concurs with it.

Finally, we come to strike three - the moronic set of assertions toward the end of the article concerning the "coup de grace given to the model of Arab despotism" by the war and the ineluctable end of despotism in Iraq. Both of these are simply wild speculation presented as fact. Conflating such things is the province of dumb ideologues and believing them the territory of like-minded adherents.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you suppose that the pro-war propagnada is always directed toward dumb guys?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is like asking why is Alger such a jackass.

Some things are just the way they are I guess.

[CORed]

Stupid is as stupid does.

Forest Gump.

That's all I have to say about Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al.

[andyfox]

You're right, nobody will ever again hijack a plane and direct into a building here, because they're now afraid of the consequences.