Bang the Drum, We've Got Tyranny on the Run
TMcWarHawk writes in response to the post below: Why draw the line at genocide rather than "tyranny." Is there any real dispute that Saddam was a tyrant? I don't think so. That is an objective description of the regime. We can say, with Emery, "not my job!" But then again, who supported that guy for years, financially and diplomatically, and before that, who created "Iraq" as a contiguous, poly-ethnic state? The West. We're already "involved" whether we like it or not, and it strikes me as a bit late in the day to tell the Iraqis that we simply wash our hands of a situation to which we once greatly contributed. You ask, "Who are we to speak for the Iraqis?" but we've left them in a condition where they have no ability to speak for themselves.
Finally, the UN. I have mixed feelings here. On one level, I believe in the UN and its mission. There needs to be an organization of nations working to solve problems through diplomacy where possible. But it is not a representative body, and many of its member nations are tyrannies or mildly authoritarian. Do you really want China as a permanent veto on our foreign policy? Do you really trust the UN's Middle East vision when, based on its membership, it so consistently embraces Arab despotism at the expense of Isreali democracy? The anti-Semitism of the UN is often shocking. The UN is valuable in a limited role--as a sounding board for US policies, and as a legitimizer of international diplomacy. But it cannot possibly fill the role of final arbiter on matters of war and peace. It is simply too limited and too compromised to usurp the traditional role of nation states.
When did TMcWarHawk go over to the Dark Side? First, we've so infantilized the Iraqi people through our actions, i.e., the actions of something called "the West," that they can't speak for themselves, even when they shout, at the top of their lungs, for us to go. Plus, the existence of "tyranny" gives us a blank check to invade other countries, at least countries in which the West has been involved. Guess that rules out Atlantis, Shangri-La, and Paradise Island. Oh, and Monster Island.
Then, we can just ignore the international community as embodied in the U.N. OK, the U.N. is a terribly flawed institution, but what else is there? Well, I guess there is the nation state, the role of which should not be usurped by the U.N. That un-usurpable role? Invading nations we deem to be tyrannical, I guess.
Seriously, why not just sign on to the whole Project for a New American Century program while you're at it? It's the Pax Americana one way or the other.
And to think that this discussion was sparked by my concern about how even legitimate political arguments can be abused, and that that means that political thinkers and writers should think through the consequences of legitimating aggressive warfare for other than self-defensive purposes.
I'm curious if TMcWarHawk really believes that the U.S. is somehow responsible for the Rwandan genocide. If he is, then is he willing to support U.S. reparations for our irresponsible failure to stop that slaughter? If we are really responsible, then we should pay the victims, the survivors, reparations, right?
Btw, a little bird tells me that this discussion is getting kind of bogged down. Maybe it's time to move on? I'm sure the WarHawk will want to respond, but then, maybe a new subject?
(Before WarHawk says it, I'm not admitting defeat. In fact, this exchange has confirmed my views on holding fast to wars of self-defense alone. Wilson raises some interesting points about economic intervention; I'm not sure where he would come down on those issues, himself, but worth mulling over.)
posted by Number Three @ 9:00 PM
1 Comments:
One of funniest things about this debate is that you keep forgetting that, just like you, I have opposed the Iraq War from day one, vocally and unequivocally, just on different grounds.
We are not now arguing, nor have we ever argued, about whether the US should have invaded. What we are arguing about, if I may remind you, is whether invading Iraq to topple a brutal tyrant is wrong PER SE, or just wrong under the given circumstances. My view, the Lockean view, I might add, is that, in general, toppling brutal tyrants is a good thing, although given the great moral dangers involved in waging a non-defensive war, such interventions should not be undertaken with a breezy indifference to the political realities on the ground. In other words, this is not an issue that can be decided by your "bright lines," washing your hands of a brutal tyranny for which we bear some indirect responsibility. Rather, it falls into that gray area of "morally permissible," if and only if the circumstances are right, as here, we all agree, they were not.
Your position fails on specific grounds as well. For example, you claim that the invasion was unwarranted because the Iraqis "shout, at the top of their lungs, for us to go." But they did not so shout while they were suffering under Saddam. How many of those who now want us to go never wish we had never come in the first place? I guarantee you that the numbers are very different. Their actual shouts are something more like, "Thank you very much for toppling Saddam, now go!" They also weren't "infantilized." They lived under a despot who allowed no free speech. Big difference. Your argument consistently depends upon skating past crucial distinctions, and as such resembles nothing so much as the "bright line" Bushies who think that if you don't follow the exact party line you're aiding the terrorists. "WarHawk," indeed!
Finally, you raise the question of whether or not we were "responsible" for the genocide in Rwanda. Once again, you adopt a strikingly libertarian notion of responsibility, as if it can only go to ONE individual actor, and as if all blame were morally equivalent. No, we are not the ones primarily responsible for the genocide. We weren't wielding machetes, obviously, and we did not create the direct circumstances of tribal warfare, which are quite old. But we are responsible in the less direct sense that we had the power to intervene and did nothing (as also the Europeans, although they had lesser means at their disposal). So our responsibility is not that of the mugger, but that of the passer-by who sees the mugging and has a cell phone ready to alert the police, but doesn't dial for fear that he's already running late to pick up the groceries.
I'm still awaiting your surrender, oh coddler of tyrants.
Post a Comment
<< Home