Humanitarianism And Iraq

I referenced Norman Geras a couple of times here, so that may explain why The Tone-Deaf Mushroom is now among the links on his blog, though I like to think my charming personality has something to do with it (stop laughing). Endorsements or criticism always make it easier for me to write, because I don't feel as though I am venting into a void. So thank you, Norm, though admittedly I never dreamt I would receive promotion from a Marxism scholar!

The issue that attracted me to Geras' blog in the first place was his thoughtful approach to the Iraq War. From his latest post on the topic:

We were not choosing between a real-world war and an ideal-world peace (of glowing humanitarian projects), any more than critics will be willing to allow the opposite - that we were choosing between an ideal-world war (of glorious, costless liberation) and a tarnished real-world peace. We were choosing between a real regime-change war and a real avoidance of war that would have spared the regime in question - with all the complexities there are, of value and of cost and benefit, on either side of that choice structure. The pressure to simplify possibly reflects some troubledness of mind with a less simplified statement of the case. It's hard to know.

Of course my screed is what it is, long and repetitive, in no small part due to those complexities. I recently wrote an e-mail (reprinted in revised form below, for archival purposes) that offered a few summery notes precisely because we need more serious discussion on what the war meant and what it should mean for us today.

I mentioned that the international community should have put more pressure on Hussein than Bush if it were genuinely concerned about peace. The response was that there is "a huge difference between trying to increase pressure on a country like Iraq via international coalitions." That is true. Even something like a World War II-style coalition of the willing would suffice. Apparently, America went into Iraq unilaterally--nobody from England, or Australia, or Poland, not even strictly humanitarian support from countries like Japan. Still, I must say America is doing well considering that there is no international coalition in Iraq.

The United Nations received a mention. The U.N. exposes the biggest flaw in U.S. foreign policy: We are the wealthiest nation in the world, so why aren't we buying nations off? It worked for Saddam for years. The Enron on the East River illustrates time and time again that you can get at least helpful indifference for anything, up to and including genocide, provided you make the right noises. It may catch up with you later, perhaps, but unless some agitators like the United States or Australia raise a fuss, by then you achieved whatever it is was you wanted and can safely retire to a comfy villa in France. One of our fair-weather allies made a chunk of change aiding the slaughter in Rwanda, Sudan remains a killing field, six countries facing sanctions for ongoing human rights abuses made a full third of the commission to investigate human rights abuses, Iran has a say regarding cracking down on WMD proliferation, etc., so perhaps America should pay its dues to the international Murder, Inc., chalk up some brownie points by spreading the cash to kleptocracies (before President Bush ruins all the best ones), and after awhile we'll be able to indiscriminately carpet bomb Antarctica (there is something fishy about those birds in formalwear). Plus, I see that a large number of U.N. peacekeepers are experts at pillaging, and we could use the help: Our rampage in Iraq has been a disaster; insurgents keep messing things up before our troops get a turn.

There was also a suggestion that those people mutilating others will behave if we just don't talk so mean.

Yes, I love making snarky comments, but there is more at stake.

Here is a story. Frank Devine's research for The Australian pointed to one conclusion on the Iraq invasion:

The Americans had established and then strengthened a military presence in countries surrounding Saudi Arabia - Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. Invasion of Iraq would complete the encirclement."

In short, illicit weapons programs and human rights abuses in Iraq provided a smokescreen for a containment policy against Saudi Arabia. Is it true? I have no idea. Is it a legitimate rationale for the war? Arguably. But it illustrates how the human tendency to lock into a specific possibility at the expense of all others can account for unnecessary conflicts. Devine may be correct, but that has nothing to do with why I support the presence in Iraq or whether my reasoning is correct. It is possible that both pro-intervention and anti-intervention forces are right to some extent (i.e., Bush did a good thing for bad reasons, or a bad thing for good reasons). It may actually explain some of the cognitive dissonance we see. My view of the Iraq War and subsequent occupation is not "Did [insert name here] justify this?" or some other question for which the answer can vary wildly depending on whatever narrow position you take, but the broad, challenging "Is this justifiable?" We need honesty and reason (and snarky comments).

Anyway, as promised...

From An E-Mail To My Friends

No human is so "good" as to be trusted with absolute control over others. That is one reason why having a representative government is so important as to be essential.

But if the world is so bad, how could any sane person see much good in himself? The average person surrounded by death does not conclude that he is immortal. Quite the opposite, in fact. So what is the man who sees himself in a positive light comparing himself to in order to make his conclusion? There is goodness in the world, and it requires defending. Vaclav Havel noted that "Evil must be confronted in its womb and, if it can't be done otherwise, then it has to be dealt with by force."

These are hardly ideas originating from "neo-conservatives". President Bill Clinton urged the overthrow of the Iraqi regime in 1998, Congress passed his bill making "Iraq liberation" official U.S. policy, and he signed it into law. Heck, just read what former Vice President Al Gore said in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations not too long ago:

Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms.

Also, Bush could only have invaded with the support of Congress (which holds the purse, and is the sole government power capable of legally authorizing military force) and the American people (he is a democratic politician, after all, and is thus very much poll-driven). Regardless of whether the decision was the right one, nobody can truthfully say it happened on a whim, was never debated, and bypassed the public and institutional checks-and-balances of our American republic.

There are many reasons why I stand by my support of the Iraq intervention. That it saved lives is one of them, no matter how bold the lies of those who wish it were otherwise. The lowest estimates indicate that Saddam Hussein's regime killed about 5,000 Iraqis every month by deliberately withholding food and medical supplies, and violently executed hundreds of Iraqis a month (including children). Unless we assume these practices would have ceased by now in Iraq without intervention (a rather difficult assumption, considering blowing up Iraqis or shoving them into plastic shredders were long established as regime entertainment), that equals at least 124,800 lives over 24 months. IraqBodyCount.net, which liberally includes "insurgents" as "civilians" and factors in unsubstantiated death claims, currently puts the Iraqi death toll at a maximum of 19,800. So the policy Clinton initiated saved around 105,000 Iraqis thus far. (Frankly, I am impressed that the Iraqi death rate is so low. I recall reading that the brief [and truly useless] war with Iraq in 1998 killed nearly 1,000 Iraqi civilians a day.)

I am not one for speculation that a Democratic president would have done better, whether in planning or merely leaving the gate. Gore was a major contributor to the policy of regime change in Iraq, and there are few circumstances where leaving a mass-murdering sociopathic dictator in power may be necessary. Gore has since changed his tune, true, but then that happens a lot when trying to appease a political base while part of a minority party. Clinton and his senator wife are still among the Democratic supporters of the Iraq War, so a President Gore, only having to worry about a hostile Congress and buoyed by his predecessor, may very well have gone much the same route as the current POTUS. I think of Art Buchwald's famous "If Goldwater Had Won" column.

As for culpability for lives lost (including Americans), here comes my own speculation: Everybody is to blame. The U.S. wanted the Husseins to go into exile, and for the United Nations to handle administration of Iraq a la Afghanistan--a handover that I propose would not have caused anywhere near as much bloodshed. All the international community had to do was apply enough pressure to Saddam & Sons. After all, the worst that could happen was what happened anyway when the international community chose to shout streams of rhetoric instead. France, China, Russia, etc., are as culpable as the United States, England, Australia, etc.; surely lives could have been saved had they made as much effort in working out a peaceful solution as they did in having fits and protests over one "last resort" solution many of them had approved previously.

I believe in liberty, specifically that "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others" (Thomas Jefferson). Where "rightful liberty" exists, I have little stomach for intrusions--not from my government, or anyone else's. If the people do not have it, I say we give them the opportunity to grab it, through force if necessary. It is the only social construct that inherently allows for its own rejection, so they can always opt for imprisonment or servitude later.

For my part, I still have hours' worth of unused notes and URLs, and all that research has me utterly convinced that going into Iraq was the correct thing to do come hell or high water. Iraq may be a morass, but it was one before the war. On top of the mass murder, the entire country’s infrastructure largely existed only in places Saddam liked, with a great many people surviving without such niceties as the electricity and clean water they have at least some access to now. True, he kept the people "in line" so that there were considerably fewer crimes and no terrorist attacks, but then Iraq had little need for criminals--Saddam's security forces offered better pay for the same activities. And unlike during Saddam reign, the new morass has always had a shot at ending in the foreseeable future. There is hope. That counts for quite a lot.