Iraq To The Future

Debate never hinges on what people know, but on what people believe they know. I have yet to find myself in an argument over whether fire burns, for example, but everyone has his talking points on Iraq. Human actions can be misguided, misread, mysterious. I know, because I oppose Big Government, favor gay marriage, think bans are an "un-nuanced" way to deal with problems such as drugs and abortion, believe all levels of government have social responsibilities, reject strict gun controls, support the Iraq intervention in principle, think Bush has actually done some things correctly, want Congress to raise the minimum wage, respect Condoleezza Rice immensely, and love to challenge and be challenged. Consequently, I have been called an anarchist, a closet Republican, a closet Democrat, a fascist, and a few synonyms of "moron." Turns out that people just think differently (when they think at all).

If you know me, you probably know my four-point action theory:

1. One can view actions as legitimate or illegitimate based on the morals of those doing the actions. The idea is that ulterior motives undermine even the most righteous aim. A crime-lord's henchman can turn his bosses over to the feds, but if he does it in order to take over the operation then society is hardly better for the exchange.

2. One can view actions in terms of whether we can justify the act ourselves. The argument is that people can do good things for the wrong reasons, so the morality of the actor is separate from that of the action. A donation through convenience can benefit the needy as well as any through charity.

3. A person can also view actions in terms of how they occur. An action can be personally and objectively justified, but the methods used can damage credibility. Even Belloq knows one shouldn't use a bulldozer to find a china cup.

4. Another perspective focuses on results. The end may not justify the means, but it sure is nice when happy endings occur by providence or human hand.

This may be an oversimplification, but most people I know consider all four factors. For example, (1) there is no doubt in my mind that President Bush was political about Iraq and so engaged in some dubious exaggerations, omissions, and contacts. But then his statements were reasonably honest compared to many pundits', including a significant number that chose to mislead in the opposing direction. Certainly I never bought conservative arguments that Bill Clinton killed 4,000 Iraqis and signed the pivotal Iraq Liberation Act "for no good reason," and do not buy them now that they are liberal arguments against George W. Bush. Instead, (2) I hold my head high among the dwindling number of Iraq interventionists and speak out against unfair criticisms because blowing the lid off of a U.N.-sponsored murder-for-profit scheme, giving others the option of democracy, and pushing anti-authoritarian agendas are all traditional liberal ideas that Clinton, Bush and the vast majority of Congress, even now, deserve credit for promoting in Iraq. I also happen to think there is valid historical and moral precedent for disposing of dictators who invade neighboring countries, target Jews, bar free and fair elections, gas fellow countrymen, torture political opponents, murder into the seven digits, endorse ethnic cleansing, and have silly mustaches. (3) The manner in which this happened raises questions about the mores of both sides of the debate, although the government's failure to engage the world press and to forcefully repudiate torturers and abusers among its own ranks has done the most to allow growing numbers of people to see individuals who rape, behead, and slaughter innocents as more sympathetic. (4) Nobody can be certain of the future, especially not with "war fever" and "war fatigue" at issue, so I will not join the pundits in this particular guessing-game. I will only say that the consequences of engaging in a war without a decisive victory usually, historically match or surpass the damages from the war itself, so I hope that there is a decisive victory, that any American withdraw without one bucks the trend and, if it does not, that America will hasten to aid again.

So there ya go, a few scattered thoughts for use as fertilizer. (Sorry about the smell.)