For a good look at what pissed-off Middle America is thinking, check out the invaluable James Lilek’s bleat (actually, more of a screed) today.
Immediately below the picture of the protestor with the sign saying “I (heart) New York even more without the World Trade Center,”* Lileks cuts to the heart of the matter:
That, Ladies and Gentlemen, is a traitor. He may be an idiot, a maroon, a 33rd degree moonbat, but he’s still a traitor. That is a man who celebrates the death of Americans (and others) and supports the people who killed them. Oh, sure, he’s nuts. But he fits right in. So what were all these people against, exactly?
A free press in Iraq. Freedom to own a satellite dish. Freedom to vote. A new Constitution that might actually be worth the paper on which it’s printed. Oil revenues going to the people instead of Saddam, or French oligopolies. Freedom to leave the country. Freedom to demonstrate against the people who made it possible for you to demonstrate.
Freedom. More freedom now than before, and yes it comes with peril; it always does, at first. But freedom is either in retreat, or on the advance. These people marched to protest the premature bestowal of freedom by exterior forces. Better the Iraqi people live under the boot for 20 years, and rise up and get slaughtered and rise up again and slaughter those who killed their kin, then have Bush push the FF button and get it over with now. Better they suffer for the right reasons than live better for the wrong ones.
As the man says, read the whole thing.
The major obstacle faced by many opponents of the war in Iraq is that already, a year later, Iraq is demonstrably better off in almost every way than it was under Hussein. Even the worst feature of the current scene, the terror attacks, pose less of a threat to most Iraqis than Saddam’s regime did. It is very difficult to argue against a war that has been so immediately and obviously beneficial; that is why opponents so often have to resort to abstractions and platitudes about the UN and lack of international cooperation. Underneath it all, it is more important to the committed Left and its new Islamist allies that the US lose than that a nation of millions be given a decent shot at freedom and prosperity.
*= I believe this sign to be genuine, and not a photoshop job. If you believe otherwise, well, comments are open.
Lileks should be daily reading. His other stuff and odd collections are fascinating and funny (the cookbook stuff from the 50’s is awesome). His commentary is powerful and understated.
After reading the ‘bleat’ link it just reinforces the notion that this is an idealogical/economic war at the root (is any war, hot or cold, not about economics?). It is ‘our’ system or ‘theirs’. The system of free markets, protected from force, and the elimination of collectivist thinking that attacks it (communist/fascist/islamacist/monarchist). We are not merely freeing specific peoples from self contained tryanny (it can be debated that is ever our job), but ensuring access to economic resources when they are at risk. If we are economically isolated, then we don’t have to worry about country A attacking country B, regardless of the political/economic structures of either. But if we are to trade, then we become interested parties, and our objective is to gainfully trade, and we become involved in the socio-political realities of the region. If, meanwhile, we can invest our trading partner with Western classical liberal ideals (instead of the notion of valiantly freeing a people from their tyranny by force), all the better. If we have to beat off 12th century religious fanatics to help preserve 17th century monarchists from attack by 20th century fascists, so be it, we will use force as necessary to meet that objective. But the 19th century collectivists in our midst try and prevent us from executing a 21st century application of classical liberal ideas burgeoning into individualism. That about sums up the situation for me.
The original photo can be found here. No, it isn’t photoshopped. Feel free to go one level up and look at a lot more photos.
The new Iraqi constitution isn’t anything to write home about. It’s very similar to the USA one – except, it has socialist “entitlements” and gun grabbing written in right into the un-amendable part. Oo, lovely.
Bashing leftist idiotarians is good fun but it doesn’t move the ball down the field. The point is that there are also intelligent grounds (as well as dumb ones) for opposing the invasion of Iraq — chiefly that it is doomed to fail in the long run because, since there is no such thing as an Iraqi people, and no such thing as an Iraqi community of destiny, there can be no such thing as a democratic Iraq. A civil war is inevitable the moment the US troops leave. Isn’t that obvious? Sadam’s demise was very good news indeed. But the coming anarchy and chaos may be even a greater hell on earth than the Baathist regime.
Is a year’s relative freedom worth a decade of internecine war and mutual genocide between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds?
See, the thing is, the US has wealth and power. How it achieved all of that is open for debate. But the US has no intrinsic obligation to use that wealth and power to make things better in any part of the world expect within its own borders and territories. The US government is not constituted to be the world’s policeman, or the aggressive deliverer of “liberty” to foreign peoples. It is constituted to protect the people of the US and promote a society of liberty under the rule of law at home. The historical subtext of the constitution is also that the government should carry out its duties, making the minimum necessary demands on the lives and resources that otherwise belong to the people. I’ll admit that this particular baby has often been tossed out with the bathwater over the years, but that’s the ideal, at least.
The war in Iraq, whatever good it has brought to Iraqis, and whatever good its aftermath may bring to them, still killed a lot of them: thousands that might not have died, had we not intervened (not including the thousands killed before the war as a result of such interventions as sanctions and actual bombings of Iraqi territory). Would Saddam have killed the same thousands? Different thousands? More? Fewer? We’ll never know. It does, however, seem specious to claim that Iraq is “demonstrably better off in almost every way than it was under Hussein.” I would more readily believe that, if it were the position of a large association of the families of the dead; I doubt you’ll find such a thing to be true, however, and nobody can ask the dead people themselves what they think.
The thing that I have always found both fascinating and repugnant about the war supporters here on Samizdata is that they discuss the deaths of thousands so blithely. I am as horrified by such talk as I have been when equally glib pundits against the war have tried to downplay the number of deaths on 9/11 as only being a few thousand, after all.
We’re talking about people’s lives here: Americans (and many others!) who didn’t deserve to die on 9/11; the grieving families and friends they left behind; American soldiers who swore to obey their superiors but who, for the most part who enlisted to protect the US, not to join the “legion of global freedom,” hundreds of whom are now dead; Americans who don’t believe the war is right, but who have been overruled by those who do, and who must now forfeit property, effort, and perhaps even life to prosecute the war they oppose; Iraqis who didn’t give a damn about Saddam or the US, or oil — who only wanted to live their lives and be with their families — but who, nevertheless got caught in the crossfire and are now dead, maimed, grieving for lost loved ones, or picking up the pieces of their shattered lives; Iraqis who must now accept a government and constitution imposed from abroad; and a host of others.
We talk about weapons of mass destruction, and the modern face of 21st century war, as if the fundamental truths and mechanisms of war have changed since all those old dead white guys wrote the US constitution. Yet so far, the war in Iraq has proceeded in ways, and has yielded consequences, that the founders could well understand and foresee. In their foresight, they tried to make the prosecution of an aggressive war one of the most difficult things ever for the US government to start, and yet even more difficult to sustain. Even so, here we are, and part of the reason for that is because the mood and expectations of the people have changed over the past few decades. Where once, the US people believed that the North American continent was a big enough territory, now we think it is OK — even desirable — to control and even occupy other countries if we can. Where once, the US people believed that our mission was to be as prosperous as we could be within our own borders, to welcome immigrants and refugees, and to serve as an example of liberty to inspire the spread of freedom around the world, now we feel it is OK to aggressively export whatever we currently call “freedom” to other countries. Where once, Americans were moved to revolution over a few pennies tax per pound of tea, and believed that the legitimate functions of government were few, now they tolerate taxation that is orders of magnitude greater and more pervasive, in support of government programs and initiatives that extend into all areas of business and personal conduct, and without which aggressive war would be impractical.
See, the thing is, we know empires eventually fall. That story has been written many times, with many variations, but the end is always basically the same. What we didn’t know was how long a government of the people, by the people, and for the people could endure. Instead of moving forward with that great, ongoing American experiment, we seem to be veering into the exit lane, headed for Empire City. Along the road, we’ll do a little good here, a little evil there, and eventually, perhaps quickly, in violent conflict, or gradually, through creeping corruption and laziness, we the empire will go away. The familiar story will be written with the lives of those now living, and those yet to come. Some will live who would have died or never been born; some will never be born, or will die when they might have lived. Long ago, realizing that lives would be spent either way, our commitment was to spend those lives learning and building something that was new and unique in the world. So many people here seem happy to abandon that quest, in favor of restaging past plays with new players, costumes, and props. It’s all good fun, isn’t it, unless your life is one of those being spent for someone else’s ambition or glory.
Is a year’s relative freedom worth a decade of internecine war and mutual genocide between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds?
As long as they’re not invading trading partners, what is it to me? I’d rather have them fighting amongst themselves versus one cowing the others and invading neighbors. Our interest is oil, and rightly so. Africans are constantly bashing each other over the head due to tribal strife etc. It doesn’t effect me, my property, or the environment I trade in. Gum Base isn’t a lynch pin of the economy. Oil is. It’s too bad 40% sits under the middle east and its totalitarians.
Where once, the US people believed that our mission was to be as prosperous as we could be within our own borders
At the core I agree with what you’ve said. But it presumes wealth and prosperity within our own borders. The reality is that we are not economincally isolationist, we therefore cannot afford to be militarily either. Once we become dependent on a foreign good the likes of oil, we must fight to protect it. The founders knew this to be true as well. We didn’t choose to become involved in Europe’s squabbles, but when it directly effected our trade and shipping, we certainly did. War with France was very possible due to caribbean intrigues and high seas confiscation. We did war with England over pretty much the same thing. It can be debated whether these were within our borders.
It is when the machine inverts itself, and fosters the process, tries to be ‘proactive’. It is then that we have a clear problem, getting too comfortable with militarism. I certainly don’t want that. I don’t want a return to imperialism. But I do want to have the proper use of force, and that includes protecting trading partners from harm. Iraq attacked Kuwait. Iraq was tossed out. Iraq needed to comply with ‘probationary’ rules. They didn’t. The UN refused to act based on some World United rationale. We attacked based on economic need. The fact it came down to that is logical, as our (and the UK’s) economic needs weren’t France’s or Germany’s or Russia’s, hence the fracturing in the World Union. For me Iraq isn’t about terrorism (directly, there are other States who are as bad or worse whom we are not attacking) not about liberating people from tyranny (there are dark blots around the globe).
It’s about economic stability. Innocent people may have to pay in the process, but if they demanded their liberties from their ‘government’ and were willing to pay the price it required, then it is a lot less likely the would be between the anvil and the hammer. But most live in a haze of totalitarianism of one brand or another and yield to it. It is too bad.
Good God, what a march to miss. I was in Stanford visiting a buddy just this weekend and nutball lefties wanted us to go join them in their march against the “US Occupation for oil” or whatever the overhyped reason of the day was. I was actually thinking of going, just to see what idiocy would abound, but ended up deciding to sleep off the hangover instead.
I’m not sure if I made the right choice or not. On the one hand I could have seen all these idiots up close and personal. But on the other I probably couldn’t keep from pointing out their idiocy, which would get rather messy in the midst of a few thousand of them. I wonder if they’d shut me up by force if I wouldn’t stop tormenting them 🙂
The new Iraqi constitution isn’t anything to write home about.
Except compared to the old one, and to every other “constitution” (written and unwritten) in that part of the world. Julian gives a good example of the expectations game that I occasionally discuss – because it isn’t ideal, it doesn’t matter how much of an improvement it is.
The point is that there are also intelligent grounds (as well as dumb ones) for opposing the invasion of Iraq — chiefly that it is doomed to fail in the long run because, since there is no such thing as an Iraqi people, and no such thing as an Iraqi community of destiny, there can be no such thing as a democratic Iraq. A civil war is inevitable the moment the US troops leave. Isn’t that obvious?
Not to me. I don’t think that the Iraqi people are “doomed” to a future of dictatorship and civil war. The three major slices of Iraq have been part of the same nation for quite some time now, dating back to their statuse as pre-WWI vilayets. I think the Iraqi people are quite capable of having a civil society, and that a confederal system can accomodate the various ethno-geographic divisions. Indeed, such a federal system, by creating competing power centers, is probably a better protector of liberty than the unitary ethno-geographic states of Europe.
Even if it is all doomed to failure, well, the “failure” is unlikely to be as bad as Saddam, and the strategic message delivered by the US (support terrorism and you die) is nonetheless valuable.
The US government is not constituted to be the world’s policeman, or the aggressive deliverer of “liberty” to foreign peoples. It is constituted to protect the people of the US and promote a society of liberty under the rule of law at home.
This domestic tranquillity cannot be achieved in a society that is under constant attack by terrorism. Thus, it is a duty of the US to track down and exterminate terrorists, even overseas, because they will not leave us alone. You can argue about the role that the Iraq campaign played in this overall war, but there is a strong case that it was the strategically smart move to make on a number of fronts.
It is not possible, in a world populated by bin Ladens and Husseins, to maintain a free society by playing nothing but defense. That is probably the real lesson of 9/11, in my mind.
James Merritt makes about a good a case against the war as one can, but I think his case is out of synch with certain fundamental realities. Foremost among them may be his assumption that this is a war of empire. The US did not go to war to establish an empire, and is not establishing one in Iraq or elsewhere. The US has consistently behaved in ways, during and after wartime, that confound accepted modes of fighting, and of treating defeated enemies. It is doing so again, and the results will also confound the received wisdom.
R C Dean writes: “The major obstacle faced by many opponents of the war in Iraq is that already, a year later, Iraq is demonstrably better off in almost every way than it was under Hussein.”
This begs the question of how it can be anything other than immoral to rob taxpayers in order to improve the living standards of foreigners. Libertarians complain about being taxed to pay for domestic welfare recipients – how can they then support being taxed to pay for foreign recipients of welfare?
“It is not possible, in a world populated by bin Ladens and Husseins, to maintain a free society by playing nothing but defense. That is probably the real lesson of 9/11, in my mind.”
The lesson of 9/11 is the one anticipated by the Founders over 200 years ago – military and political entanglements abroad make enemies and get the country involved in unnecessary conflicts. If the US had no military presence in the Middle East, and did not give two hoots about what happened there, then it is highly doubtful that Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden would ever have come to power, let alone decided that it was in their interest to attack a heavily armed neutral isolationist power half way round the world.
Now if the US had followed the founders foreign policy, and *still* been attacked by a Bin Laden i.e. by someone who simply wanted to destroy the US, despite the US minding its own business (e.g. someone like a Stalin or a Hitler), then I would completely agree with a retaliatory strike. But where is the evidence that this is the case?
As for Toolkein’s “economic interests” comment, what economic benefits do we get from a stable Iraq, to outweigh the huge costs of the invasion, occupation, and subsequent foreign aid to the country? The operation will be massively unprofitable on a net net basis.
As for Toolkein’s “economic interests” comment, what economic benefits do we get from a stable Iraq, to outweigh the huge costs of the invasion, occupation, and subsequent foreign aid to the country? The operation will be massively unprofitable on a net net basis.
Access to oil, and the consequences for not having access to oil are huge. You write why would a Middle Eastern country attack a neutral half a world away? Why, if we had no interests in the Middle East, is the US there? As for the UK, why would a Labour Prime Minister support military action even though it went against the grain relative to like minded peers in other European countries and the majority of the population back home? Perhaps he knew which way the wind blew when it came to guaranteeing a highly needed resource, that the costs of War were small in comparison to the economic effect of the alternative.
The CATO institute, which didn’t support war, rationalized that even if Saddam were to gain control of the majority of the reserves in the region that it could not adversely effect oil process to a degree over 1% of the US GDP per year (tried to find a link and had no luck, I read their point of view in one of their briefs about a year or so ago). By my calculations, that would be $100 Billion per year based on a $10 trillion US GDP. And that is an estimate from a group that didn’t support war, so I’ll fathom that the costs could be higher and that they were conservative in their estimate to preserve the efficacy of their point. I don’t think the costs of action are too prohibitive in this light. Also keep in mind that the US and UK were already spending a goodly amount (albeit not on scale with what has been spent for the War and rebuilding/occupation) to maintainn no-fly zones to lend support for the sanctions and bolster the inspection process until it prove futile. I certainly didn’t relish spending a tens of millions or more a year for the next 50 years in a Korea part II.
Of course no one can really know what costs there would be to the US (or UK) if one hegemon were to gain control of the oil reserves, but I don’t think we really want to find out. Considering that Venezuela can be a fickle belle when it comes to their oil (and they are relatively cozy with the Cubans right now from what I read) I certainly wouldn’t want to put all my eggs in that basket.
Immoral to rob the taxpayers in order to improve the living standards of foreigners?
?????
The British are foreigners, too, considering I’m an American. And look at the hassle, not to mention the deadbeats, we’ve gotten from the past 60 year during which “we wuz robbed” to help them.
A different shot of that same sign can be found here. Thanx to Little Green Footballs for the link.
Come on Julian, it’s better than Saddamisation. It’s a start.
Amazing they all signed it really. The only worry is Sistani, he who must be obeyed, who is now urging voters not to approve it.
He is pulling a De Valera.
There were similar goings on in Trafalgar Square on Saturday, and I took some pictures. Nothing quite as spectacular as “I prefer New York without the WTC” but there were plenty of hammers and sickles and a bunch of obviously critically thinking types cleansing their auras.