Yesterday was the five year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq and the people who don't believe in war celebrated by executing a nation-wide series of vigils in their campaign of moral and polemical intimidation.
War by other means.
That is perhaps the signal irony of the anti-war movement--it is child of people who just love conflict and confrontation. These are people don't actually mind war, they had no problem with the wars engaged in and supported by the former Soviet Union, nor do they decry the aggressive actions of their favorite socialist dictators against democratic neighbors or the non-compliant opponents of the glorious revolution.
The long and short of it is that these people are not anti-war protestors--they've been at war with free enterprise and free peoples for generations at this point. So why the Iraq war? Why oppose that war but not the U.S. involvement in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia?
That is the crux of the issue as well as the explanation for why the Iraq war is not just important, but the right war for us at this time in history.
Let's first understand that what the left is really angry about is not Iraq, or the troops, the lives of "innocent Iraqis"--they care about socialism. In the history of the world, no ideology has killed more people than socialism/communism/Marxism but you never saw anyone protesting the Chinese or the Soviets and demanding that they disarm. It is only when the forces and ideologies of individual freedom threaten the totalitarian paradises that these people run out into the streets to oppose "war".
The biggest threat to socialism since the 19th century has been globalization, an awkward term for the adoption of political, legal and economic reforms designed to encourage foreign investment and the development of local economies. That in itself seems pretty innocuous, but its the side effects that are particularly disturbing--the creation of bourgeois classes in nations all over the world (what non-socialists would call a 'middle-class'), the subsequent pressures for wide-open democracies and all the poor prospects for socialism in those newly prosperous countries. Far worse has been the undeniable ameliorative effects that every country which has adopted evil notions of private property, rule of law and bureaucratic transparency, has experienced. The contrast is stark--Saudi Arabia and South Korea had approximate the same per capita income before Korea transformed itself into a free market economy. Saudi remains a backwater nation with a GDP of 5K per capita, while South Korea enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world. Brazil will soon overtake France economically (if they haven't already). Vietnam has one of the fastest growing economies in the world.
The bright spots (dark spots?) for socialism lay with the totalitarian oil regimes of the world--Venezuela, Iran and Iraq. These countries had the will and the resources to export the glorious revolution, or at least undermine the progress of globalism. It became absolutely critical to prop up these regimes by any and all means.
They've managed to get themselves called the anti-war movement, but the reality is that they are pro-war; a war against the final victory of freedom.
If you really want an end to war, then you have to support the Iraq war. Its just that simple.
Set aside the notions of WMD or imminent attack by the Saddam Hussein regime--every way needs a pretext and we had several. The fact is that we were at war with Iraq for 13 years. We didn't want to let Saddam run amok in the Gulf region, and so we looked for a low-cost way to contain him--low cost to us and our friends. Where were the weepers for the half million children who died during the long dark night of UN sanctions? Where was the anger at "our allies" for doing deals with the socialist dictator while his people suffered every imaginable atrocity.
Finally, finally, a moral man not only saw that what we were doing was--there is really no better word for this--wicked--but in fact counter-productive. 9/11 is the proof that a policy of containment is like welding the valves on a boiler shut and turning up the heat--sooner or later your going to get an explosion.
Every war has led to the next war until we, the people of the United States, decided to change the game--something we as a nation have a singular talent for. We didn't impose ruinous reparations on Germany and Japan, we imposed democracy, rule of law, private property rights and freedom and they didn't complain. Six decades later, these countries are the most prosperous and freest in the world--free even to stick it us diplomatically as Germany's fundamentally obstreperous nature demands from time to time.
A continent that had been at war for millenia found itself peaceful for the first time since the Pax Romana.
The stuff works.
The middle east is a minor problem by comparison. They are less war-like than the 19th and early 20th century Europeans, less well-armed, less economically formidable. They are, like early 20th century Europe, caught in the crossfire of great cultural, ethnic and religious rivalries. We've taken out one of the aggressive power structures--only one more to go, and there is every reason to believe that there will finally, at long last, be peace in the middle east.
I've mentioned from time to time the Golden Arches theory of conflict prevention which holds that no two countries hosting McDonald's franchises have ever gone to war with each other. Some have pointed out that Serbia, and the recent unpleasantness between Israel and Lebanon disprove the theory, but they may in fact be exceptions that prove the rule. Serbia quickly capitulated, arguably because they had no desire to be a pariah state. The Israeli conflict with Lebanon was in fact an action directed not at the Lebanese government, but at a deeply entrenched terror organization (Friedman has since updated this with the Dell theory of conflict prevention, which holds that no two countries that are part of the global supply chain will ever go to war with each other...)
I believe the conclusion is inescapable--we must liberate the few remaining holdouts on democracy to finally achieve what every reasonable person wants--a world free of war. One must then conclude that those who oppose the obvious path to peace are (a) unreasonable or (b) oppose peace.
I can understand why the left so fervently hopes there is no God. They are worried that they will be justifiably damned to hell.
Posted by Mick Stockinger on March 20, 2008 7:58 AM
| Permalink
Comments (7)
"These are people don't actually mind war, they had no problem with the wars engaged in and supported by the former Soviet Union, nor do they decry the aggressive actions of their favorite socialist dictators against democratic neighbors or the non-compliant opponents of the glorious revolution."
If it makes it easier for you to discount the anti-Iraq occupation arguments by assuming your opponents are all Stalinist sympathizers then so be it. At least you’re being consistent. You usually prefer name calling to substantive discussion of the actual issues you bring up in your posts.
Our nation is half a trillion dollars poorer and lacking several thousand of our best and brightest citizens because of this pointless war which hasn’t made our country safer in any demonstrable way. Your foolish name-calling doesn’t make that unfortunate situation seem any less real to this reader of your blog.
Posted by Jeremy | March 20, 2008 9:42 AM
Posted on March 20, 2008 09:42
Its not a matter of ease, but simple mistrust.
I don't believe your protestation that you have a moral reason to oppose the war because you didn't oppose the sanctions which killed far more people and you never complained about the cost of the Marshall program which amounted to 13 billion dollars in a 41 billion dollar economy. In today's dollars, we would have to spend 4.3 trillion dollars to do something comparable.
The inconsistency of the anti-war left is stark evidence of their perfidy.
Its not the money, its not the lives.
Unlike the typical lefty anti-war screed, I've given you a wealth of facts. You respond with weak protestations of expense as if freedom and peace had no value, were worth no investment.
I suspect that you feel guilt about your position, and the best thing that could ever happen to you is to eventually feel shame, because shame would initiate a change for the better. Or you can do what so many dysfunctional people do--reconfigure the universe to justify yourself.
Posted by Mick Stockinger | March 20, 2008 10:03 AM
Posted on March 20, 2008 10:03
The money and the lives spent on this crusade are the issue Mick. America doesn't have the resources or political will to enforce freedom and democracy on a world that despises us.
Your happy optimism that the invasion and occupation of Iraq will convince that entire region of the world to embrace democracy isn’t supported by a study of history. Europe devastated its population and economy in two world wars and 70 years of Communist dictatorship before the people of that continent abandoned or significantly changed their former cultures and chose a better way. Our efforts to violently force Iraq to be free through decades of occupation may succeed but your position ignores the costs of this risky policy. For you to focus on name-calling and projection of guilt as you have in your post and comment does more to reveal your own doubts than any guilt I may or may not feel at possibly being incorrect.
I agree with you that economic globalization is the key to creating a peaceful and stable world. Using violence to enforce universal globalization isn’t an economically or politically viable policy for the United States. If everything in Iraq turns out wonderfully I’ll be glad. How much will that have cost us? How many other nations will demand the same or higher costs as your policy continues to be applied throughout that region and around the world? Let’s not forget the opportunity costs this policy imposes on our nation politically as well as economically. Anti-American regimes have far more latitude now than before the Iraq invasion because everyone in the world knows that the American people are war-weary and less willing than at any other time since the post-Vietnam years to impose their international priorities militarily. Whether we succeed or fail in Iraq a great argument can be made that the USA is less secure than before because Americans are less willing to rely on military solutions to international problems than we were before this crusade.
The burden of proving that these costs are worth the possible (not guaranteed) benefits is yours to bear not mine. I don’t think you’ve met that burden and the petty name-calling in this post doesn't help.
Posted by Jeremy | March 20, 2008 12:07 PM
Posted on March 20, 2008 12:07
1. 3,000 deaths, even American deaths, is nothing in this context. The US overthrew a devil who'd murdered 100's of thousands and started wars with over a million casualties. On this front, Jeremy, you could more ratonally concern yourself with road safety in the US (200,000 deaths since the invasion of Iraq), than ahistorical handwringing.
2. Non-combatant deaths in Iraq are almost exclusively the work of murderers against whom America is fighting.
3. America is not despised for invading Iraq. It is despised for weakness. Stalin, Bin Laden, Bush and I are all agreed on that.
4. America is not occupying Iraq. It is there at the request of the extremely legitimate government of Iraq.
5. The American people seem not to object to Bush's position on Iraq, but to surrendering in Iraq else Bush would not have been re-elected and McCain would not be leading Obama.
6. The stated purpose of Islamists is violently and demographically to establish a caliphate.You may think that is far-fetched as regards America, but it is certainly feasible for an emboldened, ruthless, dynamic Islam to take over much of Europe. Is that ok by you? Think that America's interests can be preserved in an island fortress? By far the cheapest way to block that outcome is to make the stand early and define which is the strong horse - history shows that quite convincingly, especially modern history.
7. Your summary of 20th century European wars as a process of learning that war is a bad thing is almost beautiful in its childlike holiness.
Posted by mark adams | March 20, 2008 2:55 PM
Posted on March 20, 2008 14:55
Mark,
1. 4000 American troop deaths is something. Especially since they have been lost in a conflict that can't be shown to have made Americans any safer.
2. Ok.
3. American troops in Iraq do nothing to prove America's strength. As stated above, America is weaker for having wasted so much economic and political capital on the project.
4. A government that can't maintain power on its own, even if democratically elected, is by definition illegitimate.
5. I agree that removing troops from Iraq would be a foolish move. My argument is that they never should have been kept there in the first place. We're stuck there now.
6. Every Islamist I've met disagrees with you. There may be some wackos among adherents of Islam but most don't want to take over the world. Our presence in Iraq isn't doing much to make life difficult for most of the extremist groups. If they are your real concern maybe you should turn your focus onto Afganistan, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. There wasn't any policy among the Baathists in 2003 Iraq to establish a caliphate.
7. Wow that is pretty clever. You got around addressing the point by resorting to insulting condesention. I would never have thought laziness like that was possible from writers on this site...oh wait...nevermind.
If simplistic generalizations like that which you're mocking in my last comment weren't allowed there wouldn't be a single post or comment on this site that couldn't be answered with your "oh how cute" retort.
Posted by Jeremy | March 20, 2008 4:35 PM
Posted on March 20, 2008 16:35
7. Just to lean into the wind...it's "condescension"
Posted by mark adams | March 21, 2008 6:04 AM
Posted on March 21, 2008 06:04
Mark: Points out spelling error FTW!
Nice.
Posted by Jeremy | March 21, 2008 7:39 AM
Posted on March 21, 2008 07:39