February 04, 2003

War -- what is it good for?

Gimpysoft blogs about N.Z. Bear's cross blog debate proposal between the (we will use these terms in lieu of better ones) anti-war and pro-war folks. Stand Down has responded. What I have noticed about the anti-war and pro-war sides is that the anti-war folks all seem to be worried mostly about the possible future (will the Bush administration establish democracy in Iraq -- which sounds rather as if Democracy was something one could slap on a country like a coat of paint -- or just abandon the place; will millions of civilians be killed; will the Arab street get even angrier and hate us even more; will world opinion think any less of us -- etc.); while the pro-war people are mostly (though not exclusively) concentrating on what is going on right now (with the exception of fears of Hussein being able to build and launch a nuclear weapon at some future time) -- are Iraqis not being tortured and killed right now, is Hussein not a dictator with expansionist aims right now, is he hiding weapons and leading the UN inspection team a merry dance right now.

I am as worried about future ramifications of any action we take as anybody -- except for the "anger of the Arab street" and "world opinion," as if the latter was some monolithic thing anyway -- but a lot of the anti-war people seem to not merely be speculating but to be declaring that their prognostications will come true. There is a similar dislike of uncertainty affecting both groups, but so far the weight of actual present-day evidence is on the pro-war side, or so it seems to my inexpert eyes. When anti-war spokespersons make claims that are based not on fact but on political biases (i.e., George W. Bush is going to war in order to steal all of Iraq's oil resources*, the American military will bomb indiscriminately -- for objections in that vein just look up last year's No War in Afghanistan screeds and replace "Afghanistan" with "Iraq" -- and so on), I am not inclined to take their arguments as seriously.

*Anyone who leaves a "Doesn't he?" comment here will have their comment deleted. I am no longer interested in the "he wants to steal their Oooiiiillll" argument.

Posted by Andrea Harris at February 4, 2003 10:23 AM
Comments

Doesn't he?

Sorry, couldn't resist. I don't blame you for the "Doesn't He?" crap though. It does get old.

Posted by: Tony at February 4, 2003 at 12:11 PM

Was it you who said your response to the braindead "no blood for oil" mantra-chanters was, "OK, no oil for you"? Now that's ALWAYS what I think when I hear that non-argument, ideally in the voice of the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld.

Posted by: David Jaroslav at February 4, 2003 at 12:30 PM

Oooooiiiilll-ent green is people!

Posted by: David Perron at February 4, 2003 at 12:36 PM

Oooooiiiilll-ent green is people!

Posted by: David Perron at February 4, 2003 at 12:36 PM

The whole "democracy in Iraq" business is fascinating to me, as a China analyst.

Basically, there seems to be some recognition on the part of the anti-war crowd that, in fact, democracy DOESN'T simply come about. That, in the case of Afghanistan, and almost certainly Iraq, it will require years and years of occupation, re-education, teaching, etc.

Yet, switch the site (say, to China), and all of a sudden, it's "Don't trade with them 'til they become a democracy." Usually along the lines of "Corporate Amerikkka doesn't care about democracy, they're just interested in money."

But, switch the site again (say, to the Soviet Union), and somehow, demanding the USSR become a democracy never really resonated at all. And no one suggests that we should try to make Cuba a democracy at all.

Somehow, when democracy becomes a "good for me, but not for thee" kind of thing, the commitment to it, as a basis for not going to war, becomes REAL fudgy.

Just a thought....

Posted by: Dean at February 4, 2003 at 12:53 PM

The anti-war crowd is afraid we will attempt to force democracy on Iraq.

For once, their worst fears are absolutely true: just like we enforced democracy in Germany and Japan after WW2, I suspect we can and will do the same with Iraq. And why not? It worked pretty damned good for Germany and Japan.

Posted by: James P at February 4, 2003 at 01:23 PM

Good regime changes: converting the Third Reich and Imperial Japan into working democracies.

Bad regime change: chucking out the Kaiser and replacing him with an incompetent democracy which shortly gave way to a tyrant several orders of magnitude worse than the monarch we originally got rid of. Thus laying on the following generation the awful necessity of implementing the good regime change noted above.

Now we're contemplating another regime change. Let's hope it turns out to be a good one.

Posted by: Ken at February 5, 2003 at 10:06 AM

Besides anti-war protesters, I'm tired of other countries critizing America for actions, no matter what we do. Either we're aggressive warmongers, forcing our will on other countries, or we're uncaring materialists who don't want to get involved. It's a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation. The U.S. is one of the largest contributers of foreign aid, and it is usually our children shedding blood on these battle fields.If I had a choice, we would switch to alternative fuels, and lessen our dependence on those countries that hate us, and leave them to their bloody unrest.But because they commit atrocities against their own people and others, wouldn't we then be accused of letting holocausts on par with that of the Jews take place in the world? Will we try to appease Saddam like the English Chancellor did with Hiltler? Like I said, damned if we do, damned if we don't. This whole thing hits me to the core because my nephew is being shipped off, and all of this leaves me feeling confused and angry.

Posted by: Mary at February 7, 2003 at 12:27 PM