January 13, 2004
Warbloggers Circle Wagons; Dog Bites Man
take Nostradamus to predict that in the wake of reports about Paul ONeill,
the wars defenders would observe, accurately, that any post-Gulf War administration
would have had such conversations about Hussein, and that there was nothing
of interest in ONeills statements. The critics (of whom Im
one) naturally noted that this confirms suspicions that Bush exploited September
11th to accomplish a pre-existing policy agenda (Husseins removal and
a general rejection of multilateralism) rather than concentrating on the most
effective prosecution of the war on terror.
Its a tedious
debate, partly because positions on both sides have hardened into total inflexibility.
For me, given that I completely reject the kinds of anti-war arguments that
follow Chomsky or Soros lead or anyone similar, this immobility is especially
frustrating. I am potentially persuadable about the war, and have been ever
since September 11th. I needed and still need to be convinced that this war
in particular was urgently necessary, justifying the poor management of the
build-up to war. Most of the evidence that it was has now been disavowed by
the Administration itself.
was a tyrant, and needed to be overthrown because of his tyranny argument
is just about all thats left for the pro-war advocates. Theyre right
in this respect that it is great that his regime is overthrown and he is in
custody, but this remains a horribly dishonest argument for the war itself.
One might ask how I can say, A great thing to have done, but it was wrong
to do it. If I told you that I had a vitally important meeting to get
to that started in 30 minutes, and it was an hour away by car, and you drove
me at 120 miles an hour to get there on time, Id be grateful to have gotten
there once I was there, but I wouldnt want you to ever do that again.
The argument is
dishonest both in that its not how the war was sold to a democratic society,
even by most pro-war pundits and bloggers, and dishonest in that none of those
who offer it actually mean it to be a continuing rationale for policy in general.
Dont try to tell me that Im somehow supportive of Husseins
tyranny for criticizing the war, because I can serve up a steaming load of the
same whup-ass back on your plate, as Ive observed here before. If this
is the real reason for war, then you have to support another fifteen such wars
right now or be accused yourself of the same support for tyranny elsewhere.
Wilsonian idealism at this level is an all-or-nothing thing. Once you agree
that we must bow to what is pragmatically possible, that cost-to-benefit matters,
the war in Iraq is open to criticism.
The biggest intellectual
sin, among many, in Chomsky, is that there is no information or data which would
lead him to rethink his arguments, nothing which can falsify his case. If it
were revealed tomorrow that Saddam Hussein was three weeks away from planting
nuclear weapons in the fifty biggest cities on Earth or had made a deal with
space aliens to sell humanity into slavery, Chomskys case wouldnt
alter one iota. It would still be the fault of the United States and the war
still wouldnt have been justified.
I think most of
the defenders of the war have backed themselves into the same predicament: there
is nothing that could ever falsify their case, nothing that would make them
re-think, no event or information that would require a careful reconsideration
of their arguments. Not Paul ONeill, nor an occupation that has from the
outset gone the way that the critics of the war predicted it would, nor the
absence of deployable WMD, nothing.
thing to do is be predictive. What information would change your mind, whatever
your feelings are? What developments would alter your assessment? Say it now
and say it explicitly.
For me, its
simple. The discovery of actually-existing WMD that was readily deployable;
revelation of substantial, sustained connections between Hussein and al-Qaeda
or similar groups; evidence that Hussein independently was preparing to order
or support terrorist attacks on the United States, Western Europe or other nations;
evidence of imminent plans for territorial aggression against Iraqs neighbors.
All or any of that would be sufficient for me to concede a reasonable case for
the immediate war as it was conducted, even with its enormous costs and risks.
The other thing that would change my thinking is a change in what I understand
to be the cost-benefit ratio. If next year, the United States withdrew in an
orderly fashion, a meaningfully democratic government was elected in Iraq and
neighboring regimes also made serious moves to democratize and liberalize their
societies, Id be glad to confess my error.
For the prowar advocates, is there anything that would change your mind? If Dick Cheney gave a national speech where he said, Yeah, its all about Halliburton, would you feel differently? Is there any series of events that would change your assessment? If the occupation was still going five years from now and 10,000 Americans had died in the conflict in the interim, would you feel differently? If theres nothing that fits the bill, then seriously, stop blogging about it. Stop writing about it. Theres no point: this is faith, not reason, and theres no need to bore the rest of us as you bear witness.