Today was a tremendous moment of our history, a turning point and a real milestone. Say what you like; things are not perfect; there are countless problems; the �insurgency� is not going to disappear; the reconstruction effort is in shambles; there is corruption and thieving everywhere; errors and mistakes in everything. Yet despite all that, the political process is proceeding like a dream and the tree of freedom is taking roots, and that tree will continue to grow and grow and grow. The Iraqis are again confounding all the “pundits” and “experts”. But some just cannot understand the true soul of a people. That this most profound revolution initiated by an act of liberation, by the daring praxis of the Americans, driven by some mysterious hand of the Providence, has touched the innermost womb of a nation, and that the present agonies of this nation are those of giving birth and new life. Oh no, that they cannot understand. Well then, let them witness surprise after nasty surprise that will confound their logic and demolish their arguments. But the word mongers will always find something to say, as wild dogs are always wont to bark all the more hysterically as they are irked.
I don’t think that anyone denies that the population of Iraq is better off after the US invaded, that the economic future for the People of Iraq is far better, and the US will have a presence (on some level) for a long time to come.
Without getting into an argument on whether the war was justified by the evidence the Pragmatic question is was it a worthwile act?
If you said yes what about the dozens of countries which are nearly as bad (or even worse) than Iraq was prior to the war?
If you said no what could ever justify a war if it is not to greatly benefit the people who live in the country?
Personally, I believe that all the propaganda on whether the war was justified or not gets in the way of the real question that people should be asking themselves; in the modern world what are the (moral,ethical,economic?) motivations to go to war?
One down 3 to go……onto Iran…the media pundits demand it and we will see some evidence surface shortly that implicates them in the Iraqi terrorist insugency…all is “go” in the pentagon and the Democrat opposition is on side as they realize opposition to this tanks their support with middle America. Looks bad for Iranian nuclear despots in the new year.
Kate please inform us the momet you hear of Michael Moore keeling over with a massive coronary.
Why is it that anti-war types always try to frame an argument using imperatives? ie: we cannot remove one genocidal dictator if we aren’t prepared to remove them all, or the intellectually dishonest question “does the means justify the end?” when there is no end to an intolerable situation within sight, and no other means exist.
Seems to me that any “daring praxis” in IRAQ was undertaken by the Iraqis in the voting booths and, more generally, just carrying on with everyday activities, despite understandably twitchy American grunts and jarheads on one side and equally twitchy “insurgents” or “terrorists” on the other.
American praxis, IMHO, consists of securing energy resources and handing out reconstruction contracts to buddies until the returns are not worth the cost(in dollars, or American blood). Sorry, but that cold hard logic of capital will not be confounded.
God help all Iraqis and all those poor bloody soldiers on all sides just trying to stay out of trouble.
J
Regarding the �if we remove one dictator then we must remove them all� bit, I am always reminded of Abraham Lincoln�s �one war at a time� response to questions about French imperial aspirations in Mexico during the height of the Civil War.
The Civil War of course was a REAL quagmire � just look at the Union defeats and the number of dead in the first few years. It was only won through determination, perseverance, and the good sense to ignore the surrenderist Copperheads.
Jacques – if it weren’t for the American and coalition praxis, there wouldn’t be any Iraqian praxis in the voting booth.
I agree with Kate- the anti-war types stop all assistance, anywhere in the world, with their insistence on holism. That is – their insistence that if you help out One Country, then, you really have no right to help out this one country unless and until you help out ALL Countries. Doesn’t work that way.
How about such a view, where, if you want to help out one family in need, you really shouldn’t do so, until you can help out all families in need?
And, Iraq was set up to function as a domino effect, where the development of democracy in one area would spread to other areas. And, it is.
And the dithering about the moral, economic, ethical reasons to go to war – can never be answered. It’s been asked since time immemorial; it differs in each situation. And if we are to behave like the UN – which does indeed dither about these questions – we end up with genocide after genocide happening in the real world, while we sit in our comfortable seminar rooms, debating about the ‘reasons to go to war’.
If you read carefully, I actually asked a balanced question that no-one ever answers; the “pro-war types” always assume that asking ‘what justifies war?’ is an attack on their reasoning (which quite often the real justification is “If I feel like it we should have a war”) and the anti-war types think it is an attack on their beliefs (ie. “No war is ever justified because when saving a million people’s lives a baby squrriel might die”).
Seriously, look through history, since we entered the “nuclear age” or even the more pressing “terrorist-age” what are the justifications for war? In order for a war to be either Just or Un-Just you first must know what the Justifications are.
“… actually asked a balanced question that no-one ever answers; the “pro-war types” always assume that asking ‘what justifies war?’ is an attack on their reasoning “
It’s not an attack our the reasoning. It’s an attack on the facts.
If you’ scour the real historical record (as opposed to the revisionist media accounts), the justification question was decided by the US congress prior to the Iraq invasion.
Unlike Bill Clinton, George W. Bush actually sought congressional permission prior to untertaking an “act of war”.
(search for the Congressional authority to bomb Sudan).
Typical rightie. Bringing a fantasy to a gun fight.
Oil.
The battle is to gain favor in or to control those regions that still have a lot of oil, foremost the Middle East, with Iraq located at dead center of it.
The Islamic jihad declaring war on the west is also wanting this control of supply and the power that goes with it.
An honest Canadian response, because we won’t/can’t change our oil dependence, is that we should be there in Iraq. It is in our best interest.
Although France at the Vangaurd of the Lefts anti-war chant is actually protecting it’s own vestited interests in Oil contracts with Saddam’s regime.
Many are convinced even today that the war in Iraq was all about oil. And they’re right – but oil was the key for French President Jacques Chirac, not for the United States. The price tag: close to $100 billion. That was what French oil companies stood to profit in the first seven years of their exclusive oil arrangements – had Saddam remained in power.
Almost as soon as the guns went silent after the first Gulf war in 1991, French oil giants Total SA and Elf Aquitaine – who have now merged and expanded to become TotalFinaElf – sought a competitive advantage over their rivals in Iraq by negotiating exclusive production-sharing contracts with Saddam’s regime that were intended to give them a stranglehold on Iraq’s future oil production for decades to come.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1100065/posts
Canada for whatever reason has tied it’s star to France and Europe, in the process is spitiing on the one country that has brought emmense prosperity
over her border. Right now to the tune of 8 billion a month more bought from Canada than sold to Canada. Lord thats a big number. It’s in fact 10% of our economy.
I for one believe Canada has far deeper ties to Paris than the government lets on.
In so doing Canada may have missed the boat on being apart of a solution to a problem that has raged in the middle east for almost 2000 years.
The Americans have spent to date over 200 billion in Iraq so the implication that they did it to get money which is what Oil is all about at the end of the day is just plain wrong.
The only reason I can see Oil being a factor is that Nation building is an expensive undertaking and the Oil that Iraq possesses may ultimately make war revenue neutral for the Americans.
Considering Americas commitment to her own people over the next 25 years some 70 Trillion in Medicare Medicade and Social Security obligations this is probably wise.
If this works and that is by no means certain,the Iraq effort would have to rate as one of the greatest humanitarian efforts ever. That is a footnote to be proud of. Canada had a opportunity but missed the boat for whatever reason.
Kate. “Why is it that anti-war types always try to frame an argument using imperatives?…”
I think it is because they hate their country. This may be a reflection of what they think of themselves. They have surrendered their power to someone else’s agenda, without understanding what they’ve done.
It is impossible to nit-pick a truth! And yet these people spend their lives trying. They will never understand what Dylan Thomas meant when he wrote; “Do not go gently into the good night…” And yet they play his music and nod their heads approvingly.
Western civilization is involved in WWIV. This war is a true clash of civilizations. It will last a few years and a lot of blood will be shed. It is time for everyone to choose sides.
“poor bloody soldiers on all sides”
Huh?
There are 2 sides.
There are soldiers on one side fighting for freedom, and rabid suicidal hatefilled cowardly religous fanatics on the other.
Choose your side.
NoOne – I’m unclear of your point. Naturally, when one goes to war, a country should know what the justifications for that particular war are. Bush did just that; he had to get congressional approval, and had to justify the war. Same with UK- Blair had to get approval.
I’m sure you don’t want to get into, here, all the justifications for the Iraq War; but, it was, factually and ethically, justified. The results are – a free people, moving towards democracy, with their own constitution etc.
Naturally, other countries such as France (and Canada) which had economic deals with Hussein’s control over Iraq’s oil (rather than the Iraqi people controlling their resources)..did not want the war, as it broke up their private deals with Hussein.
But, your opening statement blames the reader for your concern about your question. You state that they have not ‘read carefully’ your questions; that it was a balanced questiono but that ‘no-one ever answers’. Perhaps your question isn’t as balanced as you feel and that might be the reason no-one ever answers.
Each war has to be justified, on its own. A democracy can’t go to war ‘If I feel like it”; that’s a dictatorship. The US, the UK, Australia and all the other members of the coalition – are not dictatorships. The Iraq War, therefore, was not a personal decision. It’s based on facts.
And I think that’s the problem with your question. It cannot be answered because it is geared to a Universal theme (what justifies war), and a war is an Actual Event, not a Universal, such as ‘goodness’, ‘beauty’..which are universals, and ambiguous. So, you can only justify an actual, particular war. You cannot move the notion of War to a Universal. I don’t know if this is a clear analysis..but the difference between the open vast ambiguity of universals versus the actual particular realities..means that you cannot ask such a question. It’s like asking: What is beauty?
That’s why no-one answers. You can’t answer a universal – except with another universal..and that gets you nowhere.
I would have to agree with John Crittendens last paragragh, and keep up the good work Kate, the way you can keep coming up with rational arguments against all these “Lefty Persons” which they just spew the same garbage back at you is awesome!!! I have to agree with about 98% of everything you write, but I would never be able to put my views and thoughts to words like you do with such grace and justification. Thank You.
Vindication
http://www.frontpagemag.com ^ | 12/16/05 | Ben Johnson
Posted on 12/16/2005 9:35:00 AM PST by elizabethr
Vindication By Ben Johnson FrontPageMagazine.com | December 16, 2005
PERHAPS THE MOST STUNNING REVELATION OF THURSDAY�S IRAQI ELECTION IS THIS: SUNNI �INSURGENTS� ARE MORE COMMITTED TO A PEACEFUL, STABLE, DEMOCRATIC IRAQ THAN THE AMERICAN LEFT. As an unprecedented 11 million Iraqis risked their lives yesterday to vote in that nation�s third free election since January, leftists in this country continued to undermine the military operation that permitted those elections to be held and renewed their call for the only measure that could assure their newfound freedom dissolves into an abyss of hopeless violence: immediate U.S. withdrawal.
Sunnis Participate in Democracy
If any event could vindicate the president�s policy and demand Americans stay the course, Iraq�s parliamentary election was that event. Since the nation�s first free election in a generation this January, every segment of society has staked its future on the political process � including the �insurgents.� In one year, the most disaffected segments of Iraqi society have become politicized and decided � through charity or resignation � that only becoming part of a pluralistic, tolerant, democratic Iraq will give them any hope for the future.
How radically has Sunni opinion changed toward participating in Iraqi democracy? The Iraqi Islamic Army, an anti-American milita group, safeguarded the polls in Ramadi. Last January, there was a widespread Sunni boycott; yesterday, militants went into local neighborhoods to encourage Sunnis to vote. As a result, Sunni turnout in that city increased 4,000 percent over the October referendum. >>> more
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1541827/posts
“It’s not an attack our the reasoning. It’s an attack on the facts.
If you’ scour the real historical record (as opposed to the revisionist media accounts), the justification question was decided by the US congress prior to the Iraq invasion.
Unlike Bill Clinton, George W. Bush actually sought congressional permission prior to untertaking an “act of war”.
(search for the Congressional authority to bomb Sudan).”
I don’t dispute that the Americans actually wanted to go to war on the information that was presented to them; nor am I actually arguing whether the war in Iraq was justified or not. I am asking a more philosophical question:
What are the reasons or events that justify a war?
Without knowing the the answer to this question it is impossible to determine whether a war was justified or not. The reason for this is simple, the reason for war must be justified prior to the outset of the war because otherwise revisionist historians have the ability to justify the war afterwards. Everyone with an IQ past 60 and a memory longer than 6 minutes know that the reason that was being used to justify the war on Iraq wasn’t “The people of Iraq need freedom” but was that “Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction”; after it became clear that Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction the focus of the media and of the administration became “The people of Iraq need freedom”.
Now I think by using the war in Iraq as an example I am only preventing people from understanding my point because the population is polarized on the issue. I will use an impossible example to demonstrate my point; suppose that the United States decided that they were going to invade Alberta because Alberta recklessly developing “Cows of Mass destruction” because some cows contained BSE that might taint the US’ food supply. After the invasion of Alberta it is discovered that no Alberta cows have any BSE, thus the justification becomes that Albertans wanted to be liberated from their oppressive Liberal Regime.
Basically what I am saying is that if you force the Justification for the war to happen prior to the war, and you hold the administration accountable for the Justifications of the war, you’re far more likely to be in a Just war.
So Back to the initial question: What are the necessary conditions that justify a war?
Concerning praxis:
My point is about the ordinary Iraqi citizens who voted despite the very real possibility of either being blown up by an IED or gunned down at a checkpoint. Would you go out to vote this January if that were the case here in Canada?
The argument about how America did the right thing by invading Iraq and bringing democracy to the region et cetera – well fine – I am willing to stipulate that that was a significant consideration but not the determining one.
However you cannot overlook, without being intellectually dishonest(thanks, Kate)that the key (hey I won’t even say the determinant one) consideration was and is the cold, hard calculus of costs versus benefits that began well before engaging in the war to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
If you do not think that this war was just as much about securing resources and achieving greater geopolitical strength in the Middle East as it was about overthrowing a rabid dictator and assorted minions then you are wistfully idealistic or wilfully blinkered in your political analyses.
I, for one, continue to be alternately infuriated and enamoured (often in the space of a minute) of America and the American world-view – I do not know how to reconcile the democratic idealism and fundamental sense of fairness that characterizes much of American political and social discourse with the Machiavellian greed that causes Americans and others so much grief.
For the record, do not attempt to pigeon-hole my arguments as anti-war, or pro-American, either. I am the patriotic offspring of US Military folk and have grown up with the consequences of war. We do not live in a clearcut, black-and-white world as much as armchair idealists across the social and political spectrum would like to think.
RichFisher: if you think that there are only two sides in Iraq, do your homework. Here are a few hints: Sunni, Sh’ia, Christian, Kurd, Turk, British French, American, democrats, fundamentalists, Ba’athists….. Nobody lines up on one side or the other like it is a football game.
I can live with a certain amount of ambiguity in the actions and decisions of individuals and the consequent need to exercise judgement. I agree with ET on this.
Borrowing from Emerson: A foolish need for certainty is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
J
Jacques – I disagree that the Iraq War was about securing resources and achieving greater geopolitical strength. And, even though you linked such a disagreement to being ‘wistfully idealistic’ and/or ‘wilfully blinkered’ – I reject your link. I am neither idealistic nor blinkered.
The Iraq War was about bringing democracy to the ME; democracy has a function – reducing systemic terrorism, which emerges and grows in totalitarian dictatorships within large populations. In the case of the ME, rather than the violence being directed against the dictator, which was impossible because it was a military dictatorship – it exploded outwards.
The Iraqi people are realizing that they can engage in differences, not by one tribe killing off another tribe, by within the political arena.
Democracy will spread in the ME – and that will reduce global terrorism.
The fact that you are a child of US military does not validate/invalidate your views; however, my compliments to your family and to the US, for their bravery in dealing with terrorism in the world, and in freeing the Bosnians, the Afghans and now the Iraqi, from dictatorships.
And note – the Iraqi people voted, despite the threats and the possibilities of violence, while Martin informs us that Canadians will dislike a winter vote, because ‘it’s cold outside’. That says something about Canadians! (or Martin).
“There is corruption and thieving everywhere; errors and mistakes in everything.” Sound just like the Liberal administration. The only problem is that Canadians are so addicted to their social goodies that they will never risk a new government and will continue to support a lying thieving administration as long as they do two things. 1. Promise them more “free” healthcare and 2. “Stand up” to those hated Americans. Why did Paul Martin indulge in the most recent invective aimed at Bush/Americans? Because it works. Takes everybody’s mind off the corruption in his administration, his personal dealing in China (just putting your kids in charge is not exactly arms length as any parent will tell you) If he gets any closer to the Chinese he is going to have to make Chinese another official language. Anyway…anti-American and Chinese deals for CSL…thats what works in Canada. Oh Canada.
Assuming that the War in Iraq is about oil (someone has commented that the largest supply of oil in the world is under the Middle East), should Canada be concerned. After all, the Tar Sands actually have more oil under them (in a tar form) than Saudi Arabia (or, so I’ve heard). Will our American Friends turn their military north into Canada when they can’t get oil out of the Middle East any more.
What about WATER. Oil is a minor player in this whole agruement. WATER is going to be the biggest issue yet to come.
Why would anyone assume the war in Iraq is about Oil? Especially when the production, buying and selling of Oil is about making money. If the Americans have spent 200 billion on the war already
to me it dosn’t sound like a very sound way to make a buck.
If the Americans can get production in Iraq up over 3 million barrels a day the price of Oil will collapse huge.Well below $30.00. Oh and for every 1 million in new production it will cost $1 billion. This making a buck thing in Iraq is looking more and more like a really dumb get rich scheme.
I,m sorry I made a mistake for every 1 million barrels of new Oil production in Iraq it will cost
$3-$4 billion.
Geez, Mike, invading Canada would be like pushing a wheelchair bound cripple down a flight of steps, not something we Yanks would even stoop that low at doing. Heck, with your guns all confiscated and the reminants of the Canadian armed forces now reduced to third world disaster relief duties(if that), I guess we could just drive up there and get squatter’s rights to the oil sands. Ironically, we’d win in Canadian courts as displaced oil junkies under duress.
Who knows, another decade of the Liberals and Alberta might join us as our 51st state. (Your welcome.)
And, Jeff, the giant sucking sound keeping oil prices high is China and India. Higher output in Iraq isn’t going to push prices down.
Ooops. Meant “you’re welcome” not “your”.
Penny
Gee, you’ve got the world pretty well arranged in a way that doesn’t particularly tax your brain and in which there are simple solutions that ultimately translate into cliches and badmouthing those who take a different view.
What utter drivel? What kind of a crap blog is this anyway?
the daring praxis of the Americans-a euphemism for murder, torture, and crimes against humanity.
but some cannot understand the true soul of a people-including the people themselves, but thank god America is standing by to provide that “understanding”.
touched the innermost womb of a nation-ah, a nation with several wombs, and apparently a Providence with a fairly long finger.
the political process is proceeding like a dream-well, I suppose a nightmare is a form of a dream.
It is going to become one of the questions of our times, here in the western democracies, as to whether our true enemies are outside our borders, or whether those we have the most to fear from, and who we may find it necessary to deal violently with, are those within our borders who are so distant from rational discourse, from the constraints of reason and factual analysis, and simply such infectious gobshites that they effectively destroy our own ability to have our own lives and public discourse within reasonable bounds.
Of what possible use to humanity could the author of “The Mesopotamian” be?