I’m concerned about the hawkish subtext of President Bush’s inaugural address yesterday. On one hand, as a staunch advocate of human rights, I recognize that capitalist democracies do indeed foster the sort of societies most guaranteed to ensure each person’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. On the other hand, I believe the path to such government must be the choice of those involved. The "democracy via the barrel of a gun" method offends my inner individualist, as it results in the indiscriminate deaths of those it’s presumably trying to liberate, and that sacrifice should be their choice, not some outside power’s.
William Safire raved about the speech in his column today:
Yesterday’s strongly thematic address was indeed "the freedom speech." Not only did the words "freedom, free, liberty" appear 49 times, but the president used the world-watched occasion to expound his basic reason for the war and his vision of America’s mission in the world.
I rate it among the top 5 of the 20 second-inaugurals in our history.
A bit of hyperbole, perhaps, but it’s his column. Then, however, I can’t help but imagine Bill’s Cialis kicked in, because he gets a bit more than rationally excited about the implications of the speech:
The change in emphasis was addressed to accommodationists who make "peace" and "the peace process" the No. 1 priority of foreign policy. Others of us – formerly known as hardliners, now called Wilsonian idealists – put freedom first, recalling that the U.S. has often had to go to war to gain and preserve it. Bush makes clear that it is human liberty, not peace, that takes precedence, and that it is tyrants who enslave peoples, start wars and provoke revolution. Thus, the spread of freedom is the prerequisite to world peace.
It takes guts to take on that peace-freedom priority so starkly. Bush, by retaliatory and pre-emptive decisions in his first term – and by his choice of words and his tall stance in this speech, and despite his unmodulated delivery – now drives his critics batty by exuding a buoyant confidence reminiscent of F.D.R. and Truman.
Let’s be clear here. Without any better guidelines than "freedom is better than tyranny," Safire wholly endorses the vision of a man who has demonstrated his willingness, nay, eagerness to rush into war without enough troops, without UN approval, without a post-combat plan, and without the money to pay for it.
But we’ve been all over that. Looking forward, what does this mean once the bunting comes down and the booted big wigs leave the balls and fly their private jets back to their winter homes? Does it mean we now feel we have license, nay, a moral obligation, to overthrow any leader who we deem a reform-resistant "tyrant"? If we don’t, are we living up to the ideal?
Or is it a matter of priorities? Do the tyrants sitting on oil reserves (think Chavez here…and think Chavez quickly…it’s brewing) come first for the Wilsonian idealists, followed somewhere down the line by those who may boil their citizens alive but don’t have any resources we want? Or do we develop a measure of tyranny and begin liberating those nations with the cruelest leaders first? Or do we demonstrate our humanity and belief in the worth of the individual (even the unwanted ones) and begin by invading those nations in which we can soundly expect the fewest civilian deaths? Hoping that the ousting of their leaders will scare their tyrannical neighbors into speeding up their reforms?
Perhaps all this rah-rah rhetoric from Safire and Bush would feel less hollow to me if they were willing to make it a national commitment. You know, by re-instituting the draft so not only the nation’s poor were forced to pay the sacrifice for this noble endeavor. It’s one thing to sit behind your computer and praise a man who sits behind a desk in a virtual fortress and claim your attitude is heroic. It’s another to put your own ass on the line.
Moreover, there’s an unforgivable arrogance behind this idea that our way of life is so special it grants us the right to take others’ lives as we see fit to ensure it. When Bush argues "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands" it behooves him to qualify that a bit. Where are the lines?
Krieg macht Frei. War will free you. If you don’t get blown to bits in the process, that is.
I think I’d tend to take the oft-repeated word “freedom” more seriously from Bush if it weren’t for Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and, most alarmingly, Pakistan.
With little or no action taken by the administration toward encouraging democratic reforms in those nations, I just assume that the word is pure bluster.
A few quick thoughts:
You’re hitting the right target here – most conservatives seem quite content with flowery rhetoric without practical policies to bring it to fruition.
That being said, I think you make the error of assuming that every time Bush talks about bringing more freedom to the world he’s talking about a straight-up invasion. Not that I expect their to be particularly grand efforts of other sorts either. Again, talking about it in speeches seems to be enough for his base.
And the continual advocation of the draft (which I was raised as a liberal to believe is only to be done in the gravest circumstances) continues to be completely baffling, and is yet another reason why I no longer have anything in common with those I thought to be of my political persuasion.
Just a quick thought, but the tyrants sitting on oil are tend to be the ones that can survive the oppression of their people, as they don’t have to rely on lining their pockets with their citizens cash, which often fosters revolt.
(And no, I don’t think anything at all will happen with Chavez, other than some harsh words and poor diplomatic relations. Absent sudden new catastrophes, I’d put money on no new wars during Bush’s second term.)
No disrespect intended, Edward, but while I appreciate the formulation that title makes me wince.
That being said, I think you make the error of assuming that every time Bush talks about bringing more freedom to the world he’s talking about a straight-up invasion.
Well, we kind of lack the capacity to do another straight-up invasion, at least if we also want to pursue the liberty of which he speaks.
You are absolutely right! You don’t have to even believe that Bush isn’t a warmonger to think this isn’t going to happen! Unless of course, Edward gets his precious draft and a “national committment,” then you’d have to worry š
And the continual advocation of the draft (which I was raised as a liberal to believe is only to be done in the gravest circumstances) continues to be completely baffling, and is yet another reason why I no longer have anything in common with those I thought to be of my political persuasion.
I’m with you on this one actually, Jonas. I don’t want a draft. I’m being facetious. I just think there’s a disconnect going on with regard to who’s making the sacrifices for this vision. It’s not all of America, as Bush would have you believe. It’s a volunteer military overwhelming comprised of poor Americans with no better options.
No disrespect intended, Edward, but while I appreciate the formulation that title makes me wince.
I thought long and hard about softening it, but in the end, it’s what I mean here. I think what links it to the original in spirit, at least, is an absurd Orwellian paradox that assumes folks cannot see it as ludicrous. Note to people of the world: Our wars are about freeing you…so long as you survive the shock and awe stages
Jonas Cord: (And no, I don’t think anything at all will happen with Chavez, other than some harsh words and poor diplomatic relations. Absent sudden new catastrophes, I’d put money on no new wars during Bush’s second term.)
If I assumed that the Bush administration would only make war on another country when it made sense, I’d agree with you. It doesn’t make sense to start a war with another country while the US is still in the middle of dealing with its defeat in Iraq – a defeat I don’t think the US will recover from any time in the next four years.
But we know that the Bush administration will do things that make no sense at all, which they cannot pay for and they have no ability to complete successfully: nor have we seen any evidence that they have learned from the mistake of invading Iraq. (Indeed, I think the Bush administration have yet to acknowledge that it was a horrendous mistake.)
So I have absolutely no confidence that Bush won’t start telling another set of lies that add up to “the US has to invade Iran!” any time in the next four years. He shouldn’t: it would be stupid. But he might, and unfortunately, you can bet on it that his supporters will back him all the way if he does.
Edward,
I think middle-class and above Americans need to look in the mirror about this one – Military service has not been, and still is not a respectable option. And that’s the culture we’ve built up after Vietnam, and I don’t think a draft could be the solution.
Again, I think this has more to do with considering military service to be undesirable – which is the implication when you say that they have “no better option.”
note that all this talk of ‘freedom’ etc could be a way to try to re-ignite support for the Iraq mistake. approval numbers are pretty low for that, right now, and by wrapping everyone in warm fuzzy thoughts about W’s newfound love of Freedom and Democracy, maybe he could boost those numbers back up a bit. remember, there’s an election coming in less than 2 years!
Well, we kind of lack the capacity to do another straight-up invasion
go look at the conservative pundits who assume there’s a huge revolution waiting to happen in Iran – if only they could decapitate the current regime. why, they’d be greeting us with rose petals and candy.
I’m afraid I’m not understanding your point Jonas. Could you explain in more detail your feelings about the draft?
My point wasn’t about the draft, precisely. It was about your concern that more affluent Americans were not serving in the Military and therefore not bearing their share of the sacrifice. You, like my loveably nutty Rep Charlie Rangel, seem to think that the draft could theoretically ameliorate this. My point is more affluent Americans can not fathom anyone volunteering for the Military unless under some sort of duress – and this attitude accounts for why more affluent Americans aren’t themselves serving.
Apologies, I’m not very articulate today.
Perhaps all this rah-rah rhetoric from Safire and Bush would feel less hollow to me if they were willing to make it a national commitment. You know, by re-instituting the draft so not only the nation’s poor were forced to pay the sacrifice for this noble endeavor. It’s one thing to sit behind your computer and praise a man who sits behind a desk in a virtual fortress and claim your attitude is heroic. It’s another to put your own ass on the line.
Edward, I thought that we all put this desk-hawk or whatever you want to call it to bed. And if not, I thought that at least there was general agreement that a draft would not result in the type of soldiers the leaders of the armed forces want. But fine, if thatās what you demand of those who support a continuous war for freedom (or whatever you want to call it) I will demand the same from you with regard to deficit reduction and spending.
Stop writing on this blog. Spend more of your time working so that your work will both drive new job creation and earn you more money which can then be taxed and put to work on the programs you espouse. For if you are not willing to do that, then with the same fervor that you scoff at others who support a war for freedom without going off to the front lines or supporting a draft, I shall scoff at your support for, or more appropriately, your lack of true commitment to, deficit reduction and government spending.*
Moreover, there’s an unforgivable arrogance behind this idea that our way of life is so special it grants us the right to take others’ lives as we see fit to ensure it
First, I have no problem taking othersā lives to ensure our way of life** for us, but I donāt think thatās what you were talking about here. With apologies in advance and at risk of a Karnak Iāll guess that you are against us taking othersā lives to give or force on their culture our way of life. Well, I think Iraq has taught many of us the impossibility of that very thing. I will be much harder on the use of force in the future. Then again, generally (with exceptions, often unlawful exceptions) isnāt our way of life better? Yes thereās discrimination here, but one tribe in the US is not massacring another are they? One gender is not oppressing another are they? One religious group is not tasked with killing others are they? Schools here do not ban the personal wearing of religious icons do they? I think that our way of life is indeed pretty special, but clearly not special enough to put our sons and daughters at risk for, unless itās us theyāre protecting.
*I donāt mean this of course. We should be able to believe in what we want even if our circumstances donāt allow us to support what we believe in ways that others find acceptable.
**And by āour way of lifeā I donāt mean commuting 100 miles to work each day from our nice large house in the burbs where we have a TV in every room, I mean a place where women are respected, minorities have a shot at achieving their dreams and those not of the prevalent religion can worship in peace (all with admitted and depressing but unlawful discrepancies).
I’m pretty sure Bush would like to go to war with Iran, but I don’t see how he can do it. Surely he wouldn’t be able to talk Congress into another authorization! My guess is that, under Bush’s leadership, we will “promote freedom” the way we did back in the sixties and fifties with asassinations, coups, and interference with the internal politics of target countires. In order to get around controls on the CIA the cloak-and-dagger stuff will be done through the Pentagon. Sy Hersch has a recent article about this.
You, like my loveably nutty Rep Charlie Rangel, seem to think that the draft could theoretically ameliorate this. My point is more affluent Americans can not fathom anyone volunteering for the Military unless under some sort of duress – and this attitude accounts for why more affluent Americans aren’t themselves serving.
I think it could be a symbolic gesture of a national sacrifice. If not the draft, then something is called for here.
Otherwise most Americans continue to see the war as something that happens only on their TV sets and doesn’t affect them in the slightest. That is the height of immorality in my opinion: endorsing war that costs you nothing.
My point here is (and this is for Crionna too) unlike other programs or initiatives, wars cost us irreplacable resources: human lives. The lives of our young men and women in the armed services are not fodder for some idealistic experiment designed by diplomacy-alleric and financially incompetent fools.
Iāll guess that you are against us taking othersā lives to give or force on their culture our way of life
I’m against taking other people’s live to ensure we can continue to expand our empire. When we talk about our liberty requiring the liberty of other people in other lands, we’re really saying our ambitions to sell to them and influence them require that they’re relatively stable. Otherwise we could become isolationists. We want to continue to globalize, and unrest in other parts of the world where we’re doing business can work its way to our shores…. That’s what’s pushing this, and it’s not a good enough reason to drop bombs on innocent mothers and children and grand parents, in my opinion. They’re God’s children too…we have no right to inflict the ultimate sacrifice upon them because we’ve exhausted our domestic consumer base.
Crionna: I mean a place where women are respected, minorities have a shot at achieving their dreams and those not of the prevalent religion can worship in peace (all with admitted and depressing but unlawful discrepancies).
Do I need to point out that Iraq was nearer being that kind of place before Bush invaded?
lily: I’m pretty sure Bush would like to go to war with Iran, but I don’t see how he can do it. Surely he wouldn’t be able to talk Congress into another authorization.
He’ll lie. The way he lied to talk Congress into authorization for invading Iraq. That’s not in itself a problem.
The point is: we can’t assume that Bush will be prevented from doing anything just because common sense says it would be better not to do it. If that were true, he’d never have invaded Iraq.
I think it could be a symbolic gesture of a national sacrifice. If not the draft, then something is called for here.
50 cent tax per gallon on gasoline; proceeds funnelled directly (or as directly as possible) into Homeland Security and other ?o? operations, e.g. aid to impoverished nations, pay and materiel for troops, incentives towards local governance and liberties in tyrannical countries, etc.
That the sort of thing you’re looking for?
That the sort of thing you’re looking for?
That would certainly be a lot closer to putting our money (as opposed to someone else’s son or daughter’s life) where our mouths are, yes.
Edward,
I always had the distinct impression that leaving matters of war to be decided only by those who serve in the military to be an inherently conservative notion, and an absurd, immoral and impractical one at that. Nor do I think that raising taxes, reinstating the draft or other forms of self-flagellation favorably alter the moral hazards involved in war in the slightest. Not to be too facetious Edward, but I’m awaiting your moral condemnation of all the armchair liberal hawks who endorsed the War in Afghanistan.
My ignorant question number 32: What does Krieg Macht Frei mean, and what does it allude to?
“War Will Make You Free”, votermom. It’s a riff of “Arbeit Macht Frei” (Work Will Make You Free) which was the wrought-iron legend above the entrance to Auschwitz.
Nor do I think that raising taxes, reinstating the draft or other forms of self-flagellation favorably alter the moral hazards involved in war in the slightest.
I didn’t think Edward was referring to moral hazards involved in large-scale combat; was I mistaken?
What does Krieg Macht Frei mean, and what does it allude to?
Literally translated, it means “War Power Free”. It’s a reference to the message over the gate to Auschwitz, “Arbeit Macht Frei” – “Work power free”, usually non-literally translated as “Work Brings Freedom”. cite
I imagine that an additional literary reference to Orwell’s three slogans from Nineteen Eighty-Four, War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, Ignorance Is Strength, may also have been intended (Krieg Macht Frieden, Freiheit Macht Sklaverei, Unwissenheit Macht StƤrke)
It means “War will set you free,” and refers to the motto emblazoned above the gates of Auschwitz: “Arbeit Macht Frei” (“Work will set you free”).
Not to be too facetious Edward, but I’m awaiting your moral condemnation of all the armchair liberal hawks who endorsed the War in Afghanistan.
Won’t get that from me, I’m afraid Jonas. That war was justified in my opinion. The government refused to hand over criminals who orchestrated an attack on our homeland. I support invading a country under those circumstances. The consequences of not doing so places far more American lives at serious risk.
I always had the distinct impression that leaving matters of war to be decided only by those who serve in the military to be an inherently conservative notion, and an absurd, immoral and impractical one at that.
I agree. A sacrifice need not mean joining the military. It may mean a tax increase or energy conservation or volunteer work to help returning injured veterans or whatever.
Nor do I think that raising taxes, reinstating the draft or other forms of self-flagellation favorably alter the moral hazards involved in war in the slightest.
I disagree. The alternative here is not stopping the war (if only). The alternative is letting others bear the burden while some simply reap the rewards.
War should always be an absolute last resort. That determiniation will vary based on who’s in charge of course, but it’s a standard that serves us well overall.
But when a nation feels it must declare war, it is the entire nation’s responsibility to sacrifice for it. All for one and one for all.
Left out of that analysis, of course, are those within a nation whose majority supported war but who personally oppose it. Although any sacrifice shared by the nation should fall to them as well, they, as individuals, can dissent as they see fit (realizing there may be legal consequences to their actions). Who shouldn’t get away without sacrificing, however, are those who support the war.
Jes, little correction — while “Macht” can be a noun meaning “power”, in this case it’s the 3rd pers. sg. of “machen”, “to make”.
War should always be an absolute last resort.
Then I can’t see how you can justify the attack on Afghanistan.
But I recall too well the armchair-bloodthirstiness of so many Americans in the weeks after September 11 – determined to do worse to others after what had been done to them.
The attack on Afghanistan was unjustifiable by any definition – if it was Osama bin Laden who was wanted, there were better methods left untried than war. But what so many Americans wanted (from what they said online) was to see cities in flames, people terrified, and “ragheads” dead. It was horrifying and disgusting.
And of course, as anyone with commonsense could have told them, it didn’t achieve the claimed objective, which was to get Osama bin Laden and knock out al-Qaeda: nor was it ever meant to. As Bush publicly said (and proved with public actions) it was never important to get Osama bin Laden. And it clearly couldn’t have been considered that important to attack al-Qaeda: or resources would not have been diverted from that job to invading Iraq. What was important in attacking Afghanistan was to make frightened Americans feel better, at the cost of thousands of Afghan lives directly, and no one knows what cost in handing Afghans back to the power of the warlords – the only governance that could be said to be worse than the governance of the Taliban.
kenB – my German is terrible. Thanks for the correction.
Edward,
That’s what I thought, and that’s why I’d say these peripheral issues aren’t really worth raising. Because it seems to me that you’d like to see supporters of what you consider to be an unjustified war make sacrifices; those who support a war you think is justified need not. That’s just a moral mess, and I’d stick to criticisms revolving around the justification issue if I were you.
These moral distinctions work fine for you – how they could be codified I haven’t a clue. I don’t think “last resort” is a very good standard – it’s too ill-defined. I personally couldn’t tell you when a war with Iraq becomes a last resort – the third violated resolution? The eighth? The sixteenth?
Given that I support the Iraq War on the violated cease-fire basis, I don’t consider it to be a matter of War because we “feel like it.” In fact, a war conducted on that basis alone can not be redeemed by any amount of sacrifice, I’d say.
Because it seems to me that you’d like to see supporters of what you consider to be an unjustified war make sacrifices; those who support a war you think is justified need not. That’s just a moral mess, and I’d stick to criticisms revolving around the justification issue if I were you.
I’m sure you would. I on the other hand choose not to, the full persuasive weight of your argument, duly noted.
I believe all Americans should make a sacrifice for the Afghanistan war. I would have happily paid more taxes to track down and capture the bastards who attacked my city. I wrote constantly during that time about how the President needed to outline what the average citizen could/should do to support the war other than just shop more. I wanted to feel I had a role. I feel it’s my moral obligation to have one. I’ve done some private citizen things to help in ways I came up with myself, but my point is that the nation as a whole should be asked to sacrifice in a clear way that builds morale, enhances unity, and distributes the burden.
Given that I support the Iraq War on the violated cease-fire basis, I don’t consider it to be a matter of War because we “feel like it.” In fact, a war conducted on that basis alone can not be redeemed by any amount of sacrifice, I’d say.
I really feel like you’re arguing in circles here Jonas.
A good definition for “last resort” in my opinion is the believe that not going to war will result in more deaths than going to war will. I personally can’t see how the cease-fire violations would have met that definition.
Then I can’t see how you can justify the attack on Afghanistan.
It’s not something I came to easily, Jes. Using my same definition, though, if we had not gone after bin Laden and scattered his people, they may have had the freedom to carry out other attacks. It’s harder to do so when you’re on the run. The Taliban was giving them safe harbor. We couldn’t allow that, in my opinion. It put people in every part of the world at greater risk.
kenB – my German is terrible. Thanks for the correction.
So’s mine. But I guess it’s a tiny bit better than yours. B-)
“The attack on Afghanistan was unjustifiable by any definition – if it was Osama bin Laden who was wanted, there were better methods left untried than war. But what so many Americans wanted (from what they said online) was to see cities in flames, people terrified, and “ragheads” dead. It was horrifying and disgusting.”
If the attack on Afghanistan was unjustifiable, pretty much all war is unjustifiable. Your definition of unjustifiable doesn’t track with most people’s idea of justification. And your thought about what Americans wanted is wrong.
I’d heard that “Arbeit macht frei” was a quote from a German Classical author, either Schiller or Goethe–before, of course, its meaning got distorted irretrievably by the Auschwitz gates. Anyone know the first source?
Sebastian: If the attack on Afghanistan was unjustifiable, pretty much all war is unjustifiable.
You got it. Pretty much of the time, all war is unjustifiable. Especially when a country makes war on a another country which has not and which cannot harm the attacking country: which was absolutely the case with the US and Afghanistan.
Your definition of unjustifiable doesn’t track with most people’s idea of justification.
It does, however, track with the UN Charter. And the Catholic Church, oddly enough.
If you believe – honestly believe – that war is the last resort because it is not justifiable to cause the mass deaths of civilians unless you have exhausted all other options, then the attack on Afghanistan was not justifiable.
And your thought about what Americans wanted is wrong
I’m going by what large numbers Americans told me they wanted, between September 11 and October 10, speaking (mostly anonymously) on the net.
You and I, broadly speaking, agree. Bush really did fall down on this point, and could have been far more forceful in the ways the public could participate. I think, however, that the tax proposals floating around in this regard are at best, questionable.
It doesn’t meet that definition… only if you discount the lives saved through using a cease-fire agreement in the first place. It’s a useful tool to bring even the most justified war to a stop if the parties can be satisfied – but we’re going to have to give up this particular tool of making peace if everyone knows it doesn’t stand a chance of being a binding agreement.
Actually I remember the period between 911 and about six months into the war in Iraq as a period of blatant jingoism and gleeful smirking vengefulness. Even out here in true blue Washington people treated both wars like a spectator sport and expressions of bigotry and triumph were commonplace, even from people who should have known better. I can remember being really shocked when my school psychologist burst into the staff room annoucing “WE won, we won! They’ll never attadck us again” He thought invading Bahgdad was the same thing as attacking Al Quaida.
But I disagree, Jes, about the invasion of Afganistan. AL Quaida had control of the country and used it as a base for attack on us. I’m not a pacifist and I do think we can defend our selves by fighting the forces that attacked us. Where I draw the line is the nebulous by-attacking-Iraq-even though-they weren’t directly-connected- to-the-911-attack-we-will-somehow-someday-in-a-roundabout-way-diminish-terrorism-in-other-countries rationalization.
Crap. It isn’t justifiable to attack acountry which has not attacked us.
We seem to be able to hang on to our values and principles and not get hysterical about the incident described in CB’s post. But, as a nation, we have not been able to hang on to our values and principles, nor did we refrain from hysteria in response to 911.
lily: AL Quaida had control of the country and used it as a base for attack on us.
Nope, neither one. The Taliban had control (more or less) of most of Afghanistan, and the Taliban were never identical with al-Qaeda. There is no evidence that Afghanistan was used as a base for the September 11 attack.
But it was damn near impossible to tell where al-Qaeda began and the Taliban ended. Presuming them to being two distinct groups with bright lines in between them is not tenable.
Oh, I see. We can only strike them in the base they used to attack us. Is that in the UN Charter too? Because I missed that part.
I believe the path to such government must be the choice of those involved.
Edward, I’m looking forward to the elections at the end of the month as well. š
Jes, we *did* try other means of getting OBL. The Clinton Admin kept demanding the Taliban arrest him. Instead, they shielded him, refusing to turn him over even to third parties who would have made sure he was alive and well enough to show up for trial at the Hague. Clinton finally ordered the CIA to assassinate him, which the CIA was unable or unwilling to do.
If you think war is never ever justified, and all other options fail (Bush did, IIRC, at least try to get the Taliban to cough OBL up after 9/11, and they still wouldn’t budge), what would you have recommended instead?
I thought Giblets had given the definitive reaction to the inaugural address, until I read Fafnir’s.
For a less allegorical take, does not do a half bad job either. My only quibble would be that to say Syria is not just one of several members of an “ambiguous third category” but a surreal place all it’s own–the country that we can’t decide whether to invade or subcontract our interrogations to.
(Safire’s right about one thing: Wilson, who campaigned on a peace platform the year before entering the war, and went off to make the world safe for democracy while having critics of the war and the draft arrested and sentenced to 10-20 years in prison–and we all know well how his geopolitical plans worked out–is actually not a bad parallel.)
Argh. Sorry.
CaseyL: Jes, we *did* try other means of getting OBL.
Clinton tried sporadically and self-defeatingly, since at at least one point he decided to actively aggravate the Taliban by launching a missile attack on Afghanistan, rather than continuing to negotiate with them to hand over Osama bin Laden.
If you think war is never ever justified, and all other options fail (Bush did, IIRC, at least try to get the Taliban to cough OBL up after 9/11,
For less than one month. For far less than one month, in fact, since the US started gearing up for attacking Afghanistan within a week of September 11.
and they still wouldn’t budge), what would you have recommended instead?
Nor am I convinced that fullscale war was a good method of getting Osama bin Laden – and nor should you or anyone be, since it didn’t work: Osama bin Laden is still alive, well, and free to act: al-Qaeda is still active and has carried out at least one massive terrorist strike in the past year.
Actually, leaving aside the evident uselessness of attacking Afghanistan to get al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden – which I’m surprised to see anyone defending now, since it has been proven to be so pointless – the Taliban was a nightmare government, literally only one step better than the warlords the Taliban replaced. Had the attack on Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban as punishment/revenge for supporting al-Qaeda been followed through with a real and funded rebuilding program, a genuine long-term attempt to make Afghanistan into a better country to live in than it was before, I confess I’d have a hard time criticising the war now. The Taliban was that bad.
But the warlords were and are worse than the Taliban. The Taliban had nightmare rules to follow, but they did follow them. The warlords operate under no law at all except their own will. The US simply handed Afghanistan back to the warlords, and then – thanks to the Bush administration – virtually abandoned Afghanistan, forgetting to budget for it one year, diverting funds from it to Iraq another.
Getting Osama bin Laden? I have no idea. I suppose it’s possible that if US military resources had been sincerely devoted to finding him and capturing him, it might have worked. But I don’t see why anyone should still support a method that killed so many civilians, did no long term good, and failed in its objective.
Jes: I have to disagree with you on this one. I think the invasion of Afghanistan was justified. That said, I also think (as I wrote here) that we could have done a vastly better job of it that would have rebuilt the country, ensured (as best anything can) that it would not become a failed state again, provided real opportunities for its people, and as a side benefit gotten us a lot of good will in the region. (And, another side benefit: having a stable, reasonably prosperous Afghanistan next to the Pashtun areas of Pakistan would have been much better than the present situation.) That we didn’t do this was a horrible wasted opportunity. But the war itself, I think, was justified.
Hilzoy: But the war itself, I think, was justified.
By what was it justified?
If it was a serious attempt to get Osama bin Laden, or to destroy al-Qaeda, plainly it was not justified, because it failed on both counts.
If it was a serious humanitarian effort to rebuild Afghanistan, plainly it was not justified, though I concede it easily could have been – it wouldn’t have taken much of an investment (especially compared to the cost of the Iraq war) to at least bring Afghanistan back to where it was in the 1970s.
If it was revenge on the Taliban, well, yes, that works: the Taliban were overthrown, at least for the time being. Since the situation in Afghanistan now is pretty much exactly what allowed the Taliban to rise to power, there’s no guarantee that the Taliban will stay overthrown.
If it was lashing out to do something, anything, that satisfied American bloodlust after September 11, it was certainly justified: it has justified itself. That’s not a justification I can support, though.
If it was a serious attempt to get Osama bin Laden, or to destroy al-Qaeda, plainly it was not justified, because it failed on both counts.
If a plan fails is it automatically unjustified? IOW, is legitimacy contingent upon success?
Oh, yeah, getting rid of the Taliban was also very high on my list of Good Reasons to go to war in Afghanistan. I surprised the hell out of my more lefty friends when I defended that war – they assumed, not unreasonably, that I’d oppose anything Bush did – and they were definitely taken aback when I said “I’ve hated those f*ckers (the Taliban) for years; I’m glad Bush took them out.”
It’s the only thing Bush ever did that I agreed with.
But of course he screwed even that up. The Taliban are back – not ruling the whole country, but carving out niches with the other warlords – and the ‘liberation’ of Afghanistan stretches no further than Kabul.
Ah, I see. I was thinking like this: it would have been a great thing to rebuild Afghanistan under any circumstances. However, you don’t go around invading other countries just because they’re in need of a new government and some serious investment; something else has to be the case in order to justify a war. That something could (according to me) be: self-defense, an imminent humanitarian catastrophe that can’t be averted by other means (think Rwanda), or, the case at hand, the government’s sheltering, and being unwilling to hand over, people who do something on the order of 9/11, and show every sign of wanting to do it again.
Possibly part of the disagreement is that you might be asking, was the war as actually carried out justified?, while I am asking, did the circumstances at the time justify the decision to invade (where one of course does not know at the time how successful one will be.) I think that if one invades another country, one has an obligation to do it right, or at least to really try one’s best, but that’s a different story, for me.
In regards to the Taliban handing over Bin Laden, what about
this ? (sorry if I messed the link up). It was probably lame posturing, but you have to admit, it would have been pretty impressive if by the end of 2001 Osama had been tried and sentenced by real muslim clerics. Why, I think that may have sent an even better message than painting schools in Iraq.
Hilzoy: or, the case at hand, the government’s sheltering, and being unwilling to hand over, people who do something on the order of 9/11, and show every sign of wanting to do it again.
But the government of Afghanistan was not one controlled by the people of Afghanistan. At a guess, most of the people in Afghanistan who were killed by the US attack would have had a hard time finding New York City on a map of the world – many of them probably never heard of the September 11 attack until well after it happened.
Further, during the month between September 11 and October 8, the Taliban made several attempts to negotiate how they would perhaps hand over Osama bin Laden. Were any of those attempts serious? We’ll never know. Bush refused to negotiate. He wasn’t interested in trying to get the Taliban to hand Osama bin Laden over without war: and given the bloodthirsty reaction of Americans I encountered online at the time, from friends to complete strangers, I am unsurprised. Attacking Afghanistan was a democratically popular decision, in the US, where no one was actually going to die of it.
Now, with all that against the attack on Afghanistan, I think that it would be possible to have justified it – to have compensated the Afghan people post facto by helping to rebuild their nation, as you described in your September post. Given that the previous President Bush had abandoned the Afghans to rubble and warlords back in 1989, leading eventually to the Taliban’s governance, this was a debt long come due.
I should chime in here and put my marker down. While I understand the arguments that you are making, Jes, I don’t think that we can really regard the Taliban regime as a rational one. The Taliban first came up on my radar with the destruction of the Bamiyan statues. I realize that others have pointed out that this was a reaction to the offer of aid for preserving the statues in the face of a humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan and sanctions, but the Taliban’s reaction underlined, at least for me, that this was not a ‘rational’ government. Interesting too was Pakistan’s reaction, detailed here in an Indian newspaper editorial (caveat lector), which, as the editorial notes, was one of only three governments which recognized the Taliban regime. I’d also suggest that Jes’s complaints against Bush in this case are 20/20 hindsight. While it may be true that Bush was ‘not interested in trying to get the Taliban to hand OBL without war”, given the reaction to pleas to not destroy the statues (As was noted in the links, rather than destroy them, a serious offer to purchase them was made), it is hard to credit the Taliban with any kind of rationality in handing back OBL.
Jes: while I don’t now have the time to find sources, my understanding was also that the US had a history of asking the Taliban for help with bin Laden and being strung along. I do not think they were particularly trustworthy, and I think we had the history to prove it. Though I could be wrong.
About the fact that many of the people killed had no clue about bin Laden: this is, I think, true of many wars. (Were all the people killed by the Allies in WW2 supporters of one of the Axis powers? Probably not.) This, to my mind, raises the bar that a war must meet if it’s to be considered justified, but I don’t think it can eliminate it.
What made the Taliban an ‘irrational’ government, by my estimation of such things, wasn’t only their extreme version of Sharia. Governments are supposed to do certain basic things, fulfill certain elementary infrastructure needs, and the Taliban did none of that. It had no economic policies, no agricultural policies, no education policies (other than religious) and, so far as I know, no law enforcement apparatus other than the religious police. I don’t think it even had a national defense policy. Its schools taught no professions or trades, no science or economics.
That’s not a government, by any normative definition of the word.
Hilzoy: About the fact that many of the people killed had no clue about bin Laden: this is, I think, true of many wars.
Not just no clue about bin Laden: no clue about why the US was attacking Afghanistan. Afghanistan is one of the countries where it is possible to be fairly certain that by the beginning of October 2001 there were many Afghans who had never heard of the World Trade Center and had no idea it had been destroyed. According to the CIA World Factbook, in 2002 there were an estimated 1000 Internet users in the whole country, and 10 television stations, one in Kabul and regional stations operating on a reduced schedule in nine of the 32 provinces: plus 45 radio broadcast stations. For the whole country. Plus a total of 55 thousand phones, both cell phones and landlines. The US made war on a country where the majority of people would have had no idea that an organization called al-Qaeda had attacked a city on the other side of the world called New York – still less what had happened there.
The attack on Afghanistan was revenge on an inappropriate target.
Doesn’t that argument apply to almost any despotic Third World regime, Jes? That seems to be arguing that such despots should be immune to military threats (by First World powers, at least) since it’s almost inevitable that none of their populace will have the slightest clue what the government has been up to.
Anarch, when there some point to attacking a country – such as it represents a threat to your country, or it is necessary to prevent its despotic regime from doing some peculiarly abominable thing – you can argue that.
There was no point to attacking Afghanistan. It was an act of bloodthirsty revenge against a people who had, for the most part, no idea what act (by others who had no connection with Afghanistan) had provoked this revenge.
As Hilzoy pointed out in her September post, it would have been possible to create a good reason for attacking Afghanistan: the Taliban’s governance was so awful that the only thing worse was what has replaced it, the rule of the warlords.
Afghanistan was attacked because it was not possible to attack al-Qaeda: or rather, because the means of attacking a terrorist organization are slow and unsatisfying and untheatrical, compared with dropping bombs on another country.
I very very hestitantly supported the Afghanistan attack. I was opposed because of the arguments Jesurgislac mentioned: the Taliban tried to negotiate and the US refused completely. Also the Taliban were in the proces of trying to ‘normalize’ their way of government; they were (finally) working very actively on destroying the opiumgrowth, they tried to reach out to the rest of the world and were thus (IMHO) more ‘steerable’.
I was quite nervous about the American reaction, people wanted punishment and revenge and did not really care that much about how justified that was (again, IMHO). Afghanistan at least was a somewhat justified target and Bush said that the US would NOT let Afghanistan down again, like they did in the past. They would get rid of the taliban and actively help and support rebuilding the country afterwards. Those two points made me think that at least the benefits would be bigger than the costs, and thus a very very hesitant supporter.
Seeing what happened in Afghanistan, how Bush lived up to his words (NOT) and the carelessness for human lives made me protest the Iraq invasion even more.
As Hilzoy pointed out in her September post, it would have been possible to create a good reason for attacking Afghanistan: the Taliban’s governance was so awful that the only thing worse was what has replaced it, the rule of the warlords.
So, to repeat what I asked above: success is the arbiter of legitimacy? A plan which fails is a priori illegitimate?
A plan which fails is a priori illegitimate?
Not morally, but historically perhaps, in that those who instigate a plan that succeeds are often forgiven any transgressions along the way.
Anarch: success is the arbiter of legitimacy? A plan which fails is a priori illegitimate?
Neither one. (Though Edward has a point when he says history tends to be kinder to winners.)
The US had no legitimate reason to attack Afghanistan, and no legitimate or honest reason to attack Iraq.
Attacking Afghanistan was an act of revenge. Other reasons got stuck on and abandoned (finding Osama bin Laden, helping the Afghans, replacing the Taliban with a better government).
Given how terrible the Taliban was, it would have been possible to justify – not legitimise, but justify the attack on Afghanistan, post facto, by rebuilding Afghanistan, by breaking the power of the warlords, by showing a committment to human rights and democracy.
Bush didn’t consider any of that important enough to devote sufficient resources to it (estimates at the time were for 15 billion over 5 years).
Other reasons got stuck on and abandoned (finding Osama bin Laden, helping the Afghans…
I’m now really curious: how do you know that finding bin Laden wasn’t one of the primary reasons for the attack? It seemed to me, here in the US, that this was absolutely one of the reasons we went in there. We failed to do so, of course — rather staggeringly so — but I find it hard to believe that this wasn’t an actual aim, although not taken as seriously as it should have been at the highest levels.
[Part of this may be that you’re not distinguishing between Bush, the government, and the American people, so I can’t tell precisely what you’re saying here. If you’re just talking about Bush, I think you’re probably right; if you’re talking about the American people as a whole then no, you’re wrong.]
You keep harping on this point but, despite your denial above, I keep coming back to this statement:
Actually, leaving aside the evident uselessness of attacking Afghanistan to get al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden – which I’m surprised to see anyone defending now, since it has been proven to be so pointless…
And this one:
If it was a serious attempt to get Osama bin Laden, or to destroy al-Qaeda, plainly it was not justified, because it failed on both counts.
You’re directly asserting that something has to succeed to be justified: there is no scope for legitimate failure here nor scope for simple incompetence, just success or failure. It’s tantamount to asserting that the ends justify the means which, pace Edward, does not strike me as the moral position any of us want to inhabit. I don’t see how you can defend these statements but then claim that success is not a legitimator; could you please elaborate?
I’m also really curious at the distinction you’re drawing between legitimacy and justification. Could you elaborate on that, too?
Anarch: how do you know that finding bin Laden wasn’t one of the primary reasons for the attack?
You’re right, I don’t. It’s just possible that Bush & Co were dumb enough to think that they’d be able to find Osama bin Laden by bombing Afghanistan. That would assume that they were stupid, and I do try not to make assumptions like that.
It seemed to me, here in the US, that this was absolutely one of the reasons we went in there.
But why did anyone believe that bombing Afghanistan was a good way to find Osama bin Laden? Seriously: why? Was it a lack of knowledge about the terrain? How did people imagine that bombing/invading Afghanistan was going to locate one individual?
[Part of this may be that you’re not distinguishing between Bush, the government, and the American people, so I can’t tell precisely what you’re saying here. If you’re just talking about Bush, I think you’re probably right; if you’re talking about the American people as a whole then no, you’re wrong.]
I think that the reason Bush attacked Afghanistan was because the American people wanted to see something spectacular done. Going by the bloodthirsty calls for revenge I ran into on the Internet post-September 11, there were a whole lot of Americans out there who weren’t properly distinguishing between al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ordinary Afghans – they just knew that six thousand (or three thousand, depending) Americans had been killed, spectacularly and terrifyingly, and they wanted to see that act revenged.
I think Bush chose the simple, crowd-pleasing solution and either didn’t care (or wasn’t told) that it was highly unlikely to achieve the goal of finding Osama bin Laden. We’ve been told that immediately after September 11 what he (and Rumsfeld) wanted to do was to attack Iraq, as they eventually did. If the plan had been to get Osama bin Laden, that would likely have involved, in the end, negotiation with the Taliban: agreements to have Osama bin Laden handed over for trial for his crime. It wouldn’t have included bombing. And a trial of this kind generally lasts long enough to exhaust everyone’s need for revenge except those directly affected. And in any case, Bush had made clear to the world already that he wasn’t in favor of the slow but unlethal process of international justice.
You’re directly asserting that something has to succeed to be justified: there is no scope for legitimate failure here nor scope for simple incompetence, just success or failure.
I didn’t think that was what I was arguing.
Hmmm… What I thought I was arguing was that if you do something criminal for (what seem to you) good reasons, you have damn well better be able to show they were good reasons, or pay the penalty.
What I think was the real reason for attacking Afghanistan – the American people wanted revenge for 911 – was not a good reason, not a legitimate reason, not a reason that could ever be justified afterwards.
What you say you think Americans thought was the real reason for attacking Afghanistan – finding Osama bin Laden – was a stupid reason: bombing Afghanistan was never going to help anyone do that. (Finding Osama bin Laden was in itself a good reason, but the means used to carry it out, bombing Afghanistan, were stupid.) So, a legitimate reason, but one carried out with hopeless incompetence if Bush were serious about it – and with far too many innocent deaths ever to be justified.
What Hilzoy described in her September post – rebuilding Afghanistan – is not a legitimate reason for attacking another country. Given that any war will cause large numbers of innocent deaths, I do not think it ever should be.
But… I admit that I loathed the Taliban. I could see why they’d managed to take power in Afghanistan: they were just one step better than the chaos of the warlords. But their attitudes to women, their determination to undo and tear up all the good that had been done by various Communist governments since the 1970s, and various more-or-less progressive monarchs before the 1970s, their merciless application of a hardline amd heartless interpretation of Islam… I loathed them. If Bush had made the case for attacking Afghanistan on the basis that the Taliban needed to be overthrown and the country rebuilt, I admit I’d probably have held my nose and thought “Okay, sometimes good can come out of criminal wrong-doing: I’ll support it.” (That is, I would have in September 2001: I’d feel rather differently about it now we know so much more about Bush & Co’s abilities in that direction.) And in that case, if Bush & Co had followed through on their promises – had provided the fifteen billion, had devoted military resources to protecting the population from warlords – if Afghanistan were now three years on the way to becoming a better country, or even if Bush & Co had clearly made a determined attempt that had been foiled by circumstances beyond their control – then I’d give them credit for carrying out a criminal act with good intentions. And if it had succeeded, well, I’d say they’d managed to justify what they’d done. I would say it reluctantly, mind, but I would.
I’m also really curious at the distinction you’re drawing between legitimacy and justification. Could you elaborate on that, too?
If I walk into a pharmacy and buy myself some cough syrup because I have a cold, or even just because I like the mild high, that’s legitimate. (May not be justifiable, but it’s totally legal.)
If I walk into a pharmacy and steal a drug I need to stay alive because if I don’t have it I’ll die, and I cannot get the money I need to buy it in time, that’s not legitimate – but it’s possible to justify it.
If I walk into a pharmacy and steal a carload of drugs in order to sell them on the street for a substantial profit, even though I know the people who buy them will likely be seriously/permanently damaging their health, that’s neither legitimate nor possible to justify.
Does that explain what I mean by the difference between legitimate acts and justifiable acts?
How did people imagine that bombing/invading Afghanistan was going to locate one individual?
Um. Given that it very nearly did work (at Tora Bora), why are you arguing that it was unreasonable to think that it would work?
I also think that you’re drawing too bright a line between the Taliban and al-Qaeda. From everything I know about the situation prior to September 11, the distinction between the two was muddled, to the extent that it was entirely legitimate to regard an attack by Osama bin Laden as an attack by the Taliban. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
“If the plan had been to get Osama bin Laden, that would likely have involved, in the end, negotiation with the Taliban: agreements to have Osama bin Laden handed over for trial for his crime.”
That was tried. The Taliban was not interested in turning over bin Laden.
What’s more, ISTR — and correct me if I’m wrong here — that over the summer, when F9/11 was the new hotness, that you spoke your public agreement with Michael Moore’s assessments that 1) invading Afghanistan to capture bin Laden was a legitimate goal, that the Bush administration 2) executed poorly by failing to commit adequate troops and to either cut off al Qaeda’s escape or pursue them properly. Do you no longer agree with that assessment? Because if you do, it seems that you’re trying to have it both ways.
Josh: Given that it very nearly did work (at Tora Bora), why are you arguing that it was unreasonable to think that it would work?
It didn’t “very nearly work” at Tora Bora: it failed for the obvious reason that it was easy for Osama bin Laden to slip away as soon as it was obvious the US was committed to bombing the place. Why would anyone have thought Osama bin Laden would stay where the US was bombing?
Josh: Do you have evidence to the contrary?
The Taliban is a fundamentalist Afghan organization that has been around in Afghanistan for (at least) decades. (Earliest reference I’ve found to the Taliban is in 1963, via Dervla Murphy.) It’s ethnically, politically, rooted in Afghanistan. As a government, it was recognized only by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Al-Qaeda is a fundamentalist international terrorist organization. Like the Taliban, but without the Taliban’s ethnic roots in Afghanistan, it was very much a product of the CIA’s resources and training in the 1980s. While the leaders of the Taliban are Pushtan Afghans, the leaders of al-Qaeda are (as far as we can tell) Saudis.
It would be impossible for me to provide evidence that the two groups are completely distinct, that no member of the Taliban ever became a member of al-Qaeda, or vice versa. But that there are two distinct groups operating should, I think, be obvious by now to everyone: the Taliban is interested in regaining power in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda’s goals are terrorist strikes worldwide. (None of those involved in the Madrid bombing had been to the training camps in Afghanistan.)
Sebastian: That was tried. The Taliban was not interested in turning over bin Laden.
The Taliban offered three times in the weeks between September 11 and October 8 to negotiate turning over Osama bin Laden, if agreement could be reached: Bush was not interested in trying to negotiate.
Phil, I can’t tell if that comment is directed at me or not. Is it?
Sorry, Jes, yes it was.
I’m curious — is there any contemporaneous, reliable reporting on what the Taliban might have sought in allegedly offering to turn over bin Laden? (If he was ever theirs to turn over, which I’m also not entirely sure is the case.) And, given that the one thing nearly everyone here agrees on is that the Taliban were an absolutely abhorrent government, should the U.S. have been willing to negotiate with them at all? That is, is there anything we should have been prepared to grant them, given their style of governance? I don’t think it’s exactly fair to, for example, chide the Administration for their coddling of Saudi Arabia, but encourage them — retroactively, no less — to have negotiated with the Taliban, a group that’s perhaps an order of magnitude worse than the Saudis.