Michael:

You chose to inherit the liberal tradition. Mr. Savoy and his ilk have chosen to repudiate it while appropriating its tropes.

These sentiments frighten me, because this isn't the first, third or fiftieth time I've heard them.

Ha ha, I love it, you leave out the one and perhaps most important paragraph that shows that you completely distort Savoy's argument. Savoy writes:

"There is one exception to the prohibition against taking innocent human life, recognized by both our own principles of criminal jurisprudence and international rules of warfare. Deadly force may be used in self-defense even when innocent people will be killed in the combat required to defeat the aggressor. Although international rules of warfare prohibit the purposeful targeting of civilians, even in a defensive war, the law makes an exception for the incidental or "collateral" killing of the innocent because civilian casualties are frequently unavoidable in mounting an effective military operation against the enemy. "

He's entirely right I'm afraid. There's no argument to be made that this was a war of self-defense. Nor surely was it a war to liberate, but that's another matter.

As a contributing editor to The Nation, allow me (on personal title!) to substantially agree with you about Savoy's piece. The passage about freedom of self-determination is particularly appalling and revealing.
As to his general position regarding the sanctity of life, it is a wholly defensible position IF he were a pacifist. Perhaps he is, but it is not self-evident. I have no problem with someone who opposes violence, period. I think it is a naive and useless position, but nevertheless a consistent one.
Savoy's case, however, seems to be different. He is, in his own way, drawing a balance sheet albeit in red ink due to the civilian casualties. It is absurd, of course, to posit that freedom is not worth blood and death-- a principle that is held equally dear by both the Left and the Right.
That said, Michael, the balance sheet, then, has to be drawn. It is is still too early in the case of Iraq, but the account is definitely still open. Getting rid of a homicidal tyrant like Saddam Hussein is definitely a plus, and worth great sacrifice. But I hope you will agree that is NOT the end of the story. We needn't look any further than, say, Africa, to understand why. Rivers of blood and tears and a couple of generations of sacrifice were levied in the very just and often violent fight against colonialism. But how many millions or tens of millions or perhaps hundreds of millions of AFricans today feel rightfully betrayed by their respective "national liberation movements." Of course, we would agree that, in itself, colonialsim was a good thing to do away with. But in fact, the judgement of history is still out in regard to what has replaced it-- at least in Africa.
That's why I would argue that the Iraq story does not end with Hussein's overthrow. It merely begins there. That is why you and I share the outrage over Abu Ghraib... the entire mission in Iraq is undermined if we do not hold the high moral ground. And if we, indeed, are willing from the comfort of our living rooms, to see five or ten or fifteen thousand Iraqi civilians killed in this conflict, as the collateral damage in a greater cause, then we have the responisbility of making that greatness happen. As we correspond tonight, I have great fears for the future of the Iraqis. I want to believe that-- at least in the long run-- the way has been cleared for a much better future for Iraq. But the long run can be a very very long time. Remember that the killing carried out by Mao (in the millions) and by Stalin also was done in the name of building the New Society. While Savoy is wrong to be so categorical and so quick to shirk moral responsibilities, one must be equally cautious in killing for some Better Idea, some New Society that much more often than not, never materializes.
I would say, in fairness, that in the last week's issue of The Nation tha there were a number of other essays on the same subject. And many are much more hard-headed and well-grounded than Savoy's airy piece. I would point to the piece by Stephen Cohen. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040524&s=forum

I did address that, Calibar, when I wrote: In his view, genocide can only be resisted by the victims. Never by a well-armed third party.

He left out third-party intervention utterly. He never factored it in. Third-party intervention isn't self-defense, so I really don't see why your excerpt is relevant to my point.

It's self-evident that self-defense is morally permissible. That's not what we're talking about here.

Marc Cooper: As a contributing editor to The Nation, allow me (on personal title!) to substantially agree with you about Savoy's piece.

I figured you probably would. I'm sure you know that you are one of the exceptions I had in mind when I took a swipe at the magazine.

You're right, of course, about the "national liberation" movements in Africa. It's one of the best points that can possibly be made, I think, to bolster your position.

I would say in response that the U.S. is morally superior to most of those African movements. George W. Bush is clearly no Robert Mugabe. It really is too bad Africa didn't have more Nelson Mandelas. His moral values are very...well...Western.

Michael, I have a question: Why aren't you writing for the Nation? You are far more capable than Mr. Savoy when it comes to constructing a moral system, at least based on this article and your response. I haven't seen such an intellectual and philisophical wasteland since accidentely reading a piece by Chomsky.

The argument that 3rd parties can't intervene, because they are not acting in self-defense, means that a policeman can't stop a serial killer who isn't targetting him. Or any other person who harms another. This drivel isn't even worth fisking, if you ask me, save for the fact that allowing it to stand corrupts the liberal tradition. Perhaps I am too harsh, but perhaps it is because I find the concept of standing by while another man is murdered before my eyes and I can do nothing because I am not endangered morally repugnant.

Michael... Please feel free to bash away at The Nation. Many of us do! One note in response to your last comment. Yes, the United States is morally superior to many of those movements, for sure. But we will be judged on what we do not what we say or profess. If we convulge Iraq in war and chaos we will and should be judged on the outcome we produce. We do "own" Iraq now. My greatest fear, however, is that we have put ourselves in a situtation whose internal logic will lead the US to abandon Iraq long before our lofty stated goals are accomplshed. I hope I am wrong.But keep on bashin!

FH: Michael, I have a question: Why aren't you writing for the Nation?

I used to aspire to do just that. It was not so long ago. I changed my mind just before Christopher Hitchens left the magazine, and pretty much for the same reason.

Katrina Vanden Heuvel is the editor, and I really don't think she and I would get along at all. I told Marc Cooper a few months ago that if he takes her place I'll subscribe to the magazine again. I was absolutely serious about that. I might even want to work for him if he would have me. But that day is not today.

Really well done, MJT.

One item: It's not as simple as Brooks says. There has always been a contingent in liberalism that maintained that we should never adopt a strategy, or a set of rules, by which some people will be left very badly off or killed. This tradition extends back through Rawls to Kant in philosophy and it isn't a recent divergence. It is separated by a blurry line from the liberal ideal that we should make a great effort to keep as few people as possible from being undeservedly left very badly off.

The former sort of liberalism is paternalistic. It decides what sort of risk it is rational for the poor or oppressed to take - namely none at all. Rawlsianism is common in academic philosophy today. According to it, we should structure the economy so that no one can be poor, even if this means that no one can be rich or even much above lower middle class. Nevermind whether poor people in fact would prefer such a limited range of possibilities; it is dictated to them that they must. As for not dirtying hands, you'll find the roots of this nonsense in Kant, who said that we must allow a would-be murderer to find his fleeing victim rather than to attempt to throw him off the trail by lying - lying being abusive of the murderer.

And in Savoy's case, he has decided for Iraqis that it is not rational for them to prefer to risk death. For if it were rational for them to take the risk, it would be permissible for us to help them take it. Savoy, Rawls, and the rest believe they may decide for everyone else how to live and which chances to take. It's a good thing these liberals aren't in power, or we would not be free.

In Black Lamb Grey Falcon, Rebecca West tells the story of the Serbian Tsar Lazar, to whom, on the eve of battle against the Ottomans, the Virgin Mary is said to have offered the choice of victory on the battlefield and an earthly kingdom or defeat and a heavenly kingdom. Lazar chose defeat. The next day he fell in battle and inherited his heavenly kingdom. 77,000 Serbs fell with him, according to the legend, dooming the nation to five centuries under the heel of the Turk. And Lazar is remembered for the purity of his soul.

There's a strong hint of pacifistic Gandhi: "There are many things for which I'm willing to die, nothing for which I'm willing to kill."

In practice, even for most of those who want to idolize him, they accept "self-defense".

I consider Iraq democratization a step of self-defense. Unfortunately, there is asymetrical falsification here. An Islamofascist terrorist getting nukes, or other WMDs, and killing Americans can pretty will prove I'm right; that the anti-war not self-defense position is false.

I don't see any way of proving I'm wrong.

MJT,

He only cares that we are morally pure.

No, he only cares about power. Savoy is shilling for the Democrats who want to regain political power from the Republicans. The Democrats are willing to go to ANY LENGTH in order to regain power up to and including losing the war so they can pin it on Bush. That is just collatoral damage Democrat style. And to the left-wing of the party along with the socialist idiots at the Nation, losing the war is the means to their transnational socialist fantasy utopia ends, not merely the means to regaining power.

Savoy, the left and the Democrats are the opposite of morally pure. They are purely corrupt. It is mind-boggling to me that so many people still grant the presumption of morality to the Democrats and the left. It is this presumption that allows them to make bizarre arguments like the one Savoy advances that leaving Saddam in power was the moral choice! Simply astonishing.

Maybe some on the left delude themselves into thinking they are morally pure. But the real world is rapidly intruding on their illusion. The illusion won't last for the duration of a Kerry administration which will be a disaster of epic proportions.

"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep" - Saul Bellow

HA, I'm pretty sure Savoy really, honestly, in his mind believes he is being more morally pure.

Reminds me of an idea Barbara Brandon expressed of her husband Nathaniel having an affair with the much older Ayn Rand -- the more intelligent one is, the easier it is for one to create believable rationalizations.

The Leftists really ARE fooling themselves. Sincerely.

Like "spoiled complacent" rich kids, who love mankind, but can't stand the common people.

Calibar states that "There is no argument to be made that this was a war of self-defense."

But in fact, there are many arguments to be made that this was/is a war of self-defense. That Calibar doesn't accept them doesn't mean they don't exist.

He left out third-party intervention utterly. He never factored it in. Third-party intervention isn't self-defense, so I really don't see why your excerpt is relevant to my point.

--it's entirely relevant because you and marc are making this guy out to be a paficist of some sort, which actually he's not. you make him out to sound like he sees no case for using violence ever to solve a real problem. of course, Iraq was not a real problem of self defense, which even the likes of Ken Pollack have finally come around to admitting. but cling to the gulf of tonkin fantasy of saddam as threat to the world.

It really is too bad Africa didn't have more Nelson Mandelas. His moral values are very...well...Western.

--except for when he or desmond tutu criticise the US or Israel, in which case they are evildoers no doubt.

It is this presumption that allows them to make bizarre arguments like the one Savoy advances that leaving Saddam in power was the moral choice! Simply astonishing.

--you had no problem with it in the case of Qadaffi, Suharto, etc. What would have been the problem with leaving Saddam in power? Was he a big threat to you? Are you one of the many Americans who still thinks Saddam was responsible for 911?
To this day your boy Kimmit is still negotiating with the Fallujah forces and with Sadr in Najaf. Please try to deal with the reality that negotiation is something that your type resort to time and again to resolve problems too.

But in fact, there are many arguments to be made that this was/is a war of self-defense. That Calibar doesn't accept them doesn't mean they don't exist.

--Go see Mr. Powell's recent statements about the phony nature of intelligence he used. Not that it wasn't well known over a year ago, but it's a good thing he finally is waking up to the obvious reality.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3335965.stm

That might have something to do with our current level of comfort with Qadaffi, Calibar.

Michael and Marc, thanks for providing a "fisking from the left" of the handwashing paradigm.

The only thing I can add is some speculation that maybe Katrina Vanden Heuvel at least sees a strong possibility that Iraq will become something like a liberal democracy. The Savoy article carries a strong aroma of "even if we were wrong we were right" post-hoc justification.

Anything that gets more people onboard the "rebuilding Iraq is necessary" wavelength is fine by me.

"Maybe he needs to take a holiday in Sudan (or even Cambodia) to see how the other half lives. You know, walk a mile in another’s shoes, get a little sympathy for the downtrodden. It’s amazing I have to say this to a liberal. It was the liberals, after all, who taught it to me."

Better be careful Michael. You are getting close to "love it or leave it" - and you know how everyone freaks out over that.

The only thing I can add is some speculation that maybe Katrina Vanden Heuvel at least sees a strong possibility that Iraq will become something like a liberal democracy.

--oh yes, Iraq sure is looking like a 'liberal democracy' there these days. are you sure you want them to have a liberal democracy? what happens if they elect leaders that want to nationalise the oil? be careful you don't get what you wish for there.

It's fascinating to see the way that both Michael and Cooper have distorted the text from Savoy to read that he is categorically against 3rd person interventions, is a pacifist, or is against self-defense. Here's another critical paragraph that seems to refute Michael's rather careless reading of Savoy:

"he final argument advanced by the Administration, as well as some human rights advocates, is that the war was morally justifiable as a humanitarian intervention to defend the Iraqi people from mass slaughter by Saddam's brutal regime. However, the doctrine of humanitarian intervention cannot be applied retroactively to morally justify war as a means of punishing a political leader for past atrocities, such as Saddam's killing of more than 100,000 Kurds in the Anfal campaign, which occurred almost fifteen years before the invasion. Because it is essentially a principle that permits the defense of others, the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, like the concept of self-defense, requires actually occurring or imminent large-scale killing to justify the use of military force."

Interesting, not only is he not against 3rd person interventions per se, but he also has clearly laid out conditions for when it's reasonable. the question then is whether or not the conditions could be met in the case of Iraq and he cites HRW's report among others as evidence that the conditions are not met. From that Michael gets that he is 'against 3rd party interventions'?

Just because you're so fun to tweak, I will say that yep, liberal democracy is exactly what I want for Iraq. An elected government based on a liberal constitution that protects the rights of all citizens of Iraq sounds like a damn fine idea.

Got a better one?

Just because you're so fun to tweak, I will say that yep, liberal democracy is exactly what I want for Iraq. An elected government based on a liberal constitution that protects the rights of all citizens of Iraq sounds like a damn fine idea.

--I think it's a great idea too. but just be careful what ya wish for. if the people elect a gov't that wants to refunnel profits into the saudi economy and out of the US economy, I'm not so sure your friends in Congress or on Wall St. will be very satisfied with that. At that point it might be time to go on another "WMD" search to resolve the crisis of this threat to American values.

calibar, you spambot, get your own blog.

Michael,
I'm a fan. One point: the Kitty Genovese story is useful as an argumentative tool (everybody knows the reference and agrees upon the moral; we can disagree upon causes, etc.) but it is mostly a myth created by irresponsible journalism. It is more accurate to say that probably none of Ms Genovese's neighbors knew she had been stabbed than that 38 people witnessed the attacks. A good, balanced discussion of the case is here:http://www.oldkewgardens.com/kitty_genovese-001.html.

So what would be the cutoff point, in terms of numbers of civilian casualties, before this exercise in Iraq is unjustifiable, MJT?

10,000?
50,000?
Somewhere between those figures?

A foreign and military policy that represents an expression of our highest moral values, is a fine and wonderful idea. I remember the scorn that was heaped on Jimmy Carter when he proposed orienting our policies in such a manner. The truth is, our nation's foreign policies, and that of every other nation, have always been grounded primarily in the pursuit of our national interest - irrespective of the moral consequences. That is not a particularly comfortable reality for people to deal with, especially people who live in a country that has enjoyed long periods of internal peace, and whose people see them selves as intensly moral actors.
Such people will have an irresistable urge to couch their foreign interventions in moralistic terms, as a function of the need for them to both pursue thier selfish interests and to maintain their moral self-identity. A causal reading of the justifications of colonialism should drive that point home to anyone.

Iraq is an "artificial" country that has long been extremely difficult to control. But its place in the geopolitical landscape has made it a very important place to keep under control. There has therefore long been a willingness to put the moral blinders on and to support and even encourage the reign of "strong leaders", like Saddam. The stability of the region, and our unfettered access to the natural resources that are so crucial to our prosperity have always trumped any moral concern for the people of Iraq. It is only when the local enforcer gets a bit too big for his britiches, and begins to threaten our interests - and we consequently feel the need to replace him - do all the moralistic arguments against his behavior began to be expressed.

I think that many war critics are painfully aware of this fundamental hypocrisy. And many war-supporters are in complete denial about it. If we wish to begin to bridge some of our differences, perhaps we can start by dealing honestly with the nature of American foreign policy. The fundamental argument comes down to this: what should the role of morality be in our foreign policy, and how does that interface with the traditional concern of pure self-interest?

The fleshing out of moral arguments is not a relevant focus of debate until we address the larger issue - to what extent are we willing to really live by those moral standards? Are we willing to take on murderous dictators when they are actually doing our bidding, and are therby aiding our prosperity?

In other words, can we take the moralist arguments seriously, or are we to conclude that they are merely ad hoc justifications of this particular war, trotted out to mobilize the masses to oppose a dictator who is no longer protecting our interests?

calibar, you spambot, get your own blog.

--that's not a very strong argument in response. come on, really, what do you do if your liberal democracy in Saudi Arabia, accomplished by US military intervention say, decides to refunnel petrodollars into the Saudi Economy instead of the US economy? Are you sure Republicans or Democrats would stand for it? The record would indicate otherwise. Are you sure you want democracy in Saudi Arabia, or is that just a convenient slogan?

i'll leave for the day since i see no one can sufficiently respond to my doubts about liberal or conservative commitment to democracy in Saudi Arabia. I'd note also before leaving that Marc Cooper's comments on Zimbabwe are superficial, assuming that on the left there are not serious critiques of Mugabe. It is interesting to note that Marc hasn't called for the bombing of Harare to deal with Mr. Mugabe.
Patrick Bond is probably one of the best left commentators on the situation in Zimbabwe and South Africa:

http://www.zmag.org/bios/homepage.cfm?authorID=108

and on Rwanda, the liberal and conservative argument that we 'ignored' Rwanda and should have sent in an intervention force because the weak UN wouldn't have been able to is also pretty lame as an argument. A more serious left analysis of that genocide can be found by Stephen Shalom, at:

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/april96shalom.htm

with that, thank you for your patience and please continue with the brilliant retorts of "calibar you're full of shit" etc.

So Tano, when do we get to be authentic with our good intentions? You lay a lot of hypocracy at our feet with some justification, but does that mean no action we ever take can be for morally righteous reasons? Do you believe in a national original sin that will forever keep us from being on the side of the good, except by accident?

Part of the Bush Doctrine states that we can't afford to allow dysfunctional countries with the resources to harm us to exist unchallenged. Statistics say that's a bad bet. Therefore, the promotion of liberal democracy world-wide is in our interest.

That's an accidental good I can live with.

Does anyone else find the following sentence, standing alone and out of context, scary?

"Viewed in the light of our own moral ideals, as embodied in our constitutional tradition, the right to life is so fundamental that killing the innocent to advance the cause of freedom of electoral choice or any other purpose, however worthy, must be regarded as wrong."

Remove the word "electoral", which is implied by the "or any other purpose", and you have the statement of an anti-abortionist, and I highly doubt that was the intent. I know people often hold inconsistent positions on abortion/death penalty and all sorts of other items, but I'm surprised he would use such language, unless he was reaching out to anti-abortion activitists, which I doubt many subscribe to The Nation.

Right ON--couldn't agree more.

For the most comprehensive collection of links to news, views, political, and government sites, don't miss All Things Political (www.allthingspolitical.org)

Calibar, however bad things might be in Iraq, if you think the Iraqis have any desire to elect a theocratic, terror-sponsoring government, you simply have not been paying attention. There are a whole host of other problems in Iraq, but now you're just blustering for the sake of having a comeback of some sort.

Yet another example that the left is as defunct as the right. The Left don't understand the morality of removing a dictator (though I don't necessarily think we handled it particularly well... in fact, it looks like a pretty badly run campaign. Bush would be out by now if this were a game of RISK). The Right doesn't understand why US forces acting shockingly amoral gets more airtime than Terrorists acting like gasp terrorists. Hell, some on the Right are all for Torture if the ends are justified.

The Right Wing is in a tizzy because some gay people would like to have the legal protection of marriage for their partners, while some of the left are in hysterics because Bush thinks that college entrants should be judged on their acedemics not their skin color.

Finally, both the left and the right are constantly accusing one another of not being American because they are on the other side of the issue, as if America was ever united on any political issue. We praise democracy, yet we accuse anyone who debates against our platform of communisum, hedonism, ad nauseism.

This is what democracy, what freedom is all about. Not the freedom to agree with the majority, not the freedom to support the commander-in-chief, not the freedom to maintain the status-quo of morality, and not even the freedom to agree on what is considered 'best' for America. The freedom is to disagree and make the disagreement known.

Yet, everytime someone disagrees with one side or the other, there is this rush to prove them full of S**T. Everyone who disagrees with position X must have an agenda, they must be trying to save/overthrow the president, religion, society, support the terrorists, destroy democracy, impose a Theocratic society on the US, or some other completely unrealistic exaggerated goal.

One wonders how much some really want freedom... and how many would really prefer a authoritarian state in which their ideas are the only ones implemented...

But what do I know I'm a squirrel....

Interesting that everyone rushes to the "self-defense" argument as justifying the killing of innocents.

Now, what does this say about Afghanistan? What DID this say about Afghanistan?

I seem to recall lots of folks opposing the war in Afghanistan because of the humanitarian disaster that would result; that no Afghans were part of the hijacking crews of 9-11; that there had not been every effort made to persuade the Taliban to hand over Osama; that there was minimal proof at the time that Osama and the Taliban were even related.

Innocent Afghans died. Are they to be blithely dismissed, especially given the "questionable" nature of the self-defense in that case as well? Are those who rush to the banner of "self-defense" really consistent w/ the stances held in October 2001??

"when do we get to be authentic with our good intentions?"

I dont understand the question. Either your intentions are authentic, and they guide your actions in all cases, or they are not.

If self-interested actions also happen to be consistent with the morally right thing to do, but your decision to do them really derives from a consistent application of self-interest, do you have the right to claim a moral justification?

To drive the argument to an extreme - I am sure that even Saddam, in the millions of decisions that he made over the decades, did many things that were good and "moral", or that could be justified in moral terms - by coincidence no doubt - i.e. they coincidentally conformed to his self interest at the moment. In a practical sense, our actions seem quite different, but on a moral or philosophical level, I would like to hear what you think the differences are.

"we can't afford to allow dysfunctional countries with the resources to harm us to exist unchallenged."

By the definitions used by the Bush administration, almost every country on earth has the "resources" to harm us. All it takes is a few PhDs in chemistry or microbiology, and a standard college-level laboratory. "Dysfunction" is also a rather ambiguous term - there are many countries that are as "dsyfunctional" today as Iraq was before the invasion, or worse. Your phrasing, or Bush's, seems to open the door to an attitude that we can invade any country that our leader determines has hostile intent. Given the propensity of so many in our country to instinctivly support any such presidential pronouncment, we seem open to an unrestricted power of war and domination, at least in theory.

"The political culture of the Middle East absolutely is our business. Middle Eastern political science topples buildings and kills thousands in our own cities."

"He's entirely right I'm afraid. There's no argument to be made that this was a war of self-defense. Nor surely was it a war to liberate, but that's another matter."

Resolve this contradiction and you will have taken another step toward sanity.

Hmmmm. I found the comment about "if this is freedom I'll take slavery" interesting, and tend to agree with you. Isn't it ironic that the liberals who tend to scream so loudly about "big brother" Ashcroft & Bush are the same ones who are turning traditional liberal logic on it's head, into doublespeak. Remember, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. Another name for it is pretzel logic. Either way, in the end, they would have us all in Room 101 in order to correct our "thinking".

Viewed in the light of our own moral ideals, as embodied in our constitutional tradition, the right to life is so fundamental that killing the innocent to advance the cause of freedom of electoral choice or any other purpose, however worthy, must be regarded as wrong.

Of course, the good people at The Nation do recognize that the fundamentality (is that a word?) of the right to life is not absolute, but subject to the Planned Parenthood Exception (aborting innocent life is OK because it saves on future child support), the Terri Schiavo Exception (starving your handicapped wife is OK because it allows you to be rid of her inconvenient existence), the Building Socialism Exception (one must "break a few eggs" to collectivize Ukranian agriculture), and so on . . . .

Either way, in the end, they would have us all in Room 101 in order to correct our "thinking".

That's right, liberals are just champing at the bit, waiting for IngSoc to be established so that that they can drag the conservatives off to the Ministry of Love. Or, wait, maybe that's an extremely paranoid delusion masquerading as political analysis.

Or, as our friends at the Ministry of Truth would call it, "duckspeak."

The post-Holocaust notion of “Never Again” doesn’t even enter in the equation. Did anyone who said “never again” mean a tyrant has to be exactly as bad as Hitler to be worth stopping? No
*************************************************
Michael you misunderstood them, it is not "Never Again" they were saying, but

"Neville Again" ;-)

Isn't it ironic that the only reason Mr. Savoy is alive to spout his utopian drivel is because he and those of like-mind have had the good fortune to live in a free society which protects them whilst they incessantly gnaw on its ankles in a feigned "moral" snit? Had they not, they would of course have been grist for the "mill" long ago.

Here's one hawkish Democrat and Kerry voter who says "right on" to Mr. Totten. Savoy's morally unconcerned isolationism cannot be the road this nation goes down.

This war must be a war for the defense of liberalism. Liberalism cannot survive without defending itself against killers and totalitarians. Michael hits the nail on the head here.

"i'll leave for the day since i see no one can sufficiently respond to my doubts about liberal or conservative commitment to democracy in Saudi Arabia."

Here's the situation - a little girl is drowning, a man jumps in the water to save her and succeeds. People around him, instead of praising him, say "Well, what about all the other little girls drowning in the world. Why didn't you help them?" You can't help everyone at the same time. If you wait to do that you'll end up helping no one. You help who you can, when you can. Personally, I would like to bring democracy to every totalarian country on Earth. The more freedom we have the better chance we have for world peace. I also understand that it is impractical do so (more is the pitty).

Hell personally this war hawk hopes that Iraq gets to funnel all of that oil money into their economy. It helps Iraq a lot better than Saddam building those palaces or the UN getting their Graft money.

SA too, if they were to become a liberal democracy and in turn let the people get most of the money. We do not want to own their oil, we do not want to build an empire. We want to drain the swamp of the fundamentalists. That is the Self-Defense angle of going into Iraq.

We could not pressure SA to stop exporting their brand of Extreme Islam until we could replace those resources we purchase from them. Namely Oil. Saddam, for 12 years had thumbed his nose at the UN, had bribed the UN up to the point people were talking about easing sanctions, had the second largest Oil reserve in the world.

Hmmm, maybe if we go ahead and get rid of Saddam, help the Iraqis get their oil production up. Let them join Opec, and then we could put pressure on SA to reform. We could say the hell with their Oil then we could maybe sanction them. Meanwhile, young men in SA would see a productive economy in Iraq fueled by their oil money and their liberal capitalistic society and instead of joining the extremists left for Iraq.

But maybe calibar you are too short sighted to see what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq. You honestly believe we want their oil, I bet you believe they are building a pipeline across Afghanistan too right.

Meanwhile, we sink more money into alternative power sources and when we get that working in the next decade or two, we will take their only source of Income away. Then places like Iraq will be the only functioning economy in the ME. More young men who would be extremists will pour into the country, making it more successful and those old regimes will dry up and blow away.

Jesus some of these people I think actually believe this is all about the oil.

Yet, progressive liberalism embraces eco-imperialism as the new religion in helping the oppressed. Meanwhile, more people are dying daily from maleria than have in this war because eco-imperialists have banned the use of DDT. Third world countries are literally encased in museums of death at the convenience of misguided beliefs in the religion of eco-imperialism.

How many more people must suffer and die by the hands of those eco-imperialists who pretend they actually care.

The Nation does not walk their talk.

Calibar,

I'm curious as to what part of the "Saudi economy" Iraqis might choose to "invest in" in the near and intermediate term. Surely you aren't suggesting they sell Iraqi oil and use the proceeds to buy Saudi oil? Isn't it more likely they'd instead mimic the Saudi methos of using oil revenue to buy whatever else they need?

Why should we be afraid if Iraq "nationalizes" its oil industry? Many in the blogosphere including the instapundit hawks have talked about what a good idea it would be for all Iraqis to share in oil sale profits. As long as the rest of the world can buy the oil, what does it really matter if all Iraqis profit and no one owns the oil fields and Iraqi oil companies. I for one have no problem with this.

Tano, you said:

Either your intentions are authentic, and they guide your actions in all cases, or they are not.

In your view, how does this fit in with the idea of making a distinction between having the courage to change the things you can, the ability to accept the things you can't change, and the wisdom to know the difference?

And how does it fit with the idea of finite power and resources? Seriously. Becuase I think you're oversimplifying for rhetorical advantage. In my experience those who insist on holding out for the whole loaf more often go hungry.

I note that although the article speaks in terms of a moral calculation, there is no effort to sum up the benefits of deposing Saddam. If 5,000 civilians have been killed liberating Iraq, what number of lives have been saved, and is that sufficient? He does mention that as many as 300,000 people were killed by Saddam; over an approximate 30-year reign that indicates an average of 10,000 people a year. Is it worth killing 5,000 people to save 10,000 per year? I don't think that's a very difficult question.

And it's not as if the left has not been prepared to forgive a lot of killing in the past, provided it was done to bring a socialist/communist government to power.

The discussion of ideological purity is an interesting one now, especially as many traditional Republicans and Democrats find themselves on the opposite ends of the isolation/intervention spectrum from where they occupied a few short years ago. From an ideological perspective, I suspect there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around. It is, however, completely understandable and even expected that an event of the magnitude of 9-11 shatters and rearranges people's priorities and thinking. I think this is a big reason for the shrillness in general of political discourse these days; simply put, people are arguing from very unfamiliar territory. Mr. Savoy and Calibar are good examples. Six years ago they were most likely arguing for involvement in Kosovo on moral grounds. Many Republicans were against such involvement, asking the questions about how our national interest would be served.

A huge paradigm shift has occurred with 9-11 though, and people need to get their heads around it. One interesting thing about this shift is that it is now abundantly clear that these concepts of morality in international relations as opposed to the self-interested behavior (ala Adam Smith) have now converged. Any country that is not democratic to the extent that it allows it's citizens to effectively address their grievances in a peaceful manner to avoid extremism and violence is a threat to the US in that it has the potential to produce international terrorism, expecially if that discontent is expressed in the form of Islamic fundamentalism. This results in the kind of totaltarianism that no good liberal should be comfortable with. Thus we should have the luxury of bringing both the moralizers and the those who are require national interest to be represented on board for the fight against Islamic fascism. It is a shame that the administration has not done a better job in advancing these ideas, but that does not make them any less true. The old divisions amongst us must be dropped. If new ones emerge, fine, but let them at least be logical, and ideologically pure.

I'm a right-wing partisan, certainly. But could it be that the left only approves of 'breaking a few eggs to make an omulette', if the omulette is a socialist / communist experiement? Maybe if Bush announced National Health Care for all Iraqis, members of the left would support the war.

bk,
My argument was not that one should act from moral principles in all cases, and thus attempt to take on all the worlds problems at once.

My argument was that oen should be honest about what one's motivations really are.

As far as I see it, morality plays a secondary role, at best in our foreign policy. And it may well be the case that it plays no real role whatsoever, except as a convenient argument to be used in those instances where are self-interest and our moral principles happen to coincide.

And that, I would claim, is merely spin

Saddam could build a hospital, and claim that it is because he is a good and moral man, committed to help his people. One could argue that otherwise - that he needs a certain level of public health if the people will work to make the money he could then steal, and that in any case, the people expect a decent health care system from their government or else they would revolt.
So which is it? Or is it both?

I think this is any easy question. Would he do it if there was nothing in it for him? Probably not. Did he routinely do things in his own interest that violated moral rules? Sure. I think we can conclude that he was self interested only. The moral actions were coincidental to self interest, and I am sure he used that coincidence for propaganidstic purposes.

Now, at that level, how are we different? Do we bring freedom and democracy to random countries when we have no self interest at stake? I am not demanding that we fix all problems - how about some, where there is no interest? Do we do things (like support dictators) that are amoral or immoral if it is in our self interest?

I guess I am asking someone to make the case that we EVER do anything for moral reasons, as opposed to simply CLAIMING moral justification whenever our interests and morality coincide.

My goal here is not to advocate particular actions - it is to have honest discussion.

Calibar wrote "--oh yes, Iraq sure is looking like a 'liberal democracy' there these days. are you sure you want them to have a liberal democracy? what happens if they elect leaders that want to nationalise the oil? be careful you don't get what you wish for there."

Hmmm...from Websters: "Nationalize 2: to invest control or ownership of in the national government" Looks like we're almost there. As far as I can tell there are no privately held Iraqi oil assets in existence. If I'm not mistaken control currently resides with the Provisional Authority and will pass to the Iraqi government, once constituted.

I'm curious as to what part of the "Saudi economy" Iraqis might choose to "invest in" in the near and intermediate term. Surely you aren't suggesting they sell Iraqi oil and use the proceeds to buy Saudi oil? Isn't it more likely they'd instead mimic the Saudi methos of using oil revenue to buy whatever else they need?

--you have completely misread my comments. completely. you are arguing with someonelse who wrote that perhaps.

Any country that is not democratic to the extent that it allows it's citizens to effectively address their grievances in a peaceful manner to avoid extremism and violence is a threat to the US in that it has the potential to produce international terrorism,

--You mean Jordan?

http://www.w3schools.com/Visit W3Schools

Funny definition of nationalisation you've got there Bob

Exactly the right point brainster. If I remember correctly, UNICEF and the WHO said we were killing 5,000 Iraqi children a month with sanctions. Now that sanctions are lifted and oil revenues are going into Iraqi coffers, shouldn't we get credit for the 5,000 that we save every month.

By my calculation, since this war started we have saved 70,000 Iraqi children. Now I ask you, in doing what UNICEF and the WHO asked us to do, namely lifting sanctions on Iraq, are we committing a moral act or an immoral act?

Calibar: Yes, I think Jordan falls into that caetgory. What is your point?

Come on man, just a little effort to refute something in principle would be appreciated.

So, what you're saying is, if people aren't willing to fight and die winning their own freedom from their oppressors, we should be willing to go in there and kill as many people as we need to - oppressors and oppressed alike, but in palatable proportions to salve whatever remains of our consciences - suffering as many casualties to our own troops as necessary, in order to "secure the blessings of liberty" for them and their posterity.

Have I got that right?

I find your moral and analytical insight underwhelming.

Calibar: Yes, I think Jordan falls into that caetgory. What is your point?

--funny, i don't remember it being categorised as one of the evil countries, indeed it is roundly praised by conservatives and liberals alike for having such a fine "King", as that link points out. i think you guys are just out of touch with the people you vote for and how they regard these issues. i'd love to see jordan become a democracy, i'm afraid the people you vote for don't really care one way or the other. or at least ya wouldn't know from their relationships with such fine figures of democratization like the Jordanian "King".

Well done, Michael.

Savoy's reasoning makes the moral case against U.S. participation in World War II. After all, he could argue that an attack on a distant military installation outside the U.S. (Hawaii wasn't a state, yet) was hardly pretext for the violence which followed, that we killed more of them than they of us . . . and that we provoked them with our embargo, blah, blah, blah.

Sophists and pharisees in the service of nihilism.

Your page setup makes for difficult reading because the line length is too great. I think I'd agree with your analysis if I had the patience to even skim it.

It is hard to deny that more civilians have died in Iraq since and because of our invasion than would have been killed by Saddam Hussein during the same period of time. Hussein killed lots of civilians during his wars against the Kurds (late 80s) and against the Shiite insurgents in the South (early 90s, after the Gulf War). Other than that he was your standard issue brutal dictator, not genocidal. Civilians were dying due to U.S. sanctions before we invaded; Hussein was not on any kind of genocidal rampage (although of course his secret police killed some people every year). Civilian deaths due directly to U.S. action since the invasion look to be about 10 thousand (not 5 thousand), plus thousands dead due to our total inability to maintain order and incompetence as a governing body, plus many thousands more innocents locked up as "insurgents" on little or no evidence. Plus the U.S. troops killed and wounded, who I would count as innocents since no one deserves to serve under a CiC as incompetent as George W. Bush.

When are you people going to admit what an utter practical disaster the invasion of Iraq has been?

Tano - my point is that when morality and national interest converge, one or the other does not necessarily become "spin" depending on one's point of view. Kosovo was upheld as an intervention based mostly on "moral" grounds, but considering the history of the Balkans, there was certainly a national interest aspect as well. I don't think that America is often stirred to battle without both of these sides being satisfied to some degree, because in a liberal democracy, it really does require many people (ahem, not just a neocon cabal) to sustain a war effort. I guess I am confused why those who would normally accept a moral arguement for war are tying themselves into pretzels to deny that moral aspect with regards to Iraq simply because the ends do indeed converge with national interest. Thoughts?

an odd calculation you have there jayef

the rendition of the numbers of 'lives saved' 'hospitals built' 'hospitals running' remind me of old Soviet lists of major accomplishments.

MQ: when you can prove it's a disaster without twisted rationale, distortions, and lies.

One of MJT's remarks got me on a line of thinking that is too long to waste his bandwith. I think he's wrong when he says Savoy is advocating inaction due to the danger to innocents. I just don't think he (or even Savoy) followed his thinking through to it's logical conclusion.

Click the link for more on that thought.

Savoy's reasoning makes the moral case against U.S. participation in World War II.

--wrong. Savoy's argument clearly argues precisely the opposite.

Tano, I personally have long believed a foreign policy based equally on moral principals and pragmatic outcomes would be best for this country. Alas, contrary to calibar, I do not in fact have friends either in Congress or on Wall Street. Unlike, say, Katrina Vanden Heuvel.

Put succinctly, I believe in moral outcomes. I also believe moral outcomes are much more solid if they are produced by moral processes. That's why I was outraged by the prisoner abuse/torture in Abu Graib. I believe we are trying to achieve a moral outcome in Iraq, and that was undermined by our treatment of prisioners. But none of that negates the good that we want to achieve, and that we may achieve.

That's why the urge to wash our collective culture's hands of sin bother me so. By refusing to engage the bad beyond our borders, we allow the good to be destroyed. (And as 9/11 should have shown to any with eyes to see, "our borders" is a pourous concept at best.)

I would characterize Mr. Savoy's arguments as the "Strong handwashing" principal. Since innocent people will die in any war, and innocents dying is always the morally "worst case scenario", a moral (third) party cannot morally intervene in any conflict.

I characterize your argument as "weak handwashing"; since US motives in waging war may be suspect, any overall good that comes from it will be suspect as well.

"Strong handwashing" basically percludes the United States from ever using its military except as a response to a direct attack. Even then, if the actors aren't traditional nations, our response would be limited to micro-actions against small groups of hard to isolate individuals. If anything, action in those cases would be more difficult, because the actors have every incentive to disperse through large populations of innocents.

"Weak handwashing" is potentially less restrictive, because in theory all it does is raise the bar justifying action to a higher standard than "it's in our best interests." In practice, it gets abused. (I'm still waiting for the Trans-Afghanistan Oil Pipeline.)

I'm not saying the bar shouldn't be higher than might-makes-right; far from it. What I am saying is that moral decisions can be made that acknowledge the good being done along with the potentially self-serving interests of the actors involved. (I don't care if Haliburton makes a tidy profit in Iraq, as long as the Iraqis end up better off, and we don't have to worry about Saddam taking over the Saudi oil fields).

Michael J -

That's a fine article, sir.

Here's my two cents from the evil conservative corner:

1. The only reason for our nation of free citizens to engage in war is to defend ourselves from direct and unambigous threats to the institutions and freedoms we hold dear. It is in our basic national INTEREST that we do not die at the hands of, or are forced into a domestic security posture that destroys the freedom, innovation, and opportunity for individual realization of potential that make us the nation that we are, by parties or individuals who have embraced systems or virtues that they think give them liscence to kill.

2. The only way to end a war fought across diametrically ideological grounds (the only kind that free citizens ever have any business fighting) is to crush comepletely the enemy on the field and in his home and then dictate the terms of future relations, in order that the issue is resolved and not just deferred.

There's my two cents. War is hell wrought on earth. History shows in stark relief the nature of arguments that wars alone can solve, and today's situation is nothing new...nothing new at all. The remarkable component of this struggle is the willingness of so many Westerners to ignore the enemy's stated agenda (and undeniable track record of lethal action toward implementing it)in the hope that they may realize some short term benefit by doing so.

Can Islam, as envisioned as a new caliphate, or even as it exists in practice by Wahabbist/Sunni/Shi'ite/Druse survive in a world where the last superpower and the worlds most powerful economies are products of the western liberal/democratic/republic tradition?

Personally, I don't think so. Without serious reform they'll never be able to compete economically. Without benefit of the geological lottery that placed their lands on top of the world's energy supply, the Arabs would have arrived in 2004 as a handful of EcoTour curiosities. Without serious reform, they will continue to wallow in psychological trauma and tribalism that to most westerners would appear as clinical, and commitable.

When their cultures collide with the west they lose just on assimilation because their system consciously denies a future to half of their population, while simultaneously assigning despotic power to males. That they have decided to wage war to prevent the changes that history is forcing upon them is their affair. The walls are gone...pierced by jumbo jets, fibre optic cables, and computers. We have to decide what will be rebuilt from the rubble.

Calibar - fine, if playing games about what "my people" or "your people" are doing shelters you from actually evaluating what I say as an individual and thus makes it easier to avoid any real discussion, then so be it. I doubt that one is ever lucky enough to vote for any candidate at any level that perfectly emobodies all of one's positions and opinions. So what?

You say you'd love to see deomcracy come to Jordan. Great. Me too. Now that we agree on something, how would you accomplish that change? I again argue that a successful democracy in Iraq is the best way to accomplish that change in Jordan, and all the other totalitarian states nearby. What is your solution? And please, don't say "getting rid of poverty", we've already been over that.

MQ - geez, again with the "you people". I think I am noticing a pattern. By most historical evaluations, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been anything but a total failure. Time will tell.

Stop screeching about "you people" and come up with solutions and present them in the marketplace of ideas.

I particularly enjoyed these little jems of distortion from Calibar's link in response to Jayef:

"Why do they die? They die because of things we don't have." -- As if it was different under Saddam, right Calibar?

"Once the Middle East's gem, the system was starved of resources by Saddam Hussein under 12 years of international sanctions." -- Yes, a system that was starved by several hundred corrupt, unelected and unaccountable UN officials, let's not forget that, although I'm sure Calibar still believes it all our fault. Dump the propaganda and stick with, you're going to need it Calibar.
I also find it quite interesting and telling indeed that you had no response to Cool Tester's drowning girl analogy, a point that completely undermines everything you have said so far.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Interesting observation, calibar. I suppose you believe that the United States is responsible for these conditions? If we had only been kind to Saddam and allowed him to exercise his will in any direction he pleased, none of this would be happening, right? Basically what you're saying is that UNICEF and WHO were full of it . . . on that we can agree. Or are you saying something else? Are you saying that whether there are sanctions or their aren't sanctions or Saddam is in power or Saddam is out of power whatever has happened and will happen in Iraq is the fault of the United States? I get it now.

So it's not about self defense? I don't see how you can make that argument unless you think the US has no active enemies in the middle east.

We know for a fact that Saddam gave money to terrorists (on many occasions). We know that terrorists trained in Iraq. We know that Saddam was the sworn enemy of the US who would do almost anything in his power to hurt the US and Israel. We know that Saddam attacked neighboring nations whenever he thought he could win and had designs on ruling the whole middle east. We know that Saddam at least had contact with al Qaeda in Iraq (and the meeting in the Czech republic is looking more and more like a fact). We know that Saddam had a plan to assasinate an American president.

Most of all, we know that he surrendered in a UN-backed war and didn't honor the terms of surrender. Doesn't that make him an ongoing threat?

What more, exactly, do you think he would have to do to be considered an enemy who had already attacked us?

Of course, we also had those UN resolutions (unless you want to claim that the UN has been now shown to be so illegitimate that we shouldn't allow them a voice) and mass graves and the torture and killing of children and pillaging of his country and ... you get the idea.

The idea that there was no moral basis for this war is absurd. I don't think it's a position the left would have if Gore were president right now. After all, there is little hue and cry from the left over Clinton's war (still going on and still causing US casualties) in the balkans.

MQ,

So let me get this straight. The deaths caused by the U.S. invasion of Iraq count in this little body count calculus, but somehow Saddam's campaigns against the Kurds and Shiites do not. (And naturally his invasion of Kuwait and war with Iran do not count.)

Please explain. In particular, please explain how, given his past actions, you are quite certain he would never begin any other wars or initiate any further campaigns against Kurds and Shiites.

No matter how you slice it, the body count calculus favors removal of Saddam. The real question is: Why do the anti-war dead-enders still cling to this faulty reasoning?

Michael,

You've written a very thought provoking article for me. As a product of Western upbringing in a Judeo-Christian culture, I can't help but think of nation-states in the context of the Good Samaritan. Surely, any person with compassion must realize that fighting for and defending freedom are the greatest acts of humanity. They must also come to realize that the persecution of any individual is an assault upon our own freedoms and must be stopped. This much debated war on terrorism is much more than just fighting a bunch of thugs committed to anarchy. They mean to destroy Western civilization. Simply because there are many things about our culture that have no moral justification, or more pointedly is amoral, does not invalidate our society as a whole. Complacency will lead us to ruin if we do not awaken to this threat against all humanitity in the name of a god, which I have purposefully spelled with a small letter because these terrorists are godless. Debating the virtues of the terrorist cause is not considering their right to freedom, it merely addles the brain and causes hesitation to act.

My party has deserted me and what I thought were its ideals by challenging the moral justification of the war in Iraq and the fight against terror.

It gets worse:

American athletes have been warned not to wave the U.S. flag during their medal celebrations at this summer's Olympic Games in Athens, for fear of provoking crowd hostility and harming the country's already-battered public image. -- London Sunday Telegraph, May 16

So now we should hang our heads in shame for liberating 50 million people, spending over $100 billion to pay for reconstruction and giving the lives of nearly 1,000 members of our armed forces?

Maybe if we all chip in the USOC can buy themselves a new moral compass.

Cosmo: "Savoy's reasoning makes the moral case against U.S. participation in World War II. After all, he could argue that an attack on a distant military installation outside the U.S. (Hawaii wasn't a state, yet) was hardly pretext for the violence which followed, that we killed more of them than they of us . . . and that we provoked them with our embargo, blah, blah, blah."

Well done Cosmo! You've mastered the 'Bush conflation.' Unless of course you believe that Saddam attacked us on 9/11/01.

I have to scratch my head when I read "the right to life is so fundamental that killing the innocent to advance the cause of freedom of electoral choice or any other purpose, however worthy, must be regarded as wrong." He probably sees nothing wrong with abortion which does the same thing but it gives "freedom" to the women and men who just don't want to raise a child.

Tano,

There is a perfectly good reason that morality is only trotted out when our interests are at stake.

Intervention has its costs.

What is best is when both the intervenor and those under the thumb of the tyrant profit from his removal.

If you want something done in the world make it profitable.

This is in fact as it ought to be. Intervention should not be easy. Even if it is right.

After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, we launched the Dolittle Raid. Then we invaded Morrocco and other countries in No. Africa and then Sicilly and then France.

Why? These countries did not bomb us at Pearl Harbor. What was our justification?

We were attacked. It was determined that the goal of the US was to win the war rather than lose the war. To win the war we had to defeat the enemy. The enemy was a large number of countries that were allied together in various degrees for the purpose of taking over the world.

It made sense to pick off the bad guys with the easiest targets being first, hence North Africa and Sicily.

Some of the arguments I have seen would suggest that the only moral response would have been to arrest and bring to trial Hitler. Others would suggest that the only moral response would have been to wait until Japan or Germany invaded the US before we defended ourselves.

I also believe that if Hitler had not made the idiotic mistake of invading Russia, the allies would have lost the war, or won with far greater loss of lives. We sent huge amounts of aid to Russia. Did it help the US? Yep. Was it a good thing? Yep. Was it because of altruism? I would argue that it was because of enlightened self-interest.

It is in our self interest to keep the bad guys from blowing us up. It is in our self interest to drain the swamps of the world and kill the bad guys where they may be found. It is in our self-interest to see that Iraq is prosperous and democratic and non-supportive of the bad guys trying to kill us.

It would also be in our enlightened self interest if all the world was happy and prosperous, self governing, productive and non-supportive of bad guys. Does this make our motivation evil because we benefit? I don't think so.

After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, we launched the Dolittle Raid. Then we invaded Morrocco and other countries in No. Africa and then on to Sicilly and then on to France.

Why? These countries did not bomb us at Pearl Harbor. What was our justification?

We were attacked. It was determined that the goal of the US was to win the war rather than lose the war. To win the war we had to defeat the enemy. The enemy was a large number of countries that were allied together in various degrees for the purpose of taking over the world.

It made sense to pick off the bad guys with the easiest targets being first, hence North Africa and Sicily.

Some of the arguments I have seen would suggest that the only moral response would have been to arrest and bring to trial Hitler. Others would suggest that the only moral response would have been to wait until Japan or Germany invaded the US before we defended ourselves.

If Hitler had not made the idiotic mistake of invading Russia, the allies would have lost the war, or won with far greater loss of life. We sent huge amounts of aid to Russia. Did it help the US? Yep. Was it a good thing? Yep. Was it because of altruism? I would argue that it was because of enlightened self-interest.

It is in our self interest to keep the bad guys from blowing us up. It is in our self interest to drain the swamps of the world and kill the bad guys where they may be found. It is in our self-interest to see that Iraq is prosperous and democratic and non-supportive of the bad guys trying to kill us.

It would also be in our enlightened self interest if all the world was happy and prosperous, self governing, productive and non-supportive of bad guys. Does this make our motivation evil because we benefit? I don't think so.

Sorry for the double posting.

Why do I feel that the liberal rationalization of the the evilness of our war in Iraq would somehow be different if it was being done by a liberal Democrat instead of a conservative Republican?

Why do I feel that the so-called progressive movement has sold out its core principles in order to score some partisan political points?

"Why do I feel that the liberal rationalization of the the evilness of our war in Iraq would somehow be different if it was being done by a liberal Democrat instead of a conservative Republican?"

Because you see strawmen everywhere you look.

Now that we agree on something, how would you accomplish that change?

--easy, stop aiding the military and police forces in Jordan, since they are known to engage in surveillance of democratic opposition groups and to engage in their repression. That'd be one good place to start. But tell me where the will for that would be on either side of the aisle?

Madison,

There is some evidence that he was shooting at our military aircraft well before 9/11. Afterwards too.

calibar:

At that point it might be time to go on another "WMD" search to resolve the crisis of this threat to American values

Translation: Everyone who disagrees with me is a liar.

Don't engage in debate with people who consider slander to be a legit debate tactic.

Tano:

In other words, can we take the moralist arguments seriously, or are we to conclude that they are merely ad hoc justifications of this particular war, trotted out to mobilize the masses to oppose a dictator who is no longer protecting our interests?

Either the moral arguments are right, or they are wrong. Whether they are "trotted out" in an "ad hoc" manner does not change the facts on the ground one bit.

Refutation by character assassination is still a fallacy, last I checked.

As if it was different under Saddam, right Calibar?

--no, but our support of saddam and subsequent hypocritical sanctions surely did quite a bit to convince average Iraqis that we weren't that sincere in our support of their interest in getting rid of Saddam by themselves.
------------------------
If we had only been kind to Saddam and allowed him to exercise his will in any direction he pleased, none of this would be happening, right?

--actually, probably yes. albeit there was no need to be 'kind', the US could have negotiated quite a bit with him, he was actually known in the aftermath of the war to be wanting to negotiate with the US on a whole series of issues, it was the US that said, 'forget it man'. Once we said that we were going to keep sanctions on after he left Kuwait and wouldn't leave them until he was replaced as leader, well all bets were off for negotiations of any sort. Now, I know that idea is offensive to you, but if it could be done with Qaddaffi and countless other official enemies, including the Taliban even in the aftermath of 911, and at the present with Sadr [yes, I know it's unappealing, but that good General Dempsey has been negotiating with him for quite a while now through official and unofficial channels, ditto the fallujah fighters], well., yeah i'd say this military adventure in Iraq wasn't necessary.
-------------------------------
Basically what you're saying is that UNICEF and WHO were full of it . . . on that we can agree.

--no, i didn't say that at all.
---------------------------
Yes, a system that was starved by several hundred corrupt, unelected and unaccountable UN officials, let's not forget that, although I'm sure Calibar still believes it all our fault.

--wrong, the UN didn't design the sanctions that the US imposed on Iraq, nor the conditions for the regimen.
---------------------------
I again argue that a successful democracy in Iraq is the best way to accomplish that change in Jordan, and all the other totalitarian states nearby. What is your solution? And please, don't say "getting rid of poverty", we've already been over that.

--there are few that believe that increasing poverty will lead toward more democracy. you'd be silly if you didn't think there wasn't a tie between the authoritarian structures of politics in the mideast and who is protected economically by that structure.
-----------------------------------
Are you saying that whether there are sanctions or their aren't sanctions or Saddam is in power or Saddam is out of power whatever has happened and will happen in Iraq is the fault of the United States?

--well, i'm not sure who else we can blame at this point. Uruguay?
-----------------------------
Please explain. In particular, please explain how, given his past actions, you are quite certain he would never begin any other wars or initiate any further campaigns against Kurds and Shiites.

--very few mideast analysts believe that that was a likelihood, it wasn't one that was of great concern to the US, it was never even brought up as a reason for the official invasion. moreover if you look at what human rights groups have written, it's quite clear that the absolute worst atrocities occured over a decade ago and mostly when the US was sponsoring Saddam's war ventures. There was plenty of room for other options with Saddam aside from war, it's really only stubborn incapacity to admit that that leads one, even at this point, to deny that the war lobby greatly oversold the 'necessity' of war on either 'self-defense' grounds or 'humanitarian' grounds.
----------------------------
It would also be in our enlightened self interest if all the world was happy and prosperous, self governing, productive and non-supportive of bad guys.

--what if the good guys end up demanding that the US leave Iraq, no bases, permanent or temporary?
or what if, god forbid, they don't open up their oil to foreign investment as the US hopes? Or, what if the democratically elected government of Iraq aligns with Chavez in Venezuela? Are you sure the US will stand for such democracy? How much democracy can you stand? Even more important how much democracy can the president of the US--republican or democrat--stand?

Punslinger:

"It would also be in our enlightened self interest if all the world was happy and prosperous, self governing, productive and non-supportive of bad guys. Does this make our motivation evil because we benefit? I don't think so."

If America really wants the world to stop supporting "bad guys", wouldn't it be a logical step to stop financing/supporting dictatorships?

The U.S. has a long history of propping up corrupt leaders as long as they don't inhibit trade and provided that they surpress any indigenous socialist/Marxist movements. (Examples? Just look at a map of South America for starters. Also, the U.S. has a penchant for installing puppet governments...Sept. 11, 1973 in Chile, remember?)

We are all in agreement of one thing: freedom should be accessible to everyone. Where we diverge is how far countries should go to expand freedom, globally. I don't think that invading Iraq was the right move, at least not without the support of the U.N. It wasn't planned out enough & we are seeing the fallout from this failure of leadership right now on the ground in Iraq.

How would the U.S. feel if it were invaded by a foreign power and given Economic Freedom (at gunpoint)? (Right now, capitalism is the prevailing form of economics practiced in the U.S. Imagine if Canada conquered the U.S. and forced you to adopt our form of economic theory? Ie. more socialist, free healthcare, etc.)

Also, it is no coincidence that Islamic people all around the world are being ganged up on (Chechnya, Palestine, etc.). They are disenfranchised and angry that the most powerful nation in the world thinks that they're the "bad guys". When you're called evil, it is too easy to play the role.

To Mr. Totten:

Thank you for your excellent piece which makes clear the liberal justification for expanding the war on terror into Iraq, and also for demonstrating how Mr. Savoy's argument thoroughly repudiates the classical liberal tradition. I agree with Jim that the transit from the classical position to the contemporary one has been a divergence which leaves classical liberalism almost completely at odds with its contemporary incarnation.

In essence, the divergence has, in the post-9/11 setting, left America with an opportunity to herald principles of freedom and security throughout the world by incorporating both moralistic and practical components into the war itself. Iraq and Afghanistan are now examples of these efforts, by distinguishing between the enemy we seek to eliminate and the peoples there we seek to help. The peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan have suffered in the past by tyrannical regimes which indeed supported terrorism, both directly and indirectly.

There is a necessary link between those states which sponsor, harbor, and otherwise support terrorism and the plight which the common peoples of those states face. For instance, sanctions against Iraq after the first Gulf War were necessary to prevent Hussein from using his resources to wage offensive wars. One argument against the sanctions was that the people suffered as a result of imposition of international law against Hussein's regime. However, that argument was really an argument against Hussein's regime in the first place. If Hussein had not waged offensive war into Kuwait to resolve a border dispute, there would not have been an international coalition united against his actions, which repelled the invasion and made several demands on Iraq's future ability to wage aggressive war, then the ceasefire agreement, subsequent resolutions, and the sanctions would have never been necessary.

Instead, after 12 long years of "containment," it was clear that the situation was left festering. Iraq would not account for the WMD which we know she had, she would not abide by the international agreements and obligations which she had, and furthermore supported terrorist organizations both monetarily and by allowing safe harbor. In the post-9/11 setting, the situation, taken on its own was unacceptable, for the reasons stated, namely, that international laws and conventions were being trampled by the rogue state of Iraq. By enforcing those agreements, instead, the coalition has added strength and accountability to international accords. Conventions mean nothing, and are not worth the paper they are printed on, when they are not enforced.

Enforcing the resolutions has had many benefits. Operation Iraqi Freedom was appropriately named because the obvious implication of enforcing the resolutions was regime change. And if regime change was necessary to replace Hussein's regime, then it would have to be replaced with something - presumably something better... Hence, Iraq is now in the process of developing a constitutional government of the republican form, incorporating federal and democratic modes. Newly found freedom has the most direct benefit for the peoples who participate in it peacefully, as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, the risks are also paramount. Global and regional terrorist interests are attempting to fill a power vacuum, however these efforts do not accomplish much more than murder. They do not acquire political power by this means, and they do not come close to derailing the progress made by the Iraqi people with the aid of the coalition. If a benefits-analysis is taken for Iraq (and Afghanistan), then thus far in an historical context, the war on terror has been an extraordinary success!

Obe has posited an interesting dilemma, too: "I guess I am confused why those who would normally accept a moral arguement for war are tying themselves into pretzels to deny that moral aspect with regards to Iraq simply because the ends do indeed converge with national interest. Thoughts?"

In my opinion, moral arguments are easier to process, and arguments for the national interest are necessarily self-interested, and therefore perceived as selfish. When moral arguments and prudential arguments coincide, this leaves those who normally argue against prudence and realism generally with quite the dilemma, namely, how can moralists and realists work together? My thought is that these folks are just playing partisan politics with the traditional dichotomy of the foreign policy school. In other words, conventional wisdom holds that idealism and realism are not supposed to get along, and to that extent, those that can continue to play that line will continue to do so, so long as that debate is not challenged. However, when it is demonstrated that a real war (not abstract) clearly has both moral and practical dimensions, this will put those who hate realism through a philosophical fit. Literally, by demonstrating that a war is both morally right and practical, too, rubs many the wrong way. But I argue, how can one justify a moral pursuit in the real world without it being practical? In other words, what good is a moral pursuit if it is not possible? So, the war on terror is a moral pusuit, because it spreads freedom and self-governance, and it serves the national interest because in doing so, the balance of power is strengthened, as it is proveable that democracies do not wage war against one another, for the most part. In this sense, there are many moral dimensions to the realist conceptions. The challenge for moralists is to find practical means to achieve moral ends which service the national interest.

Any other thoughts on how expanding the war on terror into Iraq has serviced the national interest? I usually argue from the moralistic standpoint, but I see the need for moral ends to be justified prudentially. Therefore, I'm not the best person to argue the realist point of view, though it seems clear to me that spreading freedom and self-governance, whether it be in the republican, democratic, or liberal forms, adds to the balance of power. Another realist argument would have to do with the fact that being protected by two vast oceans is no longer sufficient with regards to the global threat of terrorism. In addition, global involvement and participation in the war against terrorism is necessary, for similar rationale, because terrorism is a transnational danger which threatens us all.

OK, M.Simon, where is the evidence? And if so, our only recourse was to take over the entire country?

Tano:

If self-interested actions also happen to be consistent with the morally right thing to do, but your decision to do them really derives from a consistent application of self-interest, do you have the right to claim a moral justification?

To the extent that such a thing exists as "the morally right thing to do", then yes, you have a right to claim it to the extent that your actions are consistent with it.

To the extent that it doesn't, then your ability to claim moral authority only extends as far as your ability to muster agreement amongst your peers, by whatever means.

In either case, motive is entirely irrelevant.

It's good to examine people's motivations when looking at their actions in the aggregate with an eye to improving them, but motive has no relevance to the rightness or wrongness of any individual act.

"It's good to examine people's motivations when looking at their actions in the aggregate with an eye to improving them, but motive has no relevance to the rightness or wrongness of any individual act."

I guess you don't much like the U.S. justice system, then.

Iraq would not account for the WMD which we know she had,

--wow, it's dick cheney sending comments today! this is exciting.

Obe,
I disagree with one of your assertions, one of your assumptions. Then I will get to your question.

I do think that the moral justifications are basically spin. The reason is, is that interventions come onto the political radar as a function of whether there is a national interest at stake. There may be disagreement on that score, but if the president in power decides that there is, then we will intervene. If not, then not. If we intervene, then, and only then, do the moral questions come up. In obvious cases, like stopping genocide in the Balkans, the way is pretty clear. In ambiguous cases, or when there really isnt much of a moral case, then the spin begins. The marketing stratgey, if you will.
Presidents have inherint credibility with the broad middle of America. If they claim that the enemy is bad, and that the side we take are "freedom fighters", then the people will believe, irrespective of whether it is true or not. Who knows what is going on in distant jungles or small villages on the other side of the world? If some reporter or writer goes there and brings back a different story, they will be ignored in general, or denounced for one reason or another. If you read the blogs you can see that there are legions of armchair propagandists willing to pile on with the dirty work against anyone who contradicts there heros - on both sides.

Youi assume that all those who supported the moral case in the Balkans are now running away from the moral argument in Iraq. That is a generalization whose relevance to this discussion I dont see. I havent expressed any opinion on the Balkans here, and I havent even argued a point on iraq - I have just been asking questions about what the real motivations of others are.

Iraq poses in interesting case. I would claim that there was no real moral motivation to begin with. From what I can discern, I sense that Bush wanted Saddam out, and would have been satisfied with another authoritarian in his place. Obviously not someone who would immediatly start gassing or torturing his opponents - that definitly wouldnt look good. But no grand Wilsonian dreams either. Just look at the charge given to Jay Garner, and the general military plan. Light, swift, agile force, taking out the dictator, then turning things over to someone like Chalabi. And then let him pacify the country using whatever means necessary. Just like a very long list of interventions that we have undertaken. The plan fell apart because the Baathists melted away, and the whole infrastructure collapsed, and suddenly we owned a very broken place. And there were no WMD to justify the invasion. Suddenly we were left with trying to build something back up, and obviously we could only do that along democratic lines - since it was now a very public enterprise.

I think that the Democratic moralists have not been all that inconsistent here. They understood all along that democracy was not the goal - the goal was to eliminate a threat, one that was not real. Saddam was not al-Q, and precious few war supporters, to this day, seem able to confront that fact. But once we were in, then the Dems acknowledge that we must leave it in a much better way. Look to the positions of someone like Dean for instance. He has never taken a cut and run attitude, and has claimed that, now we are there, we better do right by the people.

"Iraq poses in interesting case. I would claim that there was no real moral motivation to begin with."

Sure there was! Enforcing international law. Laws are inherently moral constructs. Iraq violated UNSC Resolutions, which have the weight of the law of nations. And Article I, Section 8 of the federal Constitution gives to Congress to define and punish offenses against the law of nations. That power being constitutional demonstrates that any decision to enforce the law of nations, made by Congress and implemented by the President, is indeed moral.

"I do think that the moral justifications are basically spin."

Then you must also believe, to be consistent, that the power enumerated in the Constitution to define and punish offenses against the law of nations is just "spin" and has no bearing. However, that's misguided. Constitutional powers clearly do have weight.

"[I]nterventions come onto the political radar as a function of whether there is a national interest at stake."

Well, if you're a pure realist, and believe that moral considerations do not play in international relations. But if you're a pure realist, then you probably think international law is just "spin," right? My point here is that the legal case that was made for OIF is exactly like a moral case, though the added benefit of making a completely moral case is one gets to discuss the benefits of enforcing the international resolutions. For instance, the resolutions never mandated a democratic form of government in Iraq, but morally speaking, by replacing the Hussein regime, it had to be replaced with a better form of government that would respect the law of nations.

You can ignore moral arguments as a general rule, I suppose, but then you also have to ignore any legal institution, and in extension, constitutions. If you're a pure realist, then there is no need for moral or legal arguments, right?

Calibar's DNC talking points (DU talking points?) are breathtaking in their willful misreading of both the aims of the war in Iraq and the rationale for it.
very few mideast analysts believe that that was a likelihood, it wasn't one that was of great concern to the US, it was never even brought up as a reason for the official invasion. moreover if you look at what human rights groups have written, it's quite clear that the absolute worst atrocities occured over a decade ago and mostly when the US was sponsoring Saddam's war ventures. There was plenty of room for other options with Saddam aside from war, it's really only stubborn incapacity to admit that that leads one, even at this point, to deny that the war lobby greatly oversold the 'necessity' of war on either 'self-defense' grounds or 'humanitarian' grounds.

Here is the logic behind the purely defensive grounds:

1. The Bush Doctrine says we will not allow terrorist threats or state sponsorship of terrorism to grow unchecked.

2. Saddam Hussein was an unchecked threat insofar as he presided over an autocratic and tyrannical regime that posessed massive amounts of weaponry, had sophisticated WMD programs underway, and could operate with near autonomy even in the presence of U.N. weapons inspectors.

3. Saddam H. was a sworn enemy of the U.S. who fought us and his neighbors on multiple occasions, tried to assasinate the first President Bush, and who would gladly do us harm in any way possible.

4. Given the ridiculously structured "Oil-for-Food" program, Saddam had a ready stream of cash totaling in the billions of dollars annually to pay for his palaces and advanced weaponry.

5. Given his autonomy, access to large amounts of cash, relationships with terrorist groups and fellow dictatorships, it is reasonable to assume that Saddam could easily acquire for himself, or funnel to terrorist groups, staggeringly lethal weapons for use against the U.S. and Israel.

6. S.H. was viewed as an unstable, and therefore unpredictable, actor.

7. Given all of the above, combined with NUMEROUS ADDITIONAL REASONS, it was decided Saddam should be removed from power.

All of this B.S. about there being "one reason" for going to war (e.g. WMD) is a liberal echo-chamber meme that never had any basis in fact. It was Tony Blair's obsession with obtaining additional U.N. resolutions that led the U.S. to present the highly legalistic case, to which was added additional evidence, some of it unnecessary, by Colin Powell.

AND YET even if the hypertechnical case is the one that has to be made, IT HAS BEEN. For David Kay's report did in fact find Saddam was in material breach of numerous U.N. weapons-related resolutions.

I will not rehash the humanitarian grounds for war, as they have been amply made already. But Calibar's claim about the U.S. supporting Saddam when he was committing his worst atrocities is both unsupported and venomous--straight from the sewers of the Democratic Underground. The U.S. cut off all weapons sales to S.H. in 1983. Prior to that time we sold him a small amount of weaponry that totaled 2% of his arsenal. The Russians, Chinese and French sold him over 80%. Suffice to say that S.H. has been killing with abandon since he has been in power. Our one-time support is not relevant. Nor is what we did in the past relevant to how we behave today or in the future. We were allies with the Russians once too.

Calibar further bravely says we needn't have gone to war. Terribly big of you. I'm sure the 25 million Iraqis will thank you for your sentiment.

So how many more Iraqis would be dead in the meantime, while our troops sat idly in the desert as the U.N.'s Keystone Cops conducted their scavenger hunts?

shorter calibar -> it was about OOOOIIIIL

;)

Calibar further bravely says we needn't have gone to war. Terribly big of you.

Hmm. And Fresh Air is bravely fighting in Iraq?

I'm sure the 25 million Iraqis will thank you for your sentiment.

Impressive mind reading powers there, F.E. Have you seen the latest Iraqi polls? How about the news, have you been keeping an eye on events these days? There seems to be some kind of simmering resentment...

Robert,
First off, I disagree with you that "laws are eseentially moral constructs". I dont believe that this is the case even on the domestic level, but certainly not on the international level. International law is a negotiated set of procedures reflecting the common interests of nations. There is nothing "moral" about establishing a United Nations which gives the Soviets a veto. It was done for purely practical reasons to provide mechanisms that might serve to forestall or circumvent armed conflict. Another relevant example is the Geneva conventions. These were negotiated and agreed to so that we could increase the chance that our soldiers would be well treated if taken prisoner - by agreeing to treat our enemies well. It was a practical agreement, not a moral stand - as is evident by the Bush administrations efforts to try every way possible to get around them. I suspect that they feel that since al-Q is not likely to abide by the conventions, then there is no need for us to bother with them either - i.e. they operate only as a deal amongst enemies, not as a moral position that we feel a need to uphold irrespective of the actions of others.

HAving said all that, I dont feel that there is anything wrong with attempting to enforce the agreements of the Security Council. But that need not have necessarily led to war. Your arguments have merit against a position of doing nothing at all, but "doing nothing" or "invading" were not the only options.

Your reference to the constituion merely speaks of what may or may not be constitutional, hence legal under our system of laws. It is not a moral argument.

I do not consider myself a "pure realist" as you seem to define it. And I do not agree that international law is pure spin. It is not spin at all. It is the body of agreement on issues of common interest arrived at by nation states, each of whom is pursuing their own interest. It is not morally based, but rather based on mutual enlightened self interest.

"Refutation by character assassination is still a fallacy, last I checked."

AH,,,yeah. But Jeffery, I have no idea what you are talking about. I dont see what on earth I said that could possibly be construed as character assaniation.
Do you object to "ad hoc"?
I thought that I laid out a pretty good case (one could go on for hours of course) about how these principles are used sometimes, and ignored at other times. If you define for yourself a moral principle of giving donations to your church, but you then only actually do so by buying tickets to the church raffle, wiht the hope of winning a prize, then can you claim that you are thereby acting out your moral principle? I dont think so. I think the appropriate phrase would be "ad hoc application of principle to justify self-interested behavior".

Or did you object to my use of "trotting out"?
Gee, all of a sudden we have put the bar pretty high for acceptable language. This is character assasination??????

So does this mean that if my neighbor is a total tyrant to his kids and wife, I should rightfully get my gun, march over to his house and threaten him or maybe just shoot the bastard and free the wife and kids?

September 11th didn't really change anything other than allow Americans to feel the same thing that goes on in other countries daily. However, we still are isolated, watching botox filled actors pretending to be journalists spew forth "news" which only serves to inflame our already inflamed nationalistic egos.

We have no idea what it's like to be an Iraqi, either before or after Saddam. The Iraqis do though and the Iraqis really need to be listened to and allowed to make their own determination. the only thing in the way of this is the self-righteous American ego and a guy named George Bush.

Double-Plus--

You are a moron. I am too old to fight in Iraq. Besides, whether I fought in Iraq, Khe Sahn or Normandy is irrelevant to my right to an opinion, just like yours. You may also note that the U.S. Constitution specifically provides for civillian control over the military. Ultimately, the most important decisions about deployment of our military forces will ALWAYS be made by people who are NOT in the military.

As to your other point: Polls indicating "simmering resentment" as you put it do not refute the idea that we have made the Iraqis immeasurably better off by removing their odious dictator from power. Show me the poll that says they want Saddam back running things again.

I'm waiting...

Marc, try these three things on for size:

You are not congruent with your country. Things that are appropriae for your country to do may not be appropiate for you to do. And vice-versa.

What does an inflamed nationalist ego look like?

How does the Self-Righteous American Ego and its sockpuppet George W. Bush hide the truth of the Iraqi condition from you? As a corollary, how would their absence make the Iraqi condition any more clear?

So does this mean that if my neighbor is a total tyrant to his kids and wife, I should ...just shoot the bastard and free the wife and kids?

If the tyranny includes murder and absolute oppression, and if there is no law enforcement body and no other way to stop him, then the answer is yes.

Is living at any cost, by any means living?

Marc: So does this mean that if my neighbor is a total tyrant to his kids and wife, I should rightfully get my gun, march over to his house and threaten him or maybe just shoot the bastard and free the wife and kids?

No, but the police should stop your neighbor. There is no international globo cop (the UN enforces NOTHING) so this analogy doesn't work at all.

If you lived in anarchy then, yes, you should stop your neighbor from abusing his children if you want to do something to build some kind of a civilized order in your neck of the woods. And if you didn't stop that neighbor of yours, odds are very high that he'll hurt people outside his own house, like you for instance.