For the Critics
This post started as a response to a particular critic of the war on Dr. Sanity's site here. As my response became more and more drawn out, and less and less on-topic, I decided to move it to my own blog... especially since it has been a long while since I've posted anything.
So here goes...
You said: "Don't invade."
Here is the problem with what you suggest: you don't offer an alternative. I understand that you're not a politician nor a general. Neither am I. But you have an opinion. We tried the non-invasion plan for eleven years, and not only was the situation not improving, it was getting markedly worse. The resolutions were a farce. The oil-for-food deal hurt no one except the civilians, and in fact was making a few people rich on the side. The weapons inspectors were unable to do their job without making an appointment first. France, Russia, and Germany were doing deals on the side and assuring Saddam that things would soon be back to normal. Meanwhile, we no longer have a clear picture as to Saddam's capabilities, he continues to persecute his own people, and he is still in violation of nearly every resolution as well as the cease-fire agreement from 1991.
Everybody knows about the 16 resolutions referred to in UN Security Council Resolution 687. But do you know about the others that were in place at the time of the invasion?
There were a further 50 resolutions (among them oil-for-food, etc., but also some like 688 that demanded Iraq quit killing its own people, or declares Iraq in material breach of some prior resolution, or demands that Iraq comply with some prior demand).
Obviously, you have an opinion. What should we have done?
You said: "And Ho Chi Mihn, America tried to do something about him, didn't work out so good."
Vietnam's backstory is a tangled mess, but I'll try to be brief. After the fall of the French in 1954, President Eisenhower said at a news conference "You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is a certainty that it will go over very quickly. Asia has already lost some 450 millions of its peoples to communist dictatorship. We simply cannot afford greater losses." He sent military advisers on 12 Feb 55 and began work on a plan for military support of South Vietnam.
After Kennedy's debacle in Vienna, he was convinced that Khrushchev was committed to conflict and concluded that Southeast Asia would be the test. The Bay of Pigs, the Berlin Wall, and Laos had already been very visible communist victories in the eyes of the world. He told James Reston, "Now we have a problem in making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place." Kennedy introduced Special Forces into Vietnam in an effort to tip the balance. Unfortunately, the United States faced the situation, as it often does, in choosing the lesser of two evils in Diem. Diem was overthrown and killed three weeks before Kennedy's assassination.
The Vietnam War actually started to escalate into a full-bore war under Johnson. The key lesson learned, at least by the United States military, was that limited warfare does not work. The reason for this, as Johnson discovered, is that once your enemy figures out what you're doing, he simply ups the ante and continues to do so until he finds your breaking point.
By the time Nixon took office, public opinion was so against the war that he began a policy of disengagement, though he did promise continued support to help build up the Vietnam army (ARVN) in a doctrine known as "Vietnamization". Interesting when considering our current situation in Iraq, eh? Anyway, in 1970, the Prince in Cambodia fell to a coup and the new fledgling government soon came under attack by the Khmer Rouge with North Veitnamese backing (insurgency perhaps?) which prompted the "Cambodian incursion" by Nixon in order to attempt to protect the fledgling government. Unfortunately, the effect was to push the communists even deeper into Cambodia (and of course we didn't pursue them) which destabalized the country and resulted in the rise of the Khmer Rouge (who may very well have taken over anyway barring US intervention).
Even after the Paris Peace Accords ended US involvement, South Vietnam was able to hold its own until the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 cut off aid at the same time the USSR and China increased their aid to the North.
I say all this because there is a parallel to today.
Given that we are involved in Iraq, and given that most of the insurgent support is coming from outside Iraq, what sense does it make to abandon them? The right has learned some lessons from Vietnam. We understand that if you go to war, go to war to win. Has the left learned its lessons? Is the failure of the United States worth the sacrifice?
You said: "And guess who actually did take out Pol Pot and restore a semblance of sane order in Cambodia?"
Pol Pot officially resigned in 1985, but managed to hold out until 1996 when his men began to desert. Who gets credit for "taking him out" after twenty years in power? I guess the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK) eventually gets the credit after fighting him for close to ten years. Unless you intend Clinton to have the credit since the fall of Pol Pot occurred during his term. But let's play a game of alternate history. Had we been in the region in 1975, could we have saved 1.7 million lives when the time came?
You said: "Wasn't it Clinton that took out Slobo?"
Actually, no. Slobodan Milosevic lost an election in 2000 and refused to recognize the result, which led to mass demonstrations and the collapse of his regime's authority. I will concede that NATO air strikes prompted the withdrawal from Kosovo, but how many people were killed? 10,000? 100,000? And how many of those deaths occurred even after the NATO peacekeepers moved in? And how soon will Kosovo have an election? And when will the UN be leaving?
You said: "What's the solution to Iran? Saudi Arabia? Israel? Egypt? China? Russia?"
Iran: Surgical strikes at the nuclear facilities and a hard line "we will brook no incursion across the border".
Saudi Arabia: Diplomacy and Influence.
Israel: Support.
Egypt: Diplomacy and Influence.
China: Diplomacy.
Russia: Diplomacy.
I'm no more an expert than you. But it is difficult to discuss alternative plans if you don't offer alternative plans.
You said: "But I am a fan of history and history has show time and time again that often the best way to deal with scumbags like Saddam is for the people who live under them to either rise up then line the bastards up against a wall... or to slowly grind away at them politically (see... Soviet Union for an example)"
That's your plan? Wait until enough people are murdered so the populace will rise up? How many people did the Soviets kill before it collapsed (without anybody rising up)? 120,000 Jews under Lenin. 20-30 million wrong-thinkers under Stalin. And between 25,000 and 50,000 people who tried to rise up in Hungary were put down permanently by Krushchev.
1.7 million died under Pol Pot before he was overthrown.
Then there is Mao with 40 million dead and that "regime" is still in power.
There is a point in history where you must decide what to do, because waiting makes action impossible. What would have happened if we had been more serious in our support of Chiang Kai-shek after World War II. We can't very well stop Mao now, can we? The dead are already dead.
You said: "Look at Vietnam, Iran, South America for examples of how not to change things."
Please see my discussion here. Read especially my views on Myth #4 for a deeper understanding of my views on this point.
You said: "Force is appropriate in self-defense, force is appropriate when the ends can be justified by the means, in short force is appropriate when it's appropriate."
I will agree with you on both of these points. But here's the rub. I think Iraq was justified. You don't. Where does that leave us?
You said: "Now I have a question for you, does it ever make you wonder why folks like me, and the majority of the planet were in favor of the invasion of Afghanistan but not Iraq?"
66% of Americans were in favor of invading Iraq when we invaded.
CBS/New York Times poll
8. Do you approve or disapprove of the United States taking military action against Iraq to try and remove Saddam Hussein from power?
Date : March 7-9, 2003
Approve : 66%
Disapprove: 30%
Don't Know: 4%
The fact that only 35% like the way things are going today doesn't help much because time cannot be undone. Unless those opposed have a plan that won't lead to tragedy, being against the war now doesn't help much, does it?
Look, I'm all for a debate. But I need you to actually have substantive ideas to discuss. Calling Bush and all of his supporters idiots, or war-mongers, or chicken-hawks, does little to advance the debate. Rather it shuts it down and people quit listening to your ideas. If for no other reason than you're rude. I hope you've actually come to read this, and I hope to hear from you in the comment area.
UPDATE
For informational purposes, the post I refer to above reads in full (with quotations of prior comments in italics):
The smart people didn't want to do anything about Ho Chi Minh or Pol Pot either. But, hey. What's a couple million people dead one way or the other.
I didn’t’ say “do nothing” I said “Don’t invade”. Are you a computer? Are only capable of binary thinking? One or zero there is no two three or two point five! Invade or do nothing betrays rather shallow thinking. And Ho Chi Mihn, America tried to do something about him, didn’t work out so good. And guess who actually did take out Pol Pot and restore a semblance of sane order in Cambodia?
Why does the left "stand up" for mass murderers? You have a history of it that continues today with defenders of Slobodan Milošević (Michael Parenti, Jared Israel, Professor Francisco Gil-White, Diana Johnstone and others) and Saddaam Hussein.
Ohhh that’s a straw man question! I see now. Can you please show me where I defend Slobo and the like? Wasn’t it Clinton that took out Slobo? Wasn’t it the GOP that were very much against it? It’s funny reading what Cheney and Rummy said about that war. Say how many American soldiers died in that one? Say how did it turn out?
You said: "...everyone agrees that Saddam was a problem..."
1) Not everyone does.
Who doesn’t?
2) Agreeing that he is a "problem" does nothing to solve the problem.
Agreed! What’s your point?
What was your solution? Another resolution? Or we could just wait it out. After all, he probably wouldn't live forever and I'm sure his sons would have been much nicer dictators.
I don’t know, I’m a graphic designer not a politician or general; such things are well beyond my scope. What’s the solution to Iran? Saudi Arabia? Israel? Egypt? China? Russia? And the squillion other dictatorships more or less vile than Saddam’s?
But I am a fan of history and history has show time and time again that often the best way to deal with scumbags like Saddam is for the people who live under them to either rise up then line the bastards up against a wall (see Ceauşescu for an example) or to slowly grind away at them politically (see Spain & Soviet Union for an example). Invasions? Well in the case of WWII it worked but the U.S. was justified in that case, it was self defense, the final results were immaterial. Look at Vietnam, Iran, South America for examples of how not to change things.
I do have a serious question for you: when is it appropriate to use force?
The previous ones were facetious? Thanks goodness!
Force is appropriate in self-defense, force is appropriate when the ends can be justified by the means, in short force is appropriate when it’s appropriate. See above questions about Slobo for further elucidation and exemplar.
Now I have a question for you, does it ever make you wonder why folks like me, and the majority of the planet were in favor of the invasion of Afghanistan but not Iraq? Does that dichotomy every give you pause, that maybe, just maybe we’re not against the Iraq war because we love Saddam, hate Bush, America, Freedom and the Baby Jesus but because it simply was a bad idea executed with breath-taking incompetence by very stupid and short-sighted twits?
So here goes...
You said: "Don't invade."
Here is the problem with what you suggest: you don't offer an alternative. I understand that you're not a politician nor a general. Neither am I. But you have an opinion. We tried the non-invasion plan for eleven years, and not only was the situation not improving, it was getting markedly worse. The resolutions were a farce. The oil-for-food deal hurt no one except the civilians, and in fact was making a few people rich on the side. The weapons inspectors were unable to do their job without making an appointment first. France, Russia, and Germany were doing deals on the side and assuring Saddam that things would soon be back to normal. Meanwhile, we no longer have a clear picture as to Saddam's capabilities, he continues to persecute his own people, and he is still in violation of nearly every resolution as well as the cease-fire agreement from 1991.
Everybody knows about the 16 resolutions referred to in UN Security Council Resolution 687. But do you know about the others that were in place at the time of the invasion?
There were a further 50 resolutions (among them oil-for-food, etc., but also some like 688 that demanded Iraq quit killing its own people, or declares Iraq in material breach of some prior resolution, or demands that Iraq comply with some prior demand).
Obviously, you have an opinion. What should we have done?
You said: "And Ho Chi Mihn, America tried to do something about him, didn't work out so good."
Vietnam's backstory is a tangled mess, but I'll try to be brief. After the fall of the French in 1954, President Eisenhower said at a news conference "You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is a certainty that it will go over very quickly. Asia has already lost some 450 millions of its peoples to communist dictatorship. We simply cannot afford greater losses." He sent military advisers on 12 Feb 55 and began work on a plan for military support of South Vietnam.
After Kennedy's debacle in Vienna, he was convinced that Khrushchev was committed to conflict and concluded that Southeast Asia would be the test. The Bay of Pigs, the Berlin Wall, and Laos had already been very visible communist victories in the eyes of the world. He told James Reston, "Now we have a problem in making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place." Kennedy introduced Special Forces into Vietnam in an effort to tip the balance. Unfortunately, the United States faced the situation, as it often does, in choosing the lesser of two evils in Diem. Diem was overthrown and killed three weeks before Kennedy's assassination.
The Vietnam War actually started to escalate into a full-bore war under Johnson. The key lesson learned, at least by the United States military, was that limited warfare does not work. The reason for this, as Johnson discovered, is that once your enemy figures out what you're doing, he simply ups the ante and continues to do so until he finds your breaking point.
By the time Nixon took office, public opinion was so against the war that he began a policy of disengagement, though he did promise continued support to help build up the Vietnam army (ARVN) in a doctrine known as "Vietnamization". Interesting when considering our current situation in Iraq, eh? Anyway, in 1970, the Prince in Cambodia fell to a coup and the new fledgling government soon came under attack by the Khmer Rouge with North Veitnamese backing (insurgency perhaps?) which prompted the "Cambodian incursion" by Nixon in order to attempt to protect the fledgling government. Unfortunately, the effect was to push the communists even deeper into Cambodia (and of course we didn't pursue them) which destabalized the country and resulted in the rise of the Khmer Rouge (who may very well have taken over anyway barring US intervention).
Even after the Paris Peace Accords ended US involvement, South Vietnam was able to hold its own until the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 cut off aid at the same time the USSR and China increased their aid to the North.
I say all this because there is a parallel to today.
Given that we are involved in Iraq, and given that most of the insurgent support is coming from outside Iraq, what sense does it make to abandon them? The right has learned some lessons from Vietnam. We understand that if you go to war, go to war to win. Has the left learned its lessons? Is the failure of the United States worth the sacrifice?
You said: "And guess who actually did take out Pol Pot and restore a semblance of sane order in Cambodia?"
Pol Pot officially resigned in 1985, but managed to hold out until 1996 when his men began to desert. Who gets credit for "taking him out" after twenty years in power? I guess the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK) eventually gets the credit after fighting him for close to ten years. Unless you intend Clinton to have the credit since the fall of Pol Pot occurred during his term. But let's play a game of alternate history. Had we been in the region in 1975, could we have saved 1.7 million lives when the time came?
You said: "Wasn't it Clinton that took out Slobo?"
Actually, no. Slobodan Milosevic lost an election in 2000 and refused to recognize the result, which led to mass demonstrations and the collapse of his regime's authority. I will concede that NATO air strikes prompted the withdrawal from Kosovo, but how many people were killed? 10,000? 100,000? And how many of those deaths occurred even after the NATO peacekeepers moved in? And how soon will Kosovo have an election? And when will the UN be leaving?
You said: "What's the solution to Iran? Saudi Arabia? Israel? Egypt? China? Russia?"
Iran: Surgical strikes at the nuclear facilities and a hard line "we will brook no incursion across the border".
Saudi Arabia: Diplomacy and Influence.
Israel: Support.
Egypt: Diplomacy and Influence.
China: Diplomacy.
Russia: Diplomacy.
I'm no more an expert than you. But it is difficult to discuss alternative plans if you don't offer alternative plans.
You said: "But I am a fan of history and history has show time and time again that often the best way to deal with scumbags like Saddam is for the people who live under them to either rise up then line the bastards up against a wall... or to slowly grind away at them politically (see... Soviet Union for an example)"
That's your plan? Wait until enough people are murdered so the populace will rise up? How many people did the Soviets kill before it collapsed (without anybody rising up)? 120,000 Jews under Lenin. 20-30 million wrong-thinkers under Stalin. And between 25,000 and 50,000 people who tried to rise up in Hungary were put down permanently by Krushchev.
1.7 million died under Pol Pot before he was overthrown.
Then there is Mao with 40 million dead and that "regime" is still in power.
There is a point in history where you must decide what to do, because waiting makes action impossible. What would have happened if we had been more serious in our support of Chiang Kai-shek after World War II. We can't very well stop Mao now, can we? The dead are already dead.
You said: "Look at Vietnam, Iran, South America for examples of how not to change things."
Please see my discussion here. Read especially my views on Myth #4 for a deeper understanding of my views on this point.
You said: "Force is appropriate in self-defense, force is appropriate when the ends can be justified by the means, in short force is appropriate when it's appropriate."
I will agree with you on both of these points. But here's the rub. I think Iraq was justified. You don't. Where does that leave us?
You said: "Now I have a question for you, does it ever make you wonder why folks like me, and the majority of the planet were in favor of the invasion of Afghanistan but not Iraq?"
66% of Americans were in favor of invading Iraq when we invaded.
CBS/New York Times poll
8. Do you approve or disapprove of the United States taking military action against Iraq to try and remove Saddam Hussein from power?
Date : March 7-9, 2003
Approve : 66%
Disapprove: 30%
Don't Know: 4%
The fact that only 35% like the way things are going today doesn't help much because time cannot be undone. Unless those opposed have a plan that won't lead to tragedy, being against the war now doesn't help much, does it?
Look, I'm all for a debate. But I need you to actually have substantive ideas to discuss. Calling Bush and all of his supporters idiots, or war-mongers, or chicken-hawks, does little to advance the debate. Rather it shuts it down and people quit listening to your ideas. If for no other reason than you're rude. I hope you've actually come to read this, and I hope to hear from you in the comment area.
UPDATE
For informational purposes, the post I refer to above reads in full (with quotations of prior comments in italics):
The smart people didn't want to do anything about Ho Chi Minh or Pol Pot either. But, hey. What's a couple million people dead one way or the other.
I didn’t’ say “do nothing” I said “Don’t invade”. Are you a computer? Are only capable of binary thinking? One or zero there is no two three or two point five! Invade or do nothing betrays rather shallow thinking. And Ho Chi Mihn, America tried to do something about him, didn’t work out so good. And guess who actually did take out Pol Pot and restore a semblance of sane order in Cambodia?
Why does the left "stand up" for mass murderers? You have a history of it that continues today with defenders of Slobodan Milošević (Michael Parenti, Jared Israel, Professor Francisco Gil-White, Diana Johnstone and others) and Saddaam Hussein.
Ohhh that’s a straw man question! I see now. Can you please show me where I defend Slobo and the like? Wasn’t it Clinton that took out Slobo? Wasn’t it the GOP that were very much against it? It’s funny reading what Cheney and Rummy said about that war. Say how many American soldiers died in that one? Say how did it turn out?
You said: "...everyone agrees that Saddam was a problem..."
1) Not everyone does.
Who doesn’t?
2) Agreeing that he is a "problem" does nothing to solve the problem.
Agreed! What’s your point?
What was your solution? Another resolution? Or we could just wait it out. After all, he probably wouldn't live forever and I'm sure his sons would have been much nicer dictators.
I don’t know, I’m a graphic designer not a politician or general; such things are well beyond my scope. What’s the solution to Iran? Saudi Arabia? Israel? Egypt? China? Russia? And the squillion other dictatorships more or less vile than Saddam’s?
But I am a fan of history and history has show time and time again that often the best way to deal with scumbags like Saddam is for the people who live under them to either rise up then line the bastards up against a wall (see Ceauşescu for an example) or to slowly grind away at them politically (see Spain & Soviet Union for an example). Invasions? Well in the case of WWII it worked but the U.S. was justified in that case, it was self defense, the final results were immaterial. Look at Vietnam, Iran, South America for examples of how not to change things.
I do have a serious question for you: when is it appropriate to use force?
The previous ones were facetious? Thanks goodness!
Force is appropriate in self-defense, force is appropriate when the ends can be justified by the means, in short force is appropriate when it’s appropriate. See above questions about Slobo for further elucidation and exemplar.
Now I have a question for you, does it ever make you wonder why folks like me, and the majority of the planet were in favor of the invasion of Afghanistan but not Iraq? Does that dichotomy every give you pause, that maybe, just maybe we’re not against the Iraq war because we love Saddam, hate Bush, America, Freedom and the Baby Jesus but because it simply was a bad idea executed with breath-taking incompetence by very stupid and short-sighted twits?
posted by Bryan at 2:25 PM
0 comments
