[CLUE-Talk] Iraq Stuph

[Matt Gushee]

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 08:22:06PM -0600, Sean LeBlanc wrote:
> > 
> > Here's a good counter opinion:
> > 
> > "In fact, the speedy fall of Baghdad proves the antiwar movement was dead 
> > right. "
> > 
> >  + http://www.salon.com/opinion/huffington/2003/04/16/antiwar/index.html
> 
> Well, I can't read the whole article...only the first page. But it seems
> like flawed logic to completely overlook all the quagmire oracles that
> abounded before Baghdad fell, and then proclaim that the anti-war group was
> right all along. The article mentions something about not being able to have
> it both ways - very interesting.

Okay, I'm going to keep it short for once. First of all, I think it's
much too soon to say there ain't no quagmire: our Anglo-American forces
are quite a ways from controlling all of Iraq. And though I think you
raise a valid question, from my point of view, the opposition to this
war was never about whether we could win it in a strictly military
sense, nor very much about the direct costs to us of that victory. It
was about the (im)morality of killing Iraqi civilians. It was about the
long-term political consequences, which we have not yet begun to feel.
It was about the subversion of our democratic government in pursuit of
dubious geopolitical objectives.

I certainly can't speak for all anti-war commentators, but to the extent
I personally pushed the quagmire scenario, it was largely a tactical
choice. The moral issues are of great concern to me, but my observation
has been and continues to be that (for reasons that I don't understand
at all) questions of morality and international law have absolutely no
effect on some of the more dedicated supporters of the Bush program--
whereas I could occasionally raise a significant doubt or two by
suggesting we might be getting in over our heads.

In any case, I see no reason why our military success should affect
anyone's concern, or lack thereof, over the more important issues.

> So, I suppose the rest of the article artfully dodges the evidence of
> terrorist training that was found? Or the al-Qaeda that came and fought the
> coalition forces, despite what we were told about Saddam being despised by
> al-Qaeda? Or the fact that Saddam *didn't* have the support that we were
> told he had?

Well, you're a reasonably informed person. Don't you remember Osama Bin
Laden's speech in which he expressed support for the Iraqi people while
denouncing Saddam Hussein as an infidel? And haven't you heard the
latest Iraqi protest slogan: "No to America, No to Saddam?" Is it
possible that he meant, and they mean, exactly what they are saying?

-- 
Matt Gushee                 When a nation follows the Way,
Englewood, Colorado, USA    Horses bear manure through
mgushee at havenrock.com           its fields;
http://www.havenrock.com/   When a nation ignores the Way,
                            Horses bear soldiers through
                                its streets.
                                
                            --Lao Tzu (Peter Merel, trans.)