Defending an Anti-war position

Sean McCray recently had some posts (1, 2) asking some questions to critics of the war. I thought I'd give him the courtesy of an answer.

Before I start thought, I realize that a lot of his questions (and criticisms) are grounded in that the antiwar critics are a very diverse bunch, and this is where you can some seemingly mixed answers (should way stay, should we fight harder, should we get out now, should we get out later. In any case, here's my response.

Do acts of violence prove we are losing?

By themselves, no, acts of violence alone do not prove that we are losing. However, when (as some partisans claim) the war is nearly won, the insurgents are in their last throes, and the troops will be out by Christmas, then the fact of the matter - that violence is ongoing - is a necessary counterpoint. To evaluate the wisdom of this action, we need to judge the situation with clear eyes.

Again, acts of violence do not mean we are losing, and in no way is continued violence on our troops or innocent Iraqis a "good thing" for anyone's argument.

Should we send more troops, or begin withdrawing?

I don't think we even have more troops. A big drawback of this war (and blowing off allies) is that our manpower resources are totally tapped, weakening our response power elsewhere in the world. A draft is probably one of the only steps that could grant us that kind of manpower, but that would do some irreparable damage to this country's social fabric.

So, do we start withdrawing? Honestly, not right away - an abrupt withdrawal will only create blowback. However, I most certainly do not favor the neo-con idea of setting up permanent forward stations in Iraq, either.

If we need to stay, then what should we do differently?

Get allies. Seriously. I know it's hard, and it's been done, but there have been some obvious diplomatic blunders that have cost us the presence of foreign manpower. Frankly, we just need more resources, and we shouldn't have to shoulder the burden. Getting foreign support means some compromises, but that is what diplomacy is all about. It diplomatic compromise free up enough resources to be more flexible and better defend our homeland, that's certainly worth it.

Set up a firm roadmap, with a timetable, to withdrawal from Iraq, and be clear on how these steps are contingent on setting up the minimum-necessary civil framework, rather than a client-state relationship. Certainly, scuttle this business about "permanent military bases" over there until they have a functional multiparty civil society that can negotiate that with us, on their own terms. We're trying to help Iraq survive. We are not playing Risk, dammit.

Allow gradual FDI into the country, integrating into local concerns, so that a strong local economy takes root. I'm not against foreign businesses working alongside Iraqis, but I'm concerned about our no-bid sweetheart deals to larger US businesses. Also, make sure the oil rights stay with Iraqis. They'll be hella pissed otherwise. (Maybe put an Alaskan model in place?)

What does winning look like?

Iraq as a busy, noisy, squabbling civil democracy. Middle-class Iraqis sitting in Baghdad cafes, complaining about Iraqi politicians, rather than American ones.

Troops back home, getting well deserved time with their families.

Did you support Kosovo? If so, explain how that is morally and legally different from Iraq?

Genocide: it's a big deal.

Similarly, I would support principled intervention in Darfur. There have been war crimes committed by the Baath regime in Iraq, but they are, frankly, at a different scale, which matters when we have only limited resources.

That all said: they same kinds of burdens apply in both cases. Clinton's approach to Kosovo would have benefitted from being more transnational rather than unilateral. (NATO is better than nothing, but still.) Also, note that we didn't have long-term designs on staying in the Balkan region.

How is the Iraq War illegal? According to what statute and what legal authority? What makes that legal authority a higher authority than the US Constitution?

Probably vis-a-vis some UN Resolutions, but I'm not making the "illegal" argument in any case, so I'm moving on.

Was Iraq a greater or lesser threat than Afghanistan before 9/11? After 9/11?

(Sidenote: we're already in some fallacy by assuming that there is some magical world-change before and after 9/11. In fact, the same trends in the world, and the same violent fundamentalists, were all around and building pre-911 and post-911. What changed then was our response, and some of the climate, but I think that for security's sake we need to be taking a longer view of these dangerous trends.)

So, Afghanistan was explicitly harboring Al Qaeda, and strongly suspected to contain bin Laden. They were, as a nation, broken (and taking down the Taliban was a good thing, but not directly related

Why are you still arguing about WMD and why the war started?

So, WMDs were, really, a big part of making the case for war when we were deciding to go to war. We had other reasons retroactively, like liberating Iraq and that wacky "buglamp" theory", but this is crucial: when we, as a civil society, were debating going to war, the greatest impetus to approving of the war was that we were under imminent danger from an Iraq containing WMDs. This deliberative process is absolutely vital for democracy.

If the claims were honestly "misstated", but by accident, then this is a case of gross negligence, and even if it was an error in good faith, it was still a great error that deserve rebuke. This is a game with friends were you forgive the nice guy: this is about the security of the country, and we deserve only excellent security. So if the very claim that defended and entire war operation was incorrect, that reflects very poorly on the Administration's ability to use their resources to keep us secure. (And to be fair: it reflects poorly on the Senate for uncritically going along with it.)

If the claims were purposefully misleading, to use an erroneous WMD case when this was not the core justification, then this is much, much worse. This is effectively subverting the deliberative process and taking advantage of the great trust we put into our chief executive. If we are purposefully being fed bogus data from our leadership, it makes the entire deliberative process moot, and is a strong condemnation of the Administration. (And to be fair: it reflects poorly on the Senate for uncritically going along with it.)

We're far past this point - we have adventurous new justifications for war in Iraq and elsewhere - but we must not ignore this question, because it's all about how we as a democracy can self-govern ourselves at all.

I want to know why the 'stay in Iraq' crowd feels like any amount of violence is justification to stick around. A great deal of the violence is directed against us or those Iraqis that are seen as pawns of the US. Getting out would remove our troops from harms way, and also decrease violence against Iraqis.

...is of two types.

Type 1: There needs to be *enough* violence lowers that civilian authority doesn't cave. That's an interventionist stance, but I can understand that.

Type 2: An excuse for keeping a base in Iraq 4EVAR. Um.... yeah.

Response to DevP of FreedomDemocrats.org

Sean, I'm writing up a response and will have it up at FreedomDemocrats.org soon, but I wanted to make one side point for now. A big reason that you're seeing "conflicting" claims is that you're amalgamating all antiwar advocates as one, unified, mixedup "Left". In reality, the Democrats represent a lot of diverse interests, and each having their own "solution". (For example, isolationist "just get out" sentiments vs. internationalist "UN 4EVAR" sentiments.)

Really? I have found very little diversity in the antiwar bunch's comments or reasoning. Maybe there are some differences regarding when to withdraw from Iraq, but outside of that there is great uniformity in their comments. The problem is not mixed answers, but inconsistent logic and anti-Bush hatred. The answers to the questions by DevP follow the exact same logic and wording that I have heard from every anti-war person. Now to the questions.

1. Do acts of violence prove we are losing?
His answer was, no. I just want to expand on why I asked this question. Everytime there is a suicide bombing I hear the screed "see, it's a catastrophe!" from the anti-war left.

2. Should we send more troops, or begin withdrawing?
"...A big drawback of this war (and blowing off allies) is that our manpower resources are totally tapped, weakening our response power elsewhere in the world. "
So, do we start withdrawing? Honestly, not right away - an abrupt withdrawal will only create blowback. However, I most certainly do not favor the neo-con idea of setting up permanent forward stations in Iraq, either.

Where has our response been weakened? Not theoretically, but actually.
Once again an anti-war response that is more reactive than pro-active. The comment attempts to define itself more by what it does not think, in comparison to the "neo-cons", instead of on its on logic. (Please, do not use neo-con so loosely)

3. If we need to stay, then what should we do differently?
Get allies. Seriously. I know it's hard, and it's been done, but there have been some obvious diplomatic blunders that have cost us the presence of foreign manpower. Frankly, we just need more resources, and we shouldn't have to shoulder the burden. Getting foreign support means some compromises, but that is what diplomacy is all about. It diplomatic compromise free up enough resources to be more flexible and better defend our homeland, that's certainly worth it.

Not an answer. Thats like telling someone filing for bankruptcy, to get money. The assumption of this comment is that "but for Bush our allies would run to our side". It ignores their own intentions, and they did not run to Clinton on Kosovo. Maybe, you need to realize it is a weakness of those countries not our President. What compromise would bring in an ally that is not already there? what ally will run in, while we are leaving? Same oversimplified answer.

FDI is already allowed. They already have control over their oil.

4. What does winning look like?
Iraq as a busy, noisy, squabbling civil democracy. Middle-class Iraqis sitting in Baghdad cafes, complaining about Iraqi politicians, rather than American ones.
Troops back home, getting well deserved time with their families.

Non answer again. The entire point of asking the questions is to make those who oppose the war actually have to think about answers, not just slogans.
All troops home? Those circumstances already exist in Iraq. They will probably always find a reason to complaina bout American politicians. No details, no real answer. If the present situation is failure, then what is success?

5. Did you support Kosovo? If so, explain how that is morally and legally different from Iraq?
Genocide: it's a big deal.
Similarly, I would support principled intervention in Darfur. There have been war crimes committed by the Baath regime in Iraq, but they are, frankly, at a different scale, which matters when we have only limited resources.
That all said: they same kinds of burdens apply in both cases. Clinton's approach to Kosovo would have benefitted from being more transnational rather than unilateral. (NATO is better than nothing, but still.) Also, note that we didn't have long-term designs on staying in the Balkan region.

There was no genocide in Iraq??? How many have to be killed in a genocide in order for it to reach the "scale" you feel is needed to qualify for American military action? We dont have long term designs on staying in Iraq. Yet, we are still in the Balkan region, so was that a failure?

6. Was Iraq a greater or lesser threat than Afghanistan before 9/11? After 9/11?
(Sidenote: we're already in some fallacy by assuming that there is some magical world-change before and after 9/11. In fact, the same trends in the world, and the same violent fundamentalists, were all around and building pre-911 and post-911. What changed then was our response, and some of the climate, but I think that for security's sake we need to be taking a longer view of these dangerous trends.)

I am not assuming anything magical happened after 9/11, i am asking for clarity.
For example. would the US have been wrong to attack afghanistan, if it knew of the 9/11 plans? we had evidence that Osama was involved in other terrorists attacks on America territory. Did they become some military threat after 9/11? Although his comment does show the idea that many anti-war people hold, that there is nothing really different after 9/11. That is like saying there was nothing different after Pearl Harbor except for America's response. There was already a war, we just joined in the battle. It is a way of minimizing any post 9/11 actions.

So, Afghanistan was explicitly harboring Al Qaeda, and strongly suspected to contain bin Laden. They were, as a nation, broken (and taking down the Taliban was a good thing, but not directly related

They were broken as a nation? what does that mean? But no genocide, right? why not just attack Al Queada? why take out an entire nation? You admit the Taliban was not directly related, then why approve of it?

7. Why are you still arguing about WMD and why the war started?
So, WMDs were, really, a big part of making the case for war when we were deciding to go to war. We had other reasons retroactively, like liberating Iraq and that wacky "buglamp" theory", but this is crucial: when we, as a civil society, were debating going to war, the greatest impetus to approving of the war was that we were under imminent danger from an Iraq containing WMDs. This deliberative process is absolutely vital for democracy.

None of those "wacky" reasons are retroactive. Just because those on the left who never supported the war, did not know all the reasons, does not mean they did not exist. You guys need to admit, that you never supported the war, therefore are not sure about the reasons why most people supported the war. You can only assume why.
There you go with the "imminent threat" comment again. (Which at this point is a lie). How many times will you on the left keep repeating something so blatantly false. Bush never claimed it was imminent, he never claimed Iraq was on the verge of creating nuclear weapons.
Also, it would not have changed your opinion about supporting the war. So why do you suddenly find it important? If it was not important enough to change your mind, why do you assume it was THE issue for those who supported the war? (Hint: it wasn't)

So was Clinton negligent with the Sudan intelligence when he bombed an aspirin factory? (I have never accused Clinton of lying- about that issue). Intelligence is never 100%, you are always acting in partial darkness. when EVERY intelligence agency on earth, says that something exists. And the one person (Saddam) who can prove otherwise refuses to do that. Then how is it a lie?
The humanitarian organizations inclusding the UN claimed there would be hundreds of thousands of refugees created by the war. That turned out to be completely untrue. Does that make them liars?
The Senate was not uncritical, they read the same intelligence, and came to the same conclusions. Just because the information turned out to be partially untrue, does not automatically mean they were uncritical. Your comments suggest that more questions, would have magically made the intelligence look different. It is another oversimplified answer, that attempts to appear like a bi-partisan critique.

Let me point out, the IF in the answer is exactly the problem. There is no IF involved. We know that we were not purposefully given misleading or bogus information. There has been absolutely no evidence to the contrary. Yet, the anti-war side likes to present their attack as a question, to somehow give an impression of being open to reasoning.

Unfortunately DevP just repeated most of the same answers I have already heard from the left.