Ignatieff's Iraq mea culpa

"Anyway, this is an important essay for everyone, whatever their political beliefs, to read, as it uses the particular case of Iraq to illuminate the universal error of substituting ideology for judgment, the difficulty of balancing principle with prudence, and the dangers inherent in pride -- that is, believing in your own righteousness."

Rod, my friend, just listen to yourself. You are substituting YOUR ideology for the judgement of others who know a hell of a lot more than you do about the war on terror. I believe our president and our military and our finally free-of-Clinton appointees in high places in our intelligence agencies know better than our chattering class. (No offence, just common sense and logic).

"Balancing principal with prudence"? You are saying the principal of our freedom to live in our own country without fear of evil people blowing us up should be "balanced" by what liberals define as prudence. You are saying the Vietnam war principal of fighting on jungle trails rather than where the enemy lives, was prudent. Our kids were getting their asses shot off in places the enemy chose to fight, as a result of that principal in a no-win war. Count me out of that kind of "thinking" regarding Iraq as well. Iraq is where the enemy is because they want to convert Iraq into a glorified war camp with trillions in oil revenue TO WAGE REAL WAR ON US. No amount of lobbying for surrender by the arrogant and judgmental Ignatieff and his ilk will change that. When he wrote "It is an obstacle to clear thinking to believe that America’s foreign policy serves God’s plan to expand human freedom", I thought of your* mistaken equation of the war on terror with what the president stated in his second inaugural address--the fact that all people want to be free. While the two concepts are indeed related, they are not the same, and I don't believe that intelligent people fail to see that.

"...the dangers inherent in pride -- that is, believing in your own righteousness."

Yes, there certainly are dangers inherent in pride, such as the unthinkable dangers in the pride of thinking oneself smarter and more righteous than the president, the military the intelligence community and the millions of Americans who know the truth about the cost of fighting evil.

If we don't stop the current international evil, our kids and grand kids will have to. That will be WW III for sure, and on a grand scale. But who cares about that cost?

*"The arrogant Romans couldn't believe that others didn't see things as they did. They thought themselves an exceptional people divinely appointed to rule and civilize humanity...To read PRESIDENT Bush's second inaugural address is to encounter the U.S. version of this fallacious world view...To read the news out of Iraq is to behold the cost of living by it." Rod Dreher, DMN July 7, 2007.

Or, there could be some of us who still think we should have gone into Iraq, for prudent and prudential reasons, want us to reach a greater point of closure than "we're nearing a new election cycle," and don't think the fact that there was some overestimation of ease and response within Iraq points to total incompetence and malign thuggery on the part of the non-existent neo-cons.

You're starting to sound like Jonah on Crunch Con-ism -- you can't disagree without being a thoughtless, knee-jerking drone. There's a bunch of us who read the data differently, and see solid rationales for American force projection into the heart of the Middle East for a season, with (more, better, yes) civil affairs follow-up and development. Add in the need to get free of the Saudi relationship before we go down with the coming implosion, and i'm still baffled folks like Rod Dreher don't see how 9-11 isn't the cause of the Iraq invasion, but it was the catalyst for foreign policy not looking at megalomaniacs talking trash in the same way, especially when they had a proven tendency to vicious destruction of neighbors. The few myths out of liberated Kuwait were used to overshadow the fact that the officers who invaded Kuwait would happily obey orders to launch sarin-capped missiles somewhere in the general neighborhood of Tel Aviv. And who knows what a few missiles into Riyadh would have provoked (see the Posner book on how the Saudi princes have those oilfields wired).

But i don't then assume you're an emotive mushbrain. I'm more intrigued than ever to see why smart folk like you are buying the "never intervene anywhere" line from the left, and if we're not debating pacifism, the extent of justifiable force. We (the Bush administration, our elected officials) assumed force could do more than arms ever can, and the lack of reasoned debate on this leads smart guys like Obama to say "get out of Iraq, but i'd make things better by bombing Cambodia...i mean, Pakistan." That's attributing efficacy to force on the left that's out of line, even more than what (still isn't yet proven that) the Republicans can't do in Iraq.

You're starting to sound like Jonah on Crunch Con-ism -- you can't disagree without being a thoughtless, knee-jerking drone.

Jeff, I don't believe that's true, but I do believe that given the record, people who still believe that the Iraq war was a justified cause, one well worth the cost, have to do a lot more than assert "we see things differently." There were smart people on the right who were warning against this war before it started, saying that it was a fool's game to think we were going to be able to democratize and straighten out Iraq. Conservatives like me refused to listen to them. Some of us even called them unpatriotic. Well, they were right, and on evidence, we were not. War supporters have a lot of explaining to do.

And I think you're inaccurately characterizing my position on intervention for purposes of creating a straw man. I explicitly said in my post that I don't believe that military intervention overseas should be off the table, only that we should be a lot less eager to engage in it than we have been. In what sense is that embracing a "never intervene anywhere" line?

"I'm more intrigued than ever to see why smart folk like you are buying the "never intervene anywhere" line from the left, and if we're not debating pacifism, the extent of justifiable force."

The "never intervene anywhere" line doesn't come from the left, it comes from Jesus. Read Matthew 5:38 and explain your rationale for pre-emptive war. This is still a blog about 'beliefs' isn't it?

Dreher's mea culpa is long overdue, but at least it's here. And ideology isn't always a bad thing.

Religion is a form of ideology, is it not? Read Matthew 5:38. How do you translate that formula into pre-emptive warfare without violating the basic laws of that ideology?

Bill:

Matthew 10:34
Luke 22:36

If you want to unthinkingly chery-pick scriptures, I can find my own that make Jesus look like a war monger. It's really not helpful. The verse you are quoting has much more meaning and depth than the simple minded trope you're pedaling.

Rod: So Prof. Ignatieff has - perhaps reluctantly - joined the camp that applauds Patrick Buchanan for getting the war "right" ab initio? Or the larger camp that now supports Ron Paul's quixotic presidential bid? Whom else might he be praising for their principled prescience?

Ignatieff doesn't mention the biggest failure: the failure to understand Islam, and how Islamic culture is essentially impervious to Western culture and how Western style reforms are doomed to failure in a country saturated with Islam.

"simple minded trope"

I'm sorry it's too simple for you. Like Rod Dreher, you seem to want to dress your religious experience up in complex intellectual structures that prohibit the simple truth from being known. I understand that Matthew 10:34 is Ann Coulter's favorite retort as well. That sword has certainly divided those who express interest in what Jesus said.

Bah. The last sentence should read: "He's currently left academia to become the deputy leader of the Liberal Party of Canada..."

Well, you could call some of us veterans, for one thing (right, i can hear the retort -- Cheney had other business, Bush "just" flew fighters over the Gulf of Mexico, not Tonkin, blah, blah). I'd like more veterans on the staff, including the kind of service Bush had in the reserves, but i'm not gonna say you don't get an opinion if you haven't served.

Those who imply that when convenient overlook the fact that they probably wouldn't like the policies that would be instituted if we had a Heinlein-style clause to earn voting privileges. Is all i'm sayin' . . .

Richard, I fail to understand the connection between your sarcastic comment (one with which I agree) and my text you quoted.

It wasn't sarcastic, maybe yours was and I didn't catch it. No worries.

I know I tend to call such "brave" men chickenhawks but maybe some other term applies. Hence the question.

As for Heinlein. My favorite book is Friday. Verhooven's over the top movie rocked for what it was.

And what of those who believed we were operating on imperfect intelligence at the start, expected exactly the kind of slog and hard building effort we have even now, and harbored no easy illusions about how quickly an Iraqi dream would arise out of the ashes of the Hussein era. We're underrepresented for sure, I tell you, everybody seems to be either 1. always have been against the war, but for the wrong reasons (Belief that America is always wrong, combined with a racist belief that Arabs are incapable of democracy) 2. initially for the war, but scarred by the horrible circumastances and reporting that have left over 3200 servicemen dead in Iraq...

Where are the other realists? I know personally, I expected this kind of mess. Honestly, I expected a decade-long rebuilding effort from the start --although I was rather suprised that we didn't go in and establish control at the beginning. Where are all the realists?

Then there are those of us who watched the mounting evidence concerning the Bush Administration's penchant for covering up, lying and giving partial answers that could be justified either way. I also watched as valid criticisms of both policy and action got the critics branded as "America haters", and I am left to wonder: in which country is it necessary to have the majority of the population in unquestioning lockstep behind the leaders? Is it a free nation, or one that is aimed towards dictatorship?

The man is not the office, Cleveland. I think it's time you acknowledged at least that.

Cleveland,

Good answer, sir. I've learned to prod you gently to expand, rather than make assumptions... but I must respectfully point out that many of your assertions are also based on assumptions.

...people who hate the president so much that they want America to lose the war for their own political advantage.

There is a long list of evidence lacking to support such a statement, starting with any explicit statement from any person in your defined group. "[T]hey want America to lose..." is propagandist at best, and outrageous hyperbole at worst.

I think that you need to be a bit more supportive of such statements. While it makes an implicit request that you be more verbose, it is a valid request in one important aspect: in looking over the ordinary citizens (this blog, mostly) and the pundits, I see exactly no one who could possibly come close to wanting America to lose the war.

Let me give you a personal example. I've been handed that epithet more than once, in reaction to: I want the US to withdraw from Iraq with the greatest possible speed. If asked, I will qualify that statement with: Bush, as CiC, should give the order to withdraw in an orderly fashion, say over a six-to-nine month period. His field commanders bear the responsibility of carrying out that order. In the meantime, I publicly and with the greatest contempt thumb my nose at any person who would call such a withdrawal a surrender. Anyone stating that knows nothing of modern warfare, the technical and legal state of being at war, and the whole notion of aggressively seeking a goal and stopping short of it for good and valid reasons.

That snarky but no less accurate definition of insanity underlies my statements: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

You bear the onus of making statements that others have made. If you intend such statements to carry differences or differing shades of meaning from the intentions of those others, then I consider it proper for me (or anyone) to challenge you over the similarities.

I stand squarely with you in denouncing those (most of them) who seek political advantage out of the adversity of others. I will not sit still or silent when the rhetoric you write places you in that same camp that we both seek to denounce. Please, do clarify; but also, please, seek to be clear on the first writing.

I agree that I am rather too longwinded. I also strongly prefer that to the one-liners and throwaway snarks that define the rhetoric of nearly every national candidate.

Franklin, you are trying to change the subject of my reply to Tom; it's not about you or me. It's about why realists don't want to engage in useless debates like this. To-wit:

After attempting to take me to task for not proving that there are people who hate the president so much that they want America to lose the war for their own political advantage, and for not proving that America haters exist (BTW, I've got a nice bridge to sell you), you repeat your unsubstantiated, calumnious assertion that the president lied. Prove it, Franklin. "You bear the onus of making statements that others have made", remember?

"Of course there are people out there who hate Bush, and there are those who would like to make hay from that hate. They are so few, and have so little impact on the national discourse, that I insist on some sort of substantiation of the claim or even implication that makes mentioning them of any value." Franklin

I am happy for you, my friend, Franklin, that nobody is following this thread any more, but, since you insist: QUOTE

More Democrats are Admitting that Winning in Iraq is Bad for Them
Posted by Kim Priestap
Published: Aug 7, 07 02:34 PM
First Congressman James Clyburn acknowledged it, and now other Democrats are too. Investors Business Daily has an editorial that further illustrates how the Democrats are now laying aside all pretense and are admitting that a win in Iraq is bad for their party:

If you have good news, they don't want to hear it. Reid, Pelosi, Murtha et al. want to hear no progress, see no progress, speak no progress.
A spokesman for Pelosi admitted as much by saying Democratic leaders are "not willing to concede there are positive things to point to" in Iraq.

They are like gamblers who don't want their team to score if it ruins the point spread. The Democrats don't want us to win if it ruins their chances in 2008.

Not willing to concede that there is good news from Iraq, Rep. Nancy Boyda, a Kansas Democrat, got up and walked out at a recent hearing of the Armed Service Committee when retired Gen. Jack Keane said that "progress is being made" by the good guys, American and Iraqi.

Using the imperial pronoun, Ms. Boyda said that "there was only so much (good news) that you could take until we, in fact, had to leave the room for a while . . . after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to."

You know, things like this from Gen. Keane: "We are on the offensive and we have the momentum."

We have come to know how frustrating it can be for a Democrat to hear that we just might be winning in Iraq.

Boyda's concern was that the rest of the country might hear it, too. She expressed concern that Gen. Keane's remarks "will, in fact, show up in the media and further divide this country." Too late. END QUOTE

Only one flaw in that reasoning, but a fatal one, i.e., Rove and Cheney aren't the people giving the good news. It's comming from, for example, (are you sitting down?) your "bible",the New York Times reporters.