....LMB: "The Shame Offensive"....

February 17, 2003

On the Friday afternoon before the massive British peace protests kicked off, Tony Blair landed an excellent pre-emptive soundbite:

''If 500,000 people are on the march, that is less than the number of deaths Saddam is responsible for. If one million people are on the march, that is still less than the number of people who died in wars that he started.''

And so began the newest counter-offensive by pro-war conservatives.

The Iraq war isn't about oil, it's not about weapons of mass destruction, it's not about UN resolutions. It might have been a few days ago, but it's not anymore. Now the war is about defeating a tyrant and saving a nation's people from oppression. The hawks on the side of peace and freedom, and the doves are on the side of fascism and suffering.

Example: this column by Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes. The article is titled "Fascist Pigs!", and contains this tagline:

"Demonstrations over the weekend show the left's dedication to preserving murderous, dictatorial regimes--no matter what the cost."

You may have thought that you were against the war because you didn't want bombs dropping on the heads of Iraqi children, or because you opposed U.S. imperialism, but you were wrong. You oppose the war because you like it when people are crushed 'neath the iron fist.

And this article here from the usually liberal Guardian which informs us that the Iraqis want us to invade their country and liberate them. Well, some do. Well, one "Kurdish leader" and one "Iraqi intellectual" want the invasion. And "the Iraqi opposition." So if you oppose the war, you are opposing the will of the Iraqi people, you lying piece of shit hypocrite you (well, kinda).

It's a powerful argument, of course. Someone tells you that the stance you've taken on a particular issue (opposing Iraq war) will actually work against values that you hold dear (life, freedom) can throw you into a muddle.

At this point in an argument, many lefties make a dumb mistake. They will say something like, "Oh yeah, if the U.S. government is so big on freedom, why do we support dictatorships in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? Why aren't we trying to free those people?"

To anyone who does not already hold the same point of view, this generally sounds like run-of-the-mill America bashing. It sounds like the speaker is saying "we can't try to free the Iraqi people because it would be hypocritical." Which in turn sounds like the speaker would rather keep one group of people in chains in order to maintain some sort of consistency in their wanky moral philosophy. Which in turn makes the listener think that the speaker is an ass.

What these leftys are simply trying to do is to give historical (and current) evidence to support a counter-theory. These folks are arguing that since the U.S. has so frequently supported dictatorships and opposed or ignored so many lieration struggles, that the "no, we're going in to free the Iraqi people because we treasure democracy and liberty" claims made by the government look very unlikely. Which means that the government is planning an attack for ulterior motives, and is lying to the American public.

I think a lot of American leftists could take some "how to talk to people who aren't radicals without sounding like an asshole" lessons.

Speaking of assholes, there is another pro-war contingent out there, who might more accurately be called anti-anti-war. I always see a couple of these folks at peace rallies, like these fellas. These are people who do not argue in favor of war based upon the costs and benefits, but based upon their deep-seated disgust of everything liberal and their deep-seated feelings of national pride. Personally, I think it is part of a weird nexus where a person's feelings of self-esteem are tightly tied to their personal identification as Americans. And criticizing or maligning any portion of America-- its government, flag, policies, history or culture-- then becomes a personal attack on that individual. It's as though when I say "I oppose the war on Iraq," I have come up to an anti-anti-war person and said "you are a disgusting person."

But that could just be my undergraduate psychology degree talking.

Anyhow, let's talk about this democracy angle some more.

First of all, if we are going to talk about democracy, we should be concerned with what the Iraqi people actually want. While the "Iraqi opposition" (some of whom will continue living comfortably in Britain for the duration of the war) claims that the Iraqi people want the war, is that what the actual Iraqi citizens want? Obviously it's hard to tell. Gallup isn't calling up Iraq and asking them poll questions. I've spoken with several people who travelled to Iraq this past year, and they told me that everyone they talked to didn't want the war because they didn't want more destruction. But how freely would those people be to declare their support for revolution in Saddam Hussein's Iraq? As the Iraqi people are the ones who will bear the full brunt of this war, I cannot support any military action that Iraqi people don't support. This small bit of anecdotal evidence leans towards the "don't support the war" side.

There are no immediate plans for democracy in post-war Iraq. The U.S. has come up with a three stage plan to take Iraq from leaderless dictatorship to modern quasi-republicanism. First stage is "US military-led rule" that would last about a year and a half (a la Afghanistan). Second stage is an "international civilian administration (a la Kosovo). And the third is a U.S.-friendly government that at least looks kind of democratic in about two years. At least that's the U.S. version. The UK says that their troops will remain in Iraq for at least three years.

I'm with the skeptics on this one. Iraq is not a united country that was lead by an evil dictator for a few years and can be freed and restored to its former state. Like so many nations, Iraq is a country that was cobbled together by the West, lumping together people of many different ethnicities, religions, tribes and interests. And they've been living under nothing but dictatorships for decades, and any time a popular leader began to rise, Saddam had them killed.

And on top of that, even some of the Iraqis who allegedly want the U.S. to invade are furious about the foreign military rule to democracy plan. Mainly furious with the first part. To maintain stability, it looks like the U.S. wants to keep many members of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath political party in charge of the country.

So when you are attacked for opposing the freedom and democracy of the Iraqi people, just remember the two main issues: what do the Iraqi people want? and do any of the proposed U.S. actions make progress towards that goal?

[Thanks to Dack, Nickie, and my own verbosity]