Right and Wrong

by publius

Kevin Drum weighs in on the recent back and forth about whether anti-war liberals were right for the wrong reasons:

If anti-war liberals were right about the war from the start, how come they don't get more respect? Here's the nickel version of the answer from liberal hawks: It's because they don't deserve it. Sure, the war has gone badly, but not for the reasons the doves warned of.

His post is already generating some testy responses and I’m sure this debate will — like a bad strain of herpes — be with us for a long time to come.  I’m not terribly interested in continuing this debate, but I do think that people shouldn’t lose the forest for the trees in assessing the “reasons” people opposed the war.

The logic of the pro-war liberals’ argument is:  (1) the anti-war people opposed the war for Reason X; (2) Reason X turned out to be wrong or unjustified; (3) therefore, their judgment isn’t any better than ours; and (4) they should shut their hippy traps.  But opposition to the war can’t be completely reduced to individual fact-specific arguments — you also have to factor in the larger environment in which the debate played out.  Speaking for myself, I opposed the war not so much because I was dead certain I had all the facts right, but because of my increasingly-intense skepticism of the broader context in which the pro-war argument was being made.

In other words, something just smelled funny about the whole thing — and I think this “smell” should have had right-thinking people jumping off the bus by March 2003.  More after the jump (my very first by the way).

To begin, I didn’t really like the subtle burden-shifting that went on from August 2002 to March 2003.  In a short amount of time, the burden of proof shifted from war supporters to war opponents based not on hard evidence, but on emotion-based fear-mongering.

But even more troubling was how quickly the nation accepted war.  In July 2002, Iraq was not even on the public’s radar.  By the end of September 2002, the country had embraced war and lapsed into a nationalistic frenzy.  We went from zero to sixty in approximately two months. That’s disturbing for a number of reasons, but primarily because it shows how easy it is to start a “top-down” war (i.e., a war that was not demanded by the public, but was imposed upon it).  Anyway, it just seemed odd that America was wholly oblivious to such mortal danger just two months earlier.  Bottom line — the speed with which we rushed to war should have given more people pause.

There was also the politicized nature of it.  The pro-war arguments might have been more persuasive if they hadn’t been incorporated into a GOP election strategy based on accusing me of treason.  The reason all this matters is that elections are about advocacy rather than empiricism.  Candidates spin facts in ways that help them — they’re not worried about presenting objective truth to the public.  Thus, given that the White House so heavily involved with incorporating Iraq into the GOP’s 2002 political strategy was the very same White House spitting out inflammatory facts about the dangers of Saddam, there was good reason to be skeptical. 

In addition, there was world public opinion, which overwhelmingly opposed the war.  If the entire world disagrees with your policy, that means one of two things.  You’re right and the entire world is wrong. Or the opposite.  The fact that world public opinion (and many of our most powerful allies) did not support the war should have been a big red flag — particularly given that America had just suffered a unique trauma that (dis)colored its judgment and perceptions.  If nothing else, global opinion should have provided an epistemological check on our march to war — i.e., it should have made us question the basis of our “knowledge” of the threat Saddam posed.  After all, most of these countries were equally at risk of al Qaeda terrorism too. 

And then there were the million other things that, taken as a whole, should have made people skeptical.  I’m thinking about the IAEA’s failure to find anything; the lukewarm reception to Powell’s speech; the blatant emotional exploitation of the first 9/11 anniversary; the rush to war despite Saddam’s accepting the inspectors; the conflation of nuclear and chemical weapons as “WMDs”; the problems with an alliance of secular Baathists and decidedly non-secular al Qaeda; the ongoing war in Afghanistan; and so on.

Pro-war liberals can always point to one or two specific factual assertions that may have been wrong, but it’s the broader picture that people should remember.  Yes, these types of reasons are more intangible, but they’re not purely subjective and they should have — objectively speaking — given people pause.

On a final note, I think the more troubling question for pro-war liberals is not so much why they supported the war, but why they supported going to war at that time.  In other words, why not wait?  I’m willing to concede that if Saddam developed nuclear weapons, and if he was BFFs with al Qaeda, war makes sense.  But none of that explains why we had to go in with guns a’blazin’ in March 2003. There were, after all, boatloads of reasons to be skeptical of those factual assertions — and those reasons increased with each passing day. 

That’s why I have more patience for liberals who (like Yglesias and Drum) started out as pro-war but ultimately bailed.  To me, this reversal shows that their positions were empirically-based and that they were actually paying attention to the larger context unfolding before them.  That’s the opposite of pro-war libs who were dead set on their war, facts be damned.

Comments

[Jesurgislac]

Andrew: The training problem we face in Iraq is counterinsurgency, not peacekeeping.

If you're saying that the US did have enough troops trained in peacekeeping to be able to deploy them fresh and ready in Iraq in April 2003, but for some reason chose not to do so, you are contradicting quite literally everything I've ever read about the conduct of the war in Iraq. Where were all these trained, available, numerically sufficient peacekeeping troops in April 2003, and who made the decision not to deploy them in Iraq?

The reason the US now needs counterinsurgency troops is because there were not enough peacekeeping troops available. It would have been better to have peacekeeping troops (and, of course, an administration who were committed to something other than exploiting Iraq for everything they could get out of it) back in 2003, than need counterinsurgency troops now.

[Jesurgislac]

Andrew: I tried reasonable. I get that thrown in my face.

Metacommentary is always a risk, but my recollection (of your first posts at ObWing) is that I tried reasonable disagreement, and
ot back vehement personal attack. It later `appeared that you were taking my comments disagreeing with your opinions as personal attacks, and were therefore in your perception only giving back what you got. I didn't intend a personal attack, but at the same time, I think this is a big issue - this is not "was there ever a Moon landing?" about which you get people being just as certain that they know there never was, as people (not the same people - usually) are certain that there really was a reasonable case for war with Iraq in 2002/2003.

I can't respect either certainty, but the difference is, belief that no one ever landed on the Moon is not an emotionally important issue to me: someone who comes up with loaded nonsense to "prove" this point will get grins from me, not detailed contraction, because I don't care wha they believe if they want to believe something that ludicrous. But the loaded nonsense that was and is being brought up to "prove" the case for war in Iraq making sense in 2002/2003 has killed hundreds of thousands of people. So it matters.

[Jesurgislac]

Dammi , my key is no working righ . I am Bri ish. I need my . his is bad.

[dmbeaster]

Andrew:

no one is trying to rub your nose in the ground about this.

If that's what you believe, I must assume you either a) aren't reading what people are saying or b) are being intentionally misleading. Based on your past history, I know what I'd bet on.

I guess this is your second attempt to elevate the dialogue.

As noted by Jesurgislac, you seem to have a habit of twisting attacks on arguments into personal attacks on you.

Frankly, writing remarks implying that someone has a history of being intentionally misleading -- seems like you need to take a time out for posting violations.

[Andrew]

Francis,

I honestly don't care one way or the other about what people think regarding my decisions about the war. I know what I did and I know why I did it. My point was, and remains, that a nontrivial number of people on the antiwar side are confused by something that seems transparent to me: they make accusations about how insane/stupid/blind/etc. people who supported the war were, then wonder why those people won't concede the point. As I said, to my eyes it's pretty obvious why a lot of people who supported the war are unwilling to make major concessions when they come with those kinds of strings attached. So the claims of being mystified give me a chuckle. Nonetheless, I shall give up my Quixotic attempts to explain, as it is patently obvious that for some people, the world is how they see it and there are no other points of view.

dmbeaster,

Let me explain. No...there is too much. Let me sum up. From my perspective, I have attempted to elevate the discussion with you in the past. I have tried moving it from side to side, up and down, even shifting it in time and space. Nothing I have tried has worked. So, when I see a comment from you now, I rarely bother to engage, because I know it is pointless. Yes, I threw in a sarcastic response to your note earlier because your timing was so perfect, coming in after others had noted the moderate tone of ObWings commenters.

From my perspective, you are a person who is so totally wedded to your point of view that it is utterly pointless to talk to you, because you refuse to concede even the possibility of error. As to the question of whether you intentionally distort things, I cannot answer that with certainty since I cannot read your mind. But I have noticed that you have an impressive talent for reading A and proclaiming that someone said B.

I am confident that you will read the above and immediately conclude that I am wrong. No worries, I've been wrong before and on much more significant issues. I would suggest that perhaps you could at least consider why it is I might feel that way, leaving open the possibility that perhaps the blame is not entirely on my side, but that's all really up to you. I have explained my feelings, you are free to dismiss them as you see fit.

As for my time out, I'll leave that in your hands. Tell me how long you would like me to leave for, and you may read the ObWings comments with the serene knowledge you will not see a word from me during that period. I believe that is a more than fair deal.

[hilzoy]

dmb: at the risk of contradicting Andrew, I should remind you that posting rule violations are best handled via email, and deciding what to do about them is the HiveMind's prerogative.

[Andrew]

hilzoy,

This was just a personal offer from me to dmb, not a policy change. If my not being around for a time will help dmb feel that his being wronged had consequences, I have no objections to that.

[dmbeaster]

Hilzoy:

I have no intention of going further with this issue, and I have never involved myself with posting rule violations. Sorry for any violation of protocol. I will send you a private follow up email.

As for Andrew's justification for intemperance toward me, I suggest that all he has to do is engage in arguments about substance. He has said several times in this thread that accusations of error about the Iraq war essentially equal accusations of "insane/stupid/blind/etc." Maybe some do mean that -- I don't see much of that here (you certainly see it elsewhere on the web). If there is an alleged past history between us that allegedly justifies his remarks, I would suggest it is because he equates a disagreement and claim of error with an implied accusation of "insane/stupid/blind/etc." There is none intended by me.

[russell]

All that needs to be done is admit error

Speaking only for myself, I'm not even looking for that. Nor do I think it's likely to arrive.

What I would really appreciate, however, is this.

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq is going very, very badly. Whether you think that's because the idea was a stupid one from the get, or whether you think it's all due to Bush's incompetence, it's going very, very badly. We will pay, in lives, money, credibility, and good will, for probably a generation to come. Maybe more.

What I would really like is if the folks who supported the war, argued for it, and helped move heaven and earth to bring it about, would have the simple good sense to stop claiming that our failure there is, somehow, the fault of those who opposed it.

Thanks -

[Gary Farber]

"I should remind you that posting rule violations are best handled via email,"

Procedural question, purely: what is this a reminder of? Which rule? (Or posted policy, although I'm unaware of any separately posted policies,) What are we being reminded of?

I've been around here a long time, and I have to say that I'm wholly unaware of what we are being reminded of; I'm entirely prepared to believe this is solely due to my lack of observation. So: the rule we're being reminded of is, and is posted in the rules where, please?

[Andrew]

Gary,

It's listed in the banning policy post. It could be argued that this doesn't apply in cases where the request is, instead, for a suspension. I have updated the posting rules to clarify the issue.

[Gary Farber]

"I have updated the posting rules to clarify the issue."

Useful; thanks. Minor point: might want to update/correct the attribution that Moe Lane wrote everything there.

I'm utterly unclear what the distinction is between a suspension and a ban, myself, given that "bans" have always been clearly temporary, though of unstated determination.

While on the one hand, I emphatically agree that there are strong limits advisable as to how fine a set of details rules should be laid down, so as to preserve reasonable flexibility, and minimize excessive rules-lawyering, I'm also a huge fan of having rules stated as clearly as possible, within reason, for the sake of clarity.

Anyway, it's all up to you guys, but I, for one, would welcome a touch more specificity -- and objectivity and clarity and consistency -- as regards how long bans last, first time, second, and third. (If anyone asked me, I'd think that something along the lines of 1st: 3 days, 2nd: ten days, 3rd: a month, and 4th: 6 months, would be reasonable, but I'm just tossing out lengths off the top of my head; whatever makes sense to you.)

I do have a bit of long-term disgruntlement insofar as that enforcement so far tends to be extremely haphazard as regards irregular offenders who return over and over and finally get hit with a ban, of a length that's at least publically unknown -- and regulars who repeatedly violate the rules, but get away with warning after warning after warning after warning, because of a clear reluctance to apply the rules to someone who, you know, is regular.

But, again: just feedback from a hanger-on, and it's entirely possibly entirely atypical, and I certainly don't claim that it's other than the impression of one, possibly utterly outlying, person. Thanks.

[Slartibartfast]

Speaking strictly for myself, and, note, I'm no longer a voting member of the Hive Mind: I think keeping a touch of ambiguity as regards the rules is not such a bad thing.

Why Gary ought to be concerned about rules whose rough edges he's always very far away from is a little puzzling. To me, though, if you define exactly where the edge is, someone is going to make it their mission in life to live a few millimeters to the safe side of them.

Not thinking of any specific recent examples that I'll admit to.

[dutchmarbel]

I'm with Slarti \o/