craner

Beast of Burden
Well I would like to derail this argument because I don't think it's going to go anywhere and, after yesterday, there's a lot to talk about.

Like, what does it mean when coalition troops raid an Iranian consulate in Irbil?

Or, when Bush says, "We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq," does that mean he's finally paying attention?
 
Last edited:

Guybrush

Dittohead
Or, when Bush says, "We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq," does that mean he's finally paying attention?

Sadly, it probably means another six months of deadly stalemate followed by a jumbly retreat. Here is my candidate for the next ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’ hotspot, anyway:

Islamic Emirate of Waziristan

Borat would be proud:

The tribes are divided into sub-tribes governed by male village elders who meet in a tribal jirga. Socially and religiously Waziristan is an extremely conservative area. Women are carefully guarded, and every household must be headed by a male figure.
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
You mean like Operation Mountain Storm, but again?

More like a full-fledged war. Doesn’t it look eerily like pre-2001 Afghanistan? The paltry press coverage so far (which is another similarity, as it happens) suggests that, I think.

Nah, I'm fairly sure Reagan had beef with Iran in the 80s and was flogging Saddam weapons.
The Reagan administration considered Saddam’s Iraq a bulwark against the Iranian school of Islamism.
 

vimothy

yurp
It's an either or situation, presumably a lack of support for the war means that they would rather it was as it was before ie when Saddam was in charge. I take it to be Lebanies' point that in other words they consider the war sufficiently bad to mean that Saddam's rule was preferable.
I agree with you that all other things being equal most Iraqis would not want Saddam (if Lebanies is indeed claiming this then I would beg to differ) but all other things aren't equal and I don't think that you can separate them out that easily.

Why can't Iraqis be unhappy with their current situation (though the violence is located in specific areas of Iraq and not everywhere), and not want Saddam back either?
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"Why can't Iraqis be unhappy with their current situation (though the violence is located in specific areas of Iraq and not everywhere), and not want Saddam back either?"
They can of course but a question that asks "would you rather the war had happened or not?" isn't offering that option (just as reality hasn't). Don't you think that implicit in that question is "did you prefer it under Saddam or now?"?
 

vimothy

yurp
But by ‘anti-war’ most people in here mean the Iraq war, not war as a means of self-defence in general.

Here’s what Andrew Sullivan (an initial supporter of the war and a self-proclaimed conservative, as I’m sure you know) wrote after the President’s speech last night:

If the president tonight had outlined a serious attempt to grapple with this new situation - a minimum of 50,000 new troops as a game-changer - then I'd eagerly be supporting him. But he hasn't. 21,500 U.S. troops is once again, I fear, just enough troops to lose. The only leverage this president really has left is the looming regional war that withdrawal would bring. Yes, if we leave, the civil war will take off. And if we stay, with this level of troops, the civil war will also take off. One way, we get enmeshed in the brutal civil war in the region. One way, we get to face them another day, and perhaps benefit by setting them against each other, and destabilizing Iran. That's the awful choice this president has brought us to. Under these circumstances, I favor withdrawal, while of course, hoping that a miracle could take place. But make no mistake: a miracle is what this president needs. And a miracle is what we will now have to pray for.

Thus, he now supports immediate withdrawal, on reasonable (if bleak) grounds, I would say.

I don't know about Sullivan's analysis. He thinks we should pull out of Iraq and leave our enemies, both Shia and Sunni, to fight it out amongst themselves, which is probably a good strategic idea as far as it goes, except that it isn't great for Iraq (although I'm sure many conservatives would say that Iraq has been taken to water, and it's their problem what they do from here). There's also the question of emboldening the mujahideen, letting them think that they have defeated the West in Iraq (and therefore that they can in other places as well). Remember what "defeating" the Soviet Empire did for jihad.
As for the troop levels, they will not actually be that different. In fact, there were actually more troops in Iraq until recently than at present, even including the troop "surge". Probably there are good tactical arguments for sending more troops. However I suggest that numbers are less important than having a decent aim or mission statement (or wheatever the hell the US military calls it), fit-for-purpose rules of engagament, and a determination to take control of the security situation. The US military seem like passengers at the moment.

What I'd like to see:
Most importantly, disarm the militias (esp. the Shia militias in Baghdad) with a zero tolerance approach - in fact I'd disarm everyone, or if that's not possible, I'd certainly make keeping or carrying arms illegal in the "hot zones" where there is a lot of conflict.
Lean on Maliki to either get with this programme (and turn against the militias) or quit.
Amnesty for low level Ba'ath Party workers, especially the civil service. (I'm not saying let the insurgents off, but Iraq could definitely do with a btter infrastructure).
Progressive involvement of Sunni elements, protection of Sunni areas and a softly-softly approach to any not involved in the insurgency.
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
There are no decent lefties who are pro-totalitarian, necessarily (because that's included in my definition of a decent lefty). However, there are decent, anti-totalitarian lefties - I just wouldn't want to describe them as "pro-war".

you call aaronovich a 'decent lefty' and argue he is anti-totalitarian. i disagree. he was a member of the communist party and has a leninist/stalinist past. such ideologies are totalitarian in essence.

if we agree that communists/leninists/stalinists are 'leftists', then aaronovich is a pro-totalitarian lefty.
he has no problem ignoring democratic means when the aim is to suit goals he agrees with.

[although, as guybrush points out. i used 'totalitarian' in the broadest sense and somewhat flippantly. this doesn't however effect many of the commentators you mention]
 

craner

Beast of Burden
If you disarm Shia militias you don't just lean on Maliki, you undercut him completely. His ship's tied to Sadr.

Which is why it's a good idea to disarm Shia militias, obviously.

The appointment of (now) General Petraeus is a startlingly sensible choice. Cf. Fouad Ajami, The Foreigner's Gift ("Ana Mosulawi!")
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
So why describe yourself as the "pro-war left"? It's misleading: no rational actor can or should be pro-war in every context.

And within the context of this thread, is it possible anyway to be "anti-war" and anti-totalitarian?

anti-war/pro-war in this context relates to the current iraq war
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
Seems like a strange argument to make, if you ask me, though I confess that it is unfamiliar. Because they support positive action against totalitarianism, they are totalitarian?

they supported action against a regime without recourse to international law and in the UK and Spain, against the will of the general population. that at least is authoritarian. if the same action was taken by a 'rogue state', it would be declared totalitarian.

who the action was against is irrelevant. how they went about it is important
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
And by the same logic, wouldn't, for example, Orwell be totalitarian as well?

it would depend on which part of orwell's life you are commenting on- post-spanish civil war he lost any sympathies the had for russia and became extremely anti-totalitarian, much to the chagrin of many of the 'decent left'.
 

vimothy

yurp
you call aaronovich a 'decent lefty' and argue he is anti-totalitarian. i disagree. he was a member of the communist party and has a leninist/stalinist past. such ideologies are totalitarian in essence.

if we agree that communists/leninists/stalinists are 'leftists', then aaronovich is a pro-totalitarian lefty.
he has no problem ignoring democratic means when the aim is to suit goals he agrees with.

[although, as guybrush points out. i used 'totalitarian' in the broadest sense and somewhat flippantly. this doesn't however effect many of the commentators you mention]

This reminds me of the Hitchens - Galloway debate (where Galloway constantly went on about Hitchens' past views). Comminists/Stalinists/Leninists are lefties. Aaronovitch is no longer the Trotskyist he once was - hence he is no longer pro-totalitarian. At least I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise. Perhaps you could link to the articles which support your view?
 

vimothy

yurp
If you disarm Shia militias you don't just lean on Maliki, you undercut him completely. His ship's tied to Sadr.

Which is why it's a good idea to disarm Shia militias, obviously.

The appointment of (now) General Petraeus is a startlingly sensible choice. Cf. Fouad Ajami, The Foreigner's Gift ("Ana Mosulawi!")

Exactly - Maliki must choose.
 

vimothy

yurp
they supported action against a regime without recourse to international law and in the UK and Spain, against the will of the general population. that at least is authoritarian. if the same action was taken by a 'rogue state', it would be declared totalitarian.

who the action was against is irrelevant. how they went about it is important

Ok, international law is a tricky one. I think Norm Geras has it right here:

First, there is a long tradition in the literature of international law that, although national sovereignty is an important consideration in world affairs, it is not sacrosanct. If a government treats its own people with terrible brutality, massacring them and such like, there is a right of humanitarian intervention by outside powers. The introduction of the offence of crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg Trial after the Second World War implied a similar constraint on the sovereign authority of states. There are limits upon them. They cannot just brutalize their own nationals with impunity, violate their fundamental human rights.

Is there then, today, a right of humanitarian intervention under international law? The question is disputed. Some authorities argue that the UN Charter rules it out absolutely. War is only permissible in self-defence. However, others see a contradiction between this reading of the Charter and the Charter's underwriting of binding human rights norms. Partly because the matter is disputed, I will not here base myself on a legal right of humanitarian intervention. I will simply say that, irrespective of the state of international law, in extreme enough circumstances there is a moral right of humanitarian intervention. This is why what the Vietnamese did in Cambodia to remove Pol Pot should have been supported at the time, the state of international law notwithstanding, and ditto for the removal of Idi Amin by the Tanzanians. Likewise, with regard to Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq: it was a case crying out for support for an intervention to bring the regime finally to an end.

Just think for a moment about the argument that this recent war was illegal. That something is illegal does not itself carry moral weight unless legality as such carries moral weight, and legality carries moral weight only conditionally. It depends on the particular law in question, on the system of law of which it is a part, and on the kind of social and ethical order it upholds. An international law - and an international system - according to which a government is free to go on raping, murdering and torturing its own nationals to the tune of tens upon tens, upon more tens, of thousands of deaths without anything being done to stop it, so much the worse for this as law. It is law that needs to be criticized, opposed, and changed. It needs to be moved forward - which happens in this domain by precedent and custom as well as by transnational treaty and convention. I am fully aware in saying this that the present US administration has made itself an obstacle in various ways to the development of a more robust and comprehensive framework of international law. But the thing cuts both ways. The war to depose Saddam Hussein and his criminal regime was not of a piece with that. It didn't have to be opposed by all the forces that did in fact oppose it. It could, on the contrary, have been supported - by France and Germany and Russia and the UN; and by a mass democratic movement of global civil society. Just think about that. Just think about the kind of precedent it would have set for other genocidal, or even just lavishly murderous, dictatorships - instead of all those processions of shame across the world's cities, and whose success would have meant the continued abandonment of the Iraqi people.

http://www.normangeras.blogspot.com/2003_07_27_normangeras_archive.html#105948316257163866

The will of the population in the UK was unknown, as there was no referendum. Some people marched (shamefully I was there too), some didn't. There is also the argument that politicians are elected to make decisions in their best judgement on our behalf, not carry out our uninformed orders.

And I disagree that who went to war with is irrelevant, it's the whole point.
 

vimothy

yurp
it would depend on which part of orwell's life you are commenting on- post-spanish civil war he lost any sympathies the had for russia and became extremely anti-totalitarian, much to the chagrin of many of the 'decent left'.

When I said "decent left" I meant anti-totalitarian.
 
Top