On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 10:17:19AM -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: > I despise a lot of the rhetoric for and against war, which I think is > the issue that this article nicely touching on, because it is so much > about being for and against people and parties than about the issues > that are provoking all of the actions against Iraq, of which war is > the most extreme. > > Do other people here think that this reflects a loss of a sense of > shared values that transcend political differences?
I think, as the article argues, that the only valid argument against attacking Saddam's regime is that the costs of attacking outweigh the benefits, for some rational accounting thereof. But there can be no valid argument that claims to be anti-Saddam while failing to advocate a feasible method for quickly removing Saddam from power. One may rationally argue that the costs of attacking Saddam's regime now will be greater than the costs of allowing Saddam to continue his reign of terror, but unless one also advocates a feasible way to quickly remove Saddam, then one must accept that one is supporting Saddam's regime, for the "greater good" (see article excerpt below, particularly the indented parts). Is that a loss of shared values or a political difference? I don't know, since I think it is irrational to say you are against attacking Saddam AND you are anti-Saddam. I can't call an irrational argument a political difference. If rationality is a shared value, then I guess I could call making an irrational argument a loss of shared values. *** The implicit assumption of the post-Vietnam culture is that pacifism always holds the moral high ground. But in the Iraq conundrum, there is no high ground, no moral purity. If you argue for war, on humanitarian grounds, you are saying: We must risk thousands of casualties not only among soldiers, but among children and civilians, so that Saddam's weapons can be destroyed and his murderous system of repression can be dismantled. If you argue that war is to be avoided because of those potential casualties, then you are arguing that Saddam's system of repression -- the political murders, the torture chambers, the slow death of the soul that comes from living under such tyranny -- must be endured. It is an impossible calculation, especially for those who are leftists precisely because they wish to relieve human suffering. But in the current context, every choice entails suffering and death. And so we are left to weigh the potential casualties, which we can never really know; we weigh the likely reactions to a military intervention in the wider Arab world. We weigh the moral elements, as well, whether the costs we incur balance out in favor of liberation. Which leads to the best argument against the war: That the costs are likely to be so high -- in civilian casualties, in terrorist counterattacks, in tax dollars, in environmental damage -- that they justify leaving Saddam and his system of repression in place. But while opponents of the war frequently make the first half of that argument, they are understandably uneasy to articulate the second. By definition, leftists oppose tyranny, and it goes profoundly against character to accept it. *** > I'd hazard that most of the vocal folks calling for war and for peace > consider themselves adherents to the ideals of democracy (although > not necessarily capitalist democracy, to muddy the water a bit). Yet > it seems to be a fairly safe generalization that those same loud > voices appear convinced that their political opponents are not loyal > to democratic ideals. Or is "democratic ideals" the right phrase to > describe what binds us to one another? Anybody got a better way to > describe that which transcends partisan politics in nations like the > United States (or should, anyway). I'm not sure what you are getting at, but I don't think it is democratic ideals. The only possible way I can think of to argue that liberating 24 million Iraqis from tyranny goes AGAINST democratic ideals is to claim that the majority of people in the world are against liberating Iraqis. But this is a weird catch-22, which could be compared to people voting for a referendum to eliminate future democratic voting. Is this against democratic ideals or supporting them? I'd say intent matters more than process, so voting against democracy is against democratic ideals. Maybe you are looking for is "cost-benefit analysis"? As the article says, reasonable people can disagree about the result of such an analysis (it involves predicting the future, after all). But most people should agree that a cost-benefit analysis is the most rational way to make a decision, even if they disagree on the detailed accounting of costs and benefits. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
