It was weird to be a pro-war Liberal

[Travis]

In 2000 I had campaigned for Al Gore most enthusiastically. In November I was distraught over the election results. So how weird was it that three years later I found myself at a rally surrounded by people I had always considered to be my enemy.

Yes, I was a liberal that was in favor of invading Iraq. In fact that position of mine had been constant since Clinton was president. When Clinton had bowed out without an invasion I was a bit disappointed as I thought of W as too selfish to ever do it. So how pleasantly surprised I was that we were, then, on the brink of actually doing it.

Of course then the whole WMD thing started to be brought up as a potential reason for the war. I didn't like that. It seemed so self serving to only invade the country when we thought we might be in danger. But it came about anyways.

In the meantime I was savoring the idea of a genocidal madman being brought to justice. Someone who's crimes such as Al-Anfal had kept me awake at night during my early college years. Someone I couldn't believe the rest of the world seemed content to let stay in power.

So, anyways, that was a very weird time in my life.

 

[Trakar]

In 2000 I had campaigned for Al Gore most enthusiastically. In November I was distraught over the election results. So how weird was it that three years later I found myself at a rally surrounded by people I had always considered to be my enemy.

Yes, I was a liberal that was in favor of invading Iraq. In fact that position of mine had been constant since Clinton was president. When Clinton had bowed out without an invasion I was a bit disappointed as I thought of W as too selfish to ever do it. So how pleasantly surprised I was that we were, then, on the brink of actually doing it.

Of course then the whole WMD thing started to be brought up as a potential reason for the war. I didn't like that. It seemed so self serving to only invade the country when we thought we might be in danger. But it came about anyways.

In the meantime I was savoring the idea of a genocidal madman being brought to justice. Someone who's crimes such as Al-Anfal had kept me awake at night during my early college years. Someone I couldn't believe the rest of the world seemed content to let stay in power.

So, anyways, that was a very weird time in my life.

What led you to believe that it was the duty and goal of america to police the world?

 

[BenBurch]

I'm not pro-war, I'm pro necessary war, but only if we do it in enough force to make it an overrun.

If you take all the people who had been assigned to Afghanistan and Iraq together, and had inserted them into Afghanistan in the first few weeks, with orders to simply kill effectively all Taliban and all Al Queyda, and to do so quickly, and then to retreat in force, it would have been done, it would have been cheaper, it would have sent a message.

I am not pro incompetently planned, incompetently staffed wars that expect to get a blitzkrieg followed by skittles and rainbows.

 

[Travis]

What led you to believe that it was the duty and goal of america to police the world?

Who else would do it? Europe is in it's "pretentious pacifist" phase. Africa is filled with the countries that need policing and occupation. Brazil, India and Australia are not up for it. Japan can't do it legally. And no one would trust either Russia or China to do it.

So that just leaves the USA.

There was a long list of countries I wanted America to invade, occupy and remake into a hybrid version of itself. Obviously that never happened when it turned out that the people operating the occupation of Iraq did not know what in the hell they were doing.

 

[Trakar]

Who else would do it? Europe is in it's "pretentious pacifist" phase. Africa is filled with the countries that need policing and occupation. Brazil, India and Australia are not up for it. Japan can't do it legally. And no one would trust either Russia or China to do it.

So that just leaves the USA.

There was a long list of countries I wanted America to invade, occupy and remake into a hybrid version of itself. Obviously that never happened when it turned out that the people operating the occupation of Iraq did not know what in the hell they were doing.

I don't think any group of people, should take it upon themselves to try and force other people to behave as they think they should. Its one thing to protect yourself from others actions against you and to advocate for your way of believing and acting, its an entirely different leap to think that your way is the best and only way to do things and to try and force everyone else you encounter to behave according to your understandings and beliefs.

 

[geni]

Who else would do it? Europe is in it's "pretentious pacifist" phase.

Not actualy true.

While the US has managed to get the UK tied down in some unfortunate wars france has been very active in its former empire.

 

[Kopji]

Humm. Well I found myself accidentally pulled into a protest march against our drive to war. I try to be a bystander In hindsight I really hate it when sitting in the backwoods of Arizona I could predict how it would all go, better than they could. I guessed we'd be there about 10 years, not 6 weeks.

I'm not convinced that a whole lot of deep thinking went into the whole thing.

Is this going to be a war thread?

 

[angrysoba]

There was a long list of countries I wanted America to invade, occupy and remake into a hybrid version of itself. Obviously that never happened when it turned out that the people operating the occupation of Iraq did not know what in the hell they were doing.

It's probably also true that those urging them on didn't know what in the hell they were supporting. Given such facts would this make you more or less likely to support future wars in which the aims seem just?

Which countries were on your list by the way?

 

[Brainster]

I know a lot of liberals were pushing for an intervention in Darfur.

 

[angrysoba]

I know a lot of liberals were pushing for an intervention in Darfur.

Yes, this is true. I think also that the military intervention by NATO in Yugoslavia was generally considered to be a success and also that of the UK in Sierra Leone. From those successes it was probably considered that the West could bring about good, liberal changes in some of the most backward countries in the world such as Afghanistan and - at least as far as the government was concerned - Iraq.

I was sympathetic to the idea of overthrowing the despicable tyrant Saddam Hussein but the war was, from the beginning, predicated on the idea of removing someone who posed a threat to the West, particularly the US and I didn't consider the threat level to be worth the inevitable expenditure of lives. If you supported the intervention then you really had to expect accountability on the threat level. I think many liberals realized, or should have done, that their own aims weren't going to be pursued by an administration which didn't put a priority on their aims.

 

[DC]

Who else would do it? Europe is in it's "pretentious pacifist" phase. Africa is filled with the countries that need policing and occupation. Brazil, India and Australia are not up for it. Japan can't do it legally. And no one would trust either Russia or China to do it.

So that just leaves the USA.

There was a long list of countries I wanted America to invade, occupy and remake into a hybrid version of itself. Obviously that never happened when it turned out that the people operating the occupation of Iraq did not know what in the hell they were doing.

or the US

 

[Travis]

I don't think any group of people, should take it upon themselves to try and force other people to behave as they think they should. Its one thing to protect yourself from others actions against you and to advocate for your way of believing and acting, its an entirely different leap to think that your way is the best and only way to do things and to try and force everyone else you encounter to behave according to your understandings and beliefs.

Well, it's not about making them into a clone of yourself. The idea is to bring things like representative democracy and the rule of law to them. Stabilize the place and set up the infrastructure for education and equal rights.

It's probably also true that those urging them on didn't know what in the hell they were supporting. Given such facts would this make you more or less likely to support future wars in which the aims seem just?

Somewhat less likely. I would still want just wars but I would now need assurances that the whole thing will be administrated well. Now I was not a naive fool all the way with Iraq. I did figure on us being there for six to ten years.

Which countries were on your list by the way?

Iran
North Korea
Sudan
Sierra Leone
Cameroon
Zimbabwe
Burma

 

[Neally]

Well, it's not about making them into a clone of yourself. The idea is to bring things like representative democracy and the rule of law to them. Stabilize the place and set up the infrastructure for education and equal rights.

Guess what? When the people of those countries decide for themselves that they've had enough of dictatorial rule, they themselves change the powers that be. No need for outside do-gooders to try to fix it.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Iran
North Korea
Sudan
Sierra Leone
Cameroon
Zimbabwe
Burma

Would an intervention improve the situation there?

 

[angrysoba]

Somewhat less likely. I would still want just wars but I would now need assurances that the whole thing will be administrated well. Now I was not a naive fool all the way with Iraq. I did figure on us being there for six to ten years.

I think you have to have an exceedingly rigorous defintion of Just War. A rule of thumb might be, if you are not quite sure you trust the motives of those in the driving seat then the war may not be just. But simply believing your cause is just is clearly not enough. Almost everyone believes that.

Iran
North Korea
Sudan
Sierra Leone
Cameroon
Zimbabwe
Burma

On that list I could probably think of some scenarios in which intervention could be just. Sudan, on behalf of Darfuris or perhaps - as may well happen - on behalf of South Sudanese.

North Korea, IFF the DPRK invaded South Korea. If not then invasion of the DPRK would be horrifically foolish.

Cameroon??? I don't know anywhere near enough to understand why that would be a good idea but please, please do enlighten us.

Zimbabwe? Well, the place is a complete mess but Mugabe will die soon and good riddance when he does. Until we know which way the wind blows there it is quixotic, at best, for the US to think of invading. Maybe South Africa should given that the US would not be appreciated for it.

Burma? Well, again. If you are going to write up lists about which countries must be invaded post-haste then you presumably have a reason for it. Could you explain your strategy vis-a-vis Burma?

Iran? Well, I tend to agree with the ex-head of Mossad on this and always have done that this is one of the stupidest ideas imaginable. Iran is not even like all the other tinpot crappy countries on your list. Iran is, unfortunately, a highly educated and intelligent country that won't roll over. I really do think that despite all the opposition to the disgusting theocrats in charge of that place an invasion would be utterly counterproductive. Far more hope and trust and funding should be invested in the middle class of Iran who really do want to be free and throw off the confines of the theocracy.

 

[BenBurch]

...

Iran
North Korea
Sudan
Sierra Leone
Cameroon
Zimbabwe
Burma

CHORUS
We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

 

[Crossbow]

In 2000 I had campaigned for Al Gore most enthusiastically. In November I was distraught over the election results. So how weird was it that three years later I found myself at a rally surrounded by people I had always considered to be my enemy.

Yes, I was a liberal that was in favor of invading Iraq. In fact that position of mine had been constant since Clinton was president. When Clinton had bowed out without an invasion I was a bit disappointed as I thought of W as too selfish to ever do it. So how pleasantly surprised I was that we were, then, on the brink of actually doing it.

Of course then the whole WMD thing started to be brought up as a potential reason for the war. I didn't like that. It seemed so self serving to only invade the country when we thought we might be in danger. But it came about anyways.

In the meantime I was savoring the idea of a genocidal madman being brought to justice. Someone who's crimes such as Al-Anfal had kept me awake at night during my early college years. Someone I couldn't believe the rest of the world seemed content to let stay in power.

So, anyways, that was a very weird time in my life.

Yes, I have to agree, you sure did have very weird thought process all right.

 

[angrysoba]

Actually, I think I'd like to meet Travis half-way on this because even if I don't agree with him on Iraq I do know what he means.

I think there were just reasons for intervening in Iraq but the fact that such reasons weren't front and centre meant that there was no reason for believing that the outcome would favour such reasons. It is wishful thinking to believe that good governance (which was a low priority) would coincide with the aims of the intervention (which were nebulous).

I have some kind of theory of the inertia of foreign wars in which they can't possibly happen until the governmental mind is made up to make them happen. And when they happen they can't be stopped even though no one really knows why such wars are happening. This doesn't go for all wars of course but some of the recent ones such as in Afghanistan fit the bill. No one waging the war now was waging it ten years ago and probably no one doing so even knows what the objective is. If someone was to suggest it is to destroy fundamentalist Islam and let girls learn in school the opinion would probably be met with derision. That's probably what makes it so weird to be a pro-war liberal.

 

[Kopji]

Ok. So I'm a little confused. Travis - You realize that there were two wars over Iraq right? One under George H Bush and one under George W Bush.


A brief history of time

1980's
Saddam: Iran is MINE - boom
US: Ok, good idea. Here's some chemicals that if used wrongly might be dangerous weapons. Don't do that though, is bad and evil.
Saddam: Kurds are MINE - boom
Chemical weapons used against Kurds and Iran
US: Remember what we said about being bad? Oh ok, here's some more peaceful chemicals and weapon stuff.
1990's
Saddam: Kuwait is MINE, all MINE! buahhahaha - boom
GHB: Thumbs twiddling... Oh, wait, War!
Israeli civilian targets bombed by Iraq
War ends. Saddam not brought to justice.
(Rwanda genocide, we do nothing at all)
GHB: 'read my lips, no new taxes' raises taxes and is ousted
Clinton: How about that Somalia success? - Spends much time thinking about cigars, sex, being impeached
2000's
GWB: Republicans Rule! or, it is good to have friends on the Supreme Court
2001: 911 Iraq shows its true colors and must be destroyed
Bush 2b: War! (Iraq)
Bush 2c: War! (Afghanistan)
or maybe the other way around. who remembers?

Conclusion - "Dang that Clinton".

Is the argument that a liberal can believe in war, or that pervasive propaganda, misinformation, and otherwise control of information have a rather broad and politically neutral influence in preventing good decisions from being made?

 

[Travis]

I don't know. I just thought that we would could do in Iraq what we did in Japan following WW2.