Duffy Chronicles Part II
The preceding post was followed by a back-and-forth where we each commented extensively on each others' remarks. I have tried to make the flow of the conversation clear in the formatting below.
Sorry to anyone who finds these dull, or thinks it is a waste of time to engage people like Duffy (or he to engage me) in conversation at all, given our diametrically-opposed views, not just of politics, but, it often seems, of basic reality. Unfortunately, for many people, an active and reasonably civil discussion between committed partisans of both sides is a rare sight in America these days. While Duffy and I may not be the most knowledgeable or articulate spokesmen you might find, we do seem to have the patience and inclination to continue the discussion rather than walk away in disgust or resort to pistols at dawn.
Regardless of who wins on Tuesday (or next week, or is installed in office to booing crowds on January 20), these are conversations we are going to have to have for the next four years. No one is going to convince the other, but in having the conversations, perhaps we can find enough respect for one another’s positions to keep in mind what we have in common rather than the vast and howling gulf that separates our views of the world.
OK, end of sermon. Here's the second part of the debate.
Rob [quoted from previous mail by Duffy]: ...Rather, the lessons of history show that real freedom is earned from struggle and sacrifice. It is never imposed from without, no matter how noble the intentions.
Duffy: Please explain Germany and Japan. It seems the Greeks did okay for a while also, although the definition of freedom may have been a bit different back then. Liberty is a relatively new phenomenon in historical perspective. This unalienable right once obtained has been hard to take back once established. And in this case it's not forced upon from without, it will be successful because of both the brave efforts from without as from within. Amazing how you so easily discount the bravery of Iraqis fighting the insurgents also.
Rob: The authoritarian governments of Germany and Japan were exhausted and defeated by 8 years of war, and the people were ready for a change. Iraq collapsed in 3 weeks, without the army suffering a decisive military defeat in the field (they "melted away," as you may recall). Germany had a history of civil, if not liberal, government and was part of a European culture that had been tending democratic for 300 years. Japan is culturally unique, and about as dissimilar to the Middle East as it's possible to find on Earth, I think.
Duffy: Thanks for clarifying your original absolute. Please keep in mind that many theorize that Iraq is the best place to attempt this, due to their history of secularism and educated populace. Your pessimism towards the nature of man is sad and incomprehensible to me. Liberty has only failed when allowed to under the guns and threats of tyrants and despots. Amazing how you can so easily dismiss liberty as a cure in places it has never been tried. Your desire for the status quo makes me seriously question how much you value liberty to begin with.
Rob: As many respected conservative political theorists will tell you, pessimism about human nature is entirely justified, especially in matters of democracy, freedom and civil government. “If men were angels, we’d have no need of government,” right? Liberty has failed a lot – in Germany in 1933, in Russia in 1917, in France in 1798 when Napoleon took over, etc. In each case, people had a choice between a democracy and a dictator, and they chose the dictator out of fear, rather than defend the democracy out of hope. I don’t mean to suggest that the Iraqi people are any worse by nature than we are, but the situation they’re in – chaos, insecurity, religious zealotry, history of clan and ethnic violence, no history of representative government at all – is not conducive of the trust, calm, and security necessary for civil government to take root.
Liberty precisely ISN’T a cure – it’s the RESULT of a society that has gotten itself well in other areas first. If you go in and tell people, “Presto! You’re free!” the result is likely to be chaos and violence, not anything resembling democracy, because everyone will be looking to exploit the situation for personal or family advantage and anyone speaking for the public interest will be put up against the wall and shot (or blown up, like those poor guys trying to be policemen). The exception is when you have a historically great leader, like Nelson Mandela, but I don’t see the likes of him anywhere in Iraq. It’s interesting that in the past, liberals were big on liberation and conservatives were telling them to get real, and now the roles are reversed. For what it’s worth, I think the (original) conservatives had it right: sentimental faith in human goodness is a recipe for catastrophe if it’s applied to a society that isn’t ready. It doesn’t sound good or optimistic, but it does have the virtue of being true.
Rob [quoted by Duffy] ...But in any case, these are details. The larger point is, does the narrow morality of attempting an ill-considered and poorly-executed "war of liberation" outweigh the lost opportunities to do greater good at less cost and with more chance of success by consolidating the victory in Afghanistan, capturing and publicly trying Osama and the Al Qaeda gang
Duffy: 75% have been killed or captured.
Rob: I have heard this number (also 2/3) and wonder where it comes from. I believe it divides the number of presumed Al Qaeda captured and killed since 9/11 with the number suspected to have been operating at that time. In other words, it does not account for the large number of new recruits that have undoubtedly been enrolled since then.
Duffy: If Osama is alive, it's debatable that he has any effectiveness operating in the cave that he surely is in. In fact I suspect he much less influential there than he would be on trial at the Hague, which I would assume would be your venue of choice.
Rob: Fuck no. Hang him high in Kabul, Islamabad or Ground Zero – wherever would serve the best example. Letting him run free isn’t a good thing no matter how you spin it, though.
Duffy: Are you saying that Afghanistan has not been an overwhelming success?? We did what the Soviets could never do, and we turned over the governing to a native government, now freely elected for the first time in that country's thousands of years history. where was the Taliban disrupting the election? Where were the feuding warlords boycotting the process?? Liberty is contagious! Even in Afghanistan.
Rob: Overwhelming is not the word I would use. It is good there is the semblance of legitimate civil authority in Kabul, that the war went quickly, and that none of the humanitarian disasters predicted by the far left materialized (recall that I enthusiastically supported the Afghanistan operation and was very critical of the pacifist left on this). However, the authority of the government – elected as it now is – still doesn’t extend much beyond Kabul. Opium production is on the rise, warlords control most of the countryside, Taliban-like groups control many villages and have re-imposed harsh restrictions on many citizens, especially women. I would be more encouraged if Bush tended to view this as a glass half-full rather than 100% full. It also strikes me as a missed opportunity, since we could have accomplished everything we set out to do in Iraq – establish a democracy in the Islamic world, set an example of freedom, project US military power into South Asia, and prevent the spread of terrorism – in Afghanistan much more easily, cheaply, and with far greater legitimacy than we did in Iraq if we had kept the focus there.
Rob [quoted by Duffy]: ...and applying concerted international pressure to the half-dozen other regimes in the world more dangerous, better armed and more prone to terrorism against the US than Iraq?
Duffy: It's been tried, and has failed miserably. First think Chamberlain. Now think North Korea. This was Clinton's way, and it begot us 9/11, the Cole, the African Embassies, etc.
Rob: I understand your point. I do not agree with your assignment of cause-and-effect.
Rob [quoted by Duffy]: ...In my opinion, the key moral issue is not, "Are we better off without Saddam?" as Bush would have it.
Duffy: That's not Bush end game and you know it. Play fair, Robert.
Rob: Say what? That’s the standard talking point in the stump speech, by both Bush and Cheney. “How come Senator Kerry won’t tell us whether he thinks we’re better off without Saddam in power?” Kudos to you if you’re too smart to use this, but it’s not a distinction shared by most Republicans running for office this year.
Rob [quoted by Duffy] ...If that's the only question, then the answer is yes, of course, for all the wonderful and true reasons you like to point to. But it's never the only question. It's always, "compared to what?" Given our finite power, resources and influence, was going to war in Iraq the best thing we could have done to maximize freedom and security in the world at the time we did it? "Yes" is a respectable answer if that's what you think.
Duffy: Yes, because Saddam was a terrible threat. And because we need a beachhead for democracy in the Arab world. This will begin the process of the rest of the populations of the Arab world seeing librety in action and beginning to question why can't they have liberty and freedom of religion in their country also. That's how you begin the change from within, that you so fondly wish for. There is a moderate movement for this in Iran today, but they are up against a ruthless and highly armed menace. So they need to see our commitment to this movement before they truly take action. Same for Syria, and Egypt. The second reason Iraq has been important is that it has sent a message to these other governments that our threats are not idle. Col. Khadfi wisely saw this and has elected to join the world community. This would not have happened if not for Iraq. Kim Jong Il now knows that any use of his weapons, by him or by a third party, would mean his sure destruction. That is not to be overlooked, but surely it is to those on the left who fail to notice the strategic ramifications.
Rob: This paragraph is so riddled with errors of fact, misinterpretations and faulty analysis that I don’t know where to start, so I won’t. Let’s just say many of these points are hotly contested by people I credit with expertise in foreign policy, and your rendering probably doesn’t do justice to the considered policy view of the Bush team, either.
Rob [quoted by Duffy]: I tend to think not, given the greater threats of Al Qaeda, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and potential failed states all over Africa and Asia that could provide a haven for stateless terrorists. To me, that's a legitimate debate – the debate that the parties and the candidates both owe us as citizens. It's not legitimate to suggest that anyone who disagrees that Iraq was the BEST AND ONLY course of action we could have taken at that moment is somehow immoral.
Duffy: That's not what I am saying. But I do believe that it is immoral to not seek liberty and justice. I believe these are Bush's intentions, not oil and Haliburton as you so cynically chose to believe.
Rob: I know Bush supporters believe that Bush’s opponents see him as evil, or cynical, or whatever because a few clowns like Michael Moore throw around wild charges about the Saudi Royal family, etc. If you’ve been reading my blog, you should know that that’s not my view.
Actually, I have often stated that I WISHED this were about oil and money, because it’s much cleaner and simpler to say that evil motives begat evil results. But I don’t. I take Bush at his word, that this represents a moral crusade (as well as the strategic vision that you’ve spelled out, which maps to the views of the neo-cons who made this all happen), and that he does in fact care deeply about extending freedom to the Iraqi people and all over the Middle East. This is a noble goal, but it’s one that’s accomplished, in my opinion, through patience and subtlety, perhaps over decades. My problem with Bush is that he has shown, most regrettably, that he doesn’t have the skills or temperament worthy of his moral vision. He wanted to do the right thing, but he wanted to do it quick and easy, through unilateral military action. Now you may say, we can’t afford to be patient. Perhaps, but there’s simply no doing it any other way if you really want to get it right. Try to do it on the quick and cheap and you end up with Abu Ghraib and Al Qaqaa and a whole litany of other screw-ups that we haven’t heard about yet, all of which set us back ten steps for every step we take forward. The “price of doing nothing” against a Saddam who was disarmed, impotent and unconnected with Al Qaeda starts to look pretty cheap by comparison – and it’s not just hindsight. It’s what many of us have been saying since 2002.
Bush made a bold decision, but he made it wrong, he followed through with it wrong, and the country is paying a terrible price for it. It’s not pretty or clean or fair, but in this case, good motives produced a terrible result. I consider that a tragedy, especially because this is such a critical time in history for us to have made such a catastrophic blunder. It’s hard to watch and it’s hard to admit if you want to believe the best about America, because we really are better than this. I wish I could believe all the down-is-up nonsense that the Administration is peddling about how well things are going in Iraq. It would make things a hell of a lot easier to feel proud of my country. But wishing won’t make it so and neither will selectively reading the news when the clear facts show an almost impossible situation has developed. Exchanging Bush for Kerry probably won’t solve the problem. Still, Bush needs to be held accountable for his failure, even if he went into it with perfectly good motives. That’s pretty much the bottom line for me on Iraq.
I note in your remarks that you are often eager to ascribe all the worst aspects of the far left to anyone who has a problem with Bush. Not everyone is a socialist, or a pacifist, or a knee-jerk internationalist on every issue. In fact, quite a bit of opposition to Bush is coming from calm, thoughtful people of moderate political views, as you should know very well. Some, like our buddy Joe [Gleason], has a big enough problem with Kerry that it’s worth voting for Bush anyway. So be it. Kerry’s run a so-so campaign and if he loses fair and square, he’ll have himself to blame. If he wins, though, I have a confidence that Kerry will do OK as president, perhaps even be great if given a chance, but I recognize that’s a hope that’s bordering on the mystical and do not expect you or anyone to share it without good reason.
Duffy: Your tone in these emails is much more civil and thoughtful than in your shrill rants on the site. Your constant insults and disrespect for Bush is quite tiresome on the blog. I understand the need to feed your base, but please recognize what it does for the rest of us out here who would prefer a civil discourse. That has been a major reason for my lack of participation. A good sharing of a few brews and all will be (mostly) forgotten.
Rob: Beer is starting to sound pretty good right about now.
9:17:02 AM 
|
|
