What Price Victory?
I heard from Duffy yesterday, who sent me a touching war story from Taranto’s Best of the Web (which I won’t quote because it’s too long, but basically emphasized the valor and humanity of a few of our soldiers). He then continued:
Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. Having been in the military since 1985 and having worked with soldiers like those illustrated above, I have no doubt about the positive impact we will ultimately have in Iraq, and not just positive from an American perspective, but also from an Iraqi and Middle Eastern perspective. I promise I will admit if I ultimately am proven wrong. Will you do the same?
This is a fair but difficult question. I have been vocal in my criticism of the Administration for their approach and ham-fisted diplomacy and deeply concerned about the motives and potential consequences of the war. It’s human nature to want to be proven right by events when advocating (or contesting) controversial approaches, but when lives are at stake, it’s best to put those feelings aside, as I have written here earlier. I don’t wish for our failure, and I have a great deal of confidence in the professional capabilities of the military. We are now irrevocably committed to a course of action, so we might as well at least succeed at it.
But success of the military operation does not, in my view, vindicate the arrogant, misguided worldview of Bush and his cronies. Cooperation is still better than conflict, consensus is still better than ideological absolutism. I remain convinced that whatever we achieve through military means in Iraq could have been accomplished without needlessly tearing apart the framework of international good will and turning the noble grandeur of American power into a terrifying spectacle of self-righteous pique.
To place my concerns in a framework that conservatives might better relate to, consider this example. Imagine an extremely liberal president governing a narrowly-divided country. Some external catastrophe – say, a Depression – focuses attention on the conditions of poverty that prevail in many parts of the country. The President declares poverty “evil” – something that’s hard to argue in philosophical terms. His solution, however, is to use the government to confiscate the wealth of the richest citizens and redistribute it to the poor. Opponents are shocked and horrified, but the environment is such that anyone who challenges this idea is branded unpatriotic. All the institutional checks that one would hope could keep an administration from pursuing this course systematically fail, and the operation begins.
Now it’s indisputable that there’s a lot of money in the country, and by redistributing it, you will create an immediate impact on the problem of poverty, which causes incredible suffering to millions of people. Who could possibly be against ending poverty? Nevertheless, opponents could rightly ask, does such a draconian approach really constitute any kind of victory? Is it sustainable? Was it a good idea in the first place? What kind of country do we live in that this could just happen, against the firm beliefs and traditions we’ve held dear for so many years? Where was the opposition? Why was the President listening to such extreme zealots? These are fair questions, and asking them does not make you “pro-poverty,” no matter how opponents try to paint you that way.
If this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s what happened two generations ago, and 70 years’ worth of conservatives have been railing against it ever since. They were not convinced by the success of the New Deal, even programs that inarguably led to a better life for many Americans (such as Social Security or the various rural electrification and redevelopment plans). No amount of “positive impact” has led the Right to admit they were wrong, and no amount of tarnish on the achievements of that era has led the Left to consider that their critics might have had a point. Such ideological inflexibility on either side does not help solve real problems. The best solution is usually between two extremes, and the give-and-take between principled positions often allows both sides to recognize weaknesses in their approaches before they manifest as policy failures.
Honest, well-meaning people on all sides of the political debate genuinely want to make the world a better place. The desire to free Iraq (and eventually the entire Arab Middle East) from the grip of despotic and cruel governments is a noble cause – as is the impulse to end poverty. No one wants to be seen as being in favor of human suffering, or hoping for the failure of efforts designed to help oppressed people. But such complex issues demand nuanced solutions that do not cause more problems than they solve. Any simple-minded brute force policy is sure to show results in the short term, but that doesn’t make it the best answer, and it doesn’t make simple-minded thinking the right approach.
9:06:10 AM 
|
|
