Iraq’d

Last updated on: September 5, 2012 at 3:40 pm by Fred Clark

18 Comments

Iraq’d 2012-09-05T15:40:30-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Spencer Ackerman of The New Republic has begun a new blog on that magazine's Web site. It's called Iraq'd — in a nod to Ashton Kutcher's MTV show "Punk'd."

Ackerman, like TNR overall and most of the folks who write for it, was a staunch advocate of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. He's now rethinking that support, as he explains:

If you're a pro-war liberal, chances are you're probably feeling burned right now. The case for the Iraq war rested on three pillars: The danger of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, with the clock ticking on a nuclear capability; the danger of Saddam Hussein's connections to al-Qaida; and the human rights imperative of deposing one of the world's most despicable regimes and assisting newly-freed Iraqis in building a democracy. Well, it turns out that Saddam didn't have much in the way of WMD, or even ongoing WMD programs. And it also appears that his ties to al-Qaida were tenuous at best. So all that's left for the war rationale is the human-rights-and-democracy argument, which for liberals is intuitively appealing (or should be). But then along comes the Bush administration's November 15 Agreement to relinquish sovereignty by June 30, which tells the Iraqis that, owing to election-year considerations, the United States can't be bothered right now to midwife a democracy. You might say you've been Iraq'd.

The blog is worth a look, and a bookmark. Particularly noteworthy, in light of an ongoing dialogue in the comments section here, is this recent post, in which Ackerman shares an e-mail from another liberal having second thoughts about supporting the war:

Speaking as someone who believed the invasion was a chance to pursue an anti-dictator foreign policy that couldn't be passed up just because the other reasons given for it were bogus, I have a question your introduction failed to address. Was not Bush's lack of commitment to nation building predictable? How did you not factor that in to your support for the war? …

I was hoping for the best myself, and believing that, while Iraq was no danger to the U.S., toppling Saddam was the right thing to do, and I'm hoping some way could be found to shame or convince the president to leave something better behind in Iraq.

An "anti-dictator foreign policy" is an honorable thing. As Ackerman said, the "human-rights-and-democracy argument" is "intuitively appealing" for those of us who are committed to human rights and democracy. That's why I welcome the frequent posts here in comments from a friend who enthusiastically supports the war on just this basis. I have much more in common with someone who supported this war based on such a commitment than I do with someone who opposed it solely due to some amoral realpolitik, Kissinger/Kirkpatrick-style calculus (like, say, Donald Rumsfeld during the 1970s and '80s).

I do not believe, however, that support for human rights and democracy and an abhorrence of totalitarianism leads directly to the conclusion that armed invasion and occupation is either wise or practical. Far from it.

Ackerman's correspondent, unlike my friend here in the comments section, recognizes that it is possible to agree about "an anti-dictator foreign policy" in principle, while disagreeing over what prudent steps such a policy ought to entail. The failure to accept this distinction between principle and prudence inevitably leads to a failure to "achieve disagreement," in John Courtenay Murray's phrase, and therefore leads to a lot of pointless shouting. We can, I hope, try to avoid that here.

Imagine, as an illustration, someone like Ackerman's e-mailer. We'll call him "Bob." Bob is "anti-dictator," and therefore he supported the war. That "therefore," of course, contains dozens of implicit steps, but Bob may not realize this. To his way of thinking, "anti-dictator" entails "pro-war." Thus, when Bob meets someone like me and learns that I opposed the war, he thinks "anti-war" entails "pro-dictator." He then launches into a lecture about human rights and about how despicable I am for (he supposes) supporting all of the despicable things Saddam Hussein did and stood for — at which point I may find it very difficult indeed to say anything other than the "sod off, moron" that Bob's irrelevant tirade richly deserves. I need to get better at not saying that, but instead trying patiently to achieve disagreement with Bob — identifying the actual points on which we actually disagree instead of angrily shouting about the principles we share.

The real disagreement between Bob and I is not over the nature or degree of our commitment to human rights or of our abhorrence of the atrocities of Saddam Hussein. Our real disagreement lies amongst all those dozens of steps obscured and leap-frogged over by Bob's too-grandiose "therefore."

Anyway, back to Ackerman. His correspondent, unlike the semi-hypothetical Bob, appreciates the thorny prudential questions that demand addressing to get from "anti-dictator" to "pro-war." One of those questions is whether or not, to put it bluntly, the Bush administration could really be trusted not to screw this up.

Ackerman says that, before the war, he was hopeful that President Bush could oversee such an operation with wisdom and resolve. Now he's kicking himself, wondering whatever he could have been thinking:

… it seemed to me in late 2002 that all of this intellectual exercise would yield a workable and pragmatic strategy for postwar Iraq, even if we weren't going to be greeted with sweets and flowers by the Iraqi people.

Yes, that was Panglossian. I also made another faulty assumption: that the Bush administration would retain the political will necessary to see the task through. Given that Bush has structured his presidency so as to almost never be on the unpopular side of an argument, I shouldn't have figured Iraq would be an exception.

(Note: "Bob" section slightly refined about 10 minutes after original post.)

Iraq

iraq

Previous Post

February 4, 2004

Half an Open Mind

Next Post

February 9, 2004 Active vs. passive

Recent Comments

18 Comments | Leave a Comment

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which New Testament book is written entirely as a letter to an individual?

Select your answer to see how you score.

James Philemon Jude 1 Timothy