The Liberal Case for War in Iraq
I thought I would post my speech. it is somewhat fragmented -- we only had about five minutes to speak, so I make no claim to thoroughness. Two years in there are certainly things I would change. For example, I only have a sort of note to myself for my conclusion, so on paper it probably seems to fizzle toward the end. As I recall, it was well received. many students appreciated hearing something other than what were becoming familiar anti-war arguments.
Other than formatting to fit Rebunk and HNN parameters, the notes are presented exactly as they were when they were in front of me on that winter day in Minnesota. I'm very curious to hear what readers think about how right or wrong I was then. Perhaps I can give examples of what I might change were I to give the same talk now. Obviously there is some chance for embarassment for me by posting this two years later, but I thought it was a sound case then, and I am not ashamed of it now.:
An Agnostic in an Age of Dogma: Some Thoughts on War in Iraq
I am a liberal. A good old fashioned left-liberal Democrat. A Progressive. A New Deal, Fair Deal, New Frontier, Great Society Liberal. I’ve dedicated my life to writing, reading and teaching about race, politics and social movements.
That said, I am not necessarily against war with Iraq. I am also not necessarily for war with Iraq. In short, I am an agnostic in an age of dogmatism, a skeptic in an age of true believers, ambivalent in an age of moral righteousness.
I don’t trust the true believers on either side of this debate. For one thing, I have a pretty good friend who works on the Policy Planning Staff at the State Department. He too is agnostic (not a political appointee, he is centrist, etc.) and as he says, this is such a complex issue that he simply does not trust that those who are absolutely ardent one way or the other really know what they are talking about – this is a complex issue, and it is ok to see it that way. Sometimes being a true believer clouds judgment and the ability to weigh and understand issues well.
There are certainly lots of reasons not to trust this administration on Iraq. The first, and I believe most relevant of these, is that they have not made a case for war. One day it seems they are arguing for regime Change. The next they are arguing that we must eradicate Weapons of Mass Destruction (there are other kinds?) and on yet another day they hint (but don’t ever quite muster the evidence – apparently not trusting us, but this is an issue for another day) that Iraq is tied in to the war on terrorism, September 11, Al Qaida and so forth. There seems to be a grim determination on some of the hawks to wage war, and they’ll use whatever pretense to do so.
However, for all of these reasons, there seems to be a knee jerk element on the left that is equally dangerous, equally slippery, equally dogmatic, equally unwilling to yield on the most basic of points. In short, the left has been rather uncivil in much of this debate.
There is a liberal case for war against Iraq.
First, the case for “regime change” in Iraq is not exactly a difficult one to make. For those of us on the left who care about human rights (and I would assert that it is traditionally and historically the left that is committed to human rights) the case against Saddam and for regime change is a slam dunk. Saddam Hussein is an evil, evil man. The world would be a better place without him in power, and the hope for stability in a region constantly racked with instability would be far better if we could oversee a transition to some form of liberal democracy writ large.
But there are a number of myths that the left continues to perpetuate, myths that, I think, hurt our cause, that contribute to the lack of civility in the American dialogue and the perpetuation of which actually undermine the cause of the anti-war left. Allow me to address a few of these.
*Personal attacks on the President and the Administration. I don’t like this president any more than any of you. But he is the president. Taking a “Bush is dumb” approach to the debate over war is juvenile and childish and brings into question the legitimacy of the anti-war side. Bush is no foreign policy scholar. He’s no scholar of any sort. But Condoleeza Rice would be the smartest person in this room if she walked in here now – in any room she walked in to. Ditto Colin Powell. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle and others have been involved in public service for most of their lives. Impugning their intelligence or capabilities does not introduce much to the debate. It is ad hominem name calling and it has no place in a civil debate about important issues.Conclusion (brief summary overview, emphasizing that there is a liberal case to be made for war and that above all historically liberals have been the ones mocked by conservatives for acting based on human rights. To steal Woodrow Wilson’s phrase, it would be an irony of history if liberals abandoned a human rights driven foreign policy at just the moment where we can justify acting on just that principle.)*Ditto impugning their motives. Do I question these motives? Yes, in some ways. But when we impugn their motives, when that is our argument, what we are effectively saying is “you don’t believe that what you are doing is for the best of the country.” We are saying “we believe that you are not acting in what you believe is the American interest.” We are indicting their patriotism. This is unfair. I’m not sure that this administration has done anything more loathsome than to equate support for their war with patriotism, and those who oppose thus have been subtly but unquestionably tainted with being unpatriotic. We should not do the same.
*The “this is a war about oil” argument is also growing tedious. When people throw these accusations out there they need to use what we historians (and also what political scientists, lawyers and other reasonable people) call “evidence.” There is no evidence that this has a whole lot to do with oil, except inasmuch as oil is a (by the way, legitimate) component in national security. For one thing, if what we wanted was oil we could simply eliminate sanctions against Iraq. This is in fact exactly what the major oil companies want – most business executives, in the oil industry or otherwise, do not want war and the inherent instability that would bring to the economy. What they want is stability and access, which loosening of sanctions would provide – Saddam has indicated that he would happily allow American oil companies into Iraq’s fields. In other words – if the talk about regime change, WMDs, and so forth are just a smokescreen for oil, then the most expedient route would be to eliminate sanctions, there’d be no need for war and we’d all go off and antagonize one another about Social security or prescription drugs. We might question those other goals, but they are legitimate in the minds of those who are raising them. Bush and companies ties to the oil industry do not serve as prima facie proof that oil is thus our prime concern. That sort of reductionism is good for character assassination. It is not good for a sophisticated analysis of American foreign policy and interests.