I know this doesn't matter. The rationale from much of the pro-war camp will be, If we won, how could we have been wrong? And this will help the Bush Doctrine of preventive war (i.e., The Rationale For Empire In All Of The Entire History Of The World) gain more popular support. The requirements: We win easily, we find (or "find," if necessary in the future) weapons of mass destruction, and horror stories of government abuse must come out in the aftermath. As long as these conditions are met, the war was justified.
(Oh, and an update: Again, I am red-faced about my previous criticism of George W. Bush's extremist religious views. When I made these comments I was unaware that he was personally "called by God." The BBC offers further evidence of his divine mission.)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Eric Olsen
I think it is intellectually honest of you to acknowledge the successes of the war whether you see them as such or not - will you change your opinion about the advisability of the war if your assumed imperial march through the Middle East doesn't materialize?
2 - san
I'm also concerned, based on information from various sources, that there will indeed be an imperial mach across the Middle East. Indeed, there seems to be not insignificant support in the American population for carrying this on into Syria and Iran. For my part, though, if that does NOT happen, I will be relieved no end, but I WON'T change my mind about this war.
I have specific reasons for my antiwar stance, and imperialist tendencies is only one on a fairly robust list.
3 - san
"Imperial Mach". I like that. Very Star Wars. Remember you heard it here first.
4 - Brian Flemming
Eric,
"...will you change your opinion about the advisability of the war if your assumed imperial march through the Middle East doesn't materialize?"
Yes, I would change my mind about what I think is the likely result of a preventive war doctrine in the Middle East. I think a preventive war doctrine is inherently destabilizing to the entire globe (not just the Middle East), and as an American I am ashamed that our country has dedicated itself to a policy of peace by violence rather than peace by cooperation.
But I will most definitely have been proved wrong in my predictions of the Bush Administration's specific goals in the Middle East if the U.S. simply gets rid of Saddam and then exhibits no further aggression. As I said in the last message at the discussion here:
Let's define what is what. I would say a sign of "perpetual war" would be additional military actions in the Middle East, rationalized with the usual improvised reasons we have come to expect from this Administration. Having provoked the Muslim world into becoming more overtly threatening, we will continue to, as you so ominously say, "eliminate those who threaten us." The list will expand. The goals will get hazier. The body count (mainly Muslim and civilian) will rise. Rather than a quick wrap-up, there will be a looking-ahead to more jobs we can do to "eliminate those who threaten us." The necessary evidence, always emotionally stirring and generally falling apart upon later scrutiny, will show up just in time to take each series of escalating actions. And every time, the mantra will be--just this one, and then we're done.
If the U.S. installs democracy in Iraq and then gets the hell out of the region, my jaw will drop. I am not expecting that to happen. If it does happen, I have been wrong. That's the definition of my being completely wrong: The U.S./U.N. sets up a democracy and then we exit the region (militarily--not humanitarian, advisors, etc.). If that happens, I eat my hat.
Can you define what your expectation is? What would be a sign that you are wrong?
What I'm hoping is that the perpetual war scenario I outlined above is not roughly what you would tolerate and just call by a different name. I'm hoping that scenario frightens you as much as it frightens me, and you have a good idea of what it will take to convince you that we're headed for it, some idea of what a warning sign would look like--not that you say it's going to happen, but if it did, that's what you would call a warning sign.
I'm kinda still waiting for an answer to this from you. Us anti-war folks have been noticing lately that the pro-war side doesn't like to take a firm stand on these two questions:
1. What would be a specific sign that empire is the goal of the Bush Administration?
2. What would be a specific sign that we are on our way to a police state in the U.S.?
5 - Matt Libby
A pro-war comment on your two questions:
1. Puerto Rico and Iraq become the 51st and 52nd states. Afghanistan will have to wait until it builds a better economy and gets rid of those remaining Taliban fanaticists.
2. Downloading of MP3s is impossible.
The extremism and paranoia in your post can only be countered with comedy.
My question to the anti-war community:
Are all of our government's actions simply a small cog in the great conspiracy machine?
6 - san
Actually, Brian's arguments are based largely on the Bush administration's own policies and philosophy, not conspiracy theory. Paul Wolfowitz has long campaigned -- he was part of GHW Bush's administration -- for a policy of controlling American interests through "exportation of democracy". The principal method for exporting democracy, as proposed by Wolfowitz and other neoconservative theorists -- collectively known as the "Hawks" -- is invasion of sovereign nations and installation of so-called democratic governments that meet American standards. A government selected for its fealty to the US and not by its own people is hardly democratic. Nonetheless, this is the philosophy of a core group of theoreticians and policy makers in high positions within the Bush administration. Wolfowitz, you'll note, was essential in creating the in-country American administration that will take over Iraq when the war is deemed complete.
Due to these policies, I can conclude that the Iraq war is intended to be a first step in implementing this troubling philosophy, an American brand of imperialism. But, as Brian notes, I could be wrong. However, failure to realize this philosophy's ultimate goal does not absolve the administration of responsibility for this war. Regardless of its place in the big picture, this war is indeed "peace through violence", instead of "peace through cooperation", a harbinger of awful things to come.
7 - san
"The U.S./U.N. sets up a democracy and then we exit the region (militarily--not humanitarian, advisors, etc.)."
I'll second that. If we pull our military out entirely, no permanent or semi-permanent bases established in Iraq, etc., I'll gladly admit I was wrong about long-term intent.
Oh, if Mike Hawash hasn't done anything illegal, I'd like to see him get out of jail, too. They could start by, say, charging him now or releasing him.
8 - Myth
Yes, I am strongly anti-war but no, I do not think that the government is a huge conspiracy. However, I think that some in the Administration are trying to limit freedom because they are so deluded by trying to stay "safe."
Never sacrifice freedom.
Peace.
9 - Brian Flemming
Matt,
"The extremism and paranoia in your post can only be countered with comedy."
How about answers instead of evasion?
The questions were:
1. What would be a specific sign that empire is the goal of the Bush Administration?
2. What would be a specific sign that we are on our way to a police state in the U.S.?
10 - Matt Libby
Points well taken. I do not agree, however.
We are not an imperialistic population. I don't think you could get enough votes to make Puerto Rico a state.
The interests in Iraq are just not valuable enough. We've already liberated Kuwait and have Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the UAE under wing. These nations, under the OPEC umbrella, would do more than enough to ensure our resources that our needed would make it to our shores. Our money is a pretty valuable resource as well. It is not a one-sided sale.
Who would you have us cooperate with? Saddam?
One point on this war:
A "cease-fire" was signed in 1991 under the conditions that Saddam fully disarm to the UN specifications. SCUDs are illegal under the UN specifications. Was this obligation fulfilled by Saddam in 12 years and 17 UN resolutions?
If it wasn't fulfilled, we are no longer bound by the original cease-fire agreement.
11 - Tom Johnson
Please Brian, do document where you found that the UN inspections had found chemical weapons. I hadn't heard that before. Until today, there had been no signs of the chemical weapons the UN tried to find.
I'm with Matt on this: it appears it is impossible for the anti-war community to see anything but a gigantic conspiracy.
What I like most about the anti-war community is how rife with paranoia it is. What I see coming from the pro-war side tends to be well-reasoned, documentable evidence that supports their cause, presented in a calm, factual manner. The anti-war arguments tend to come flying like shrapnel - angry and hot and generally based around what amount to conspiracy theories. What gets me is, they're more likely to believe baseless, crack-pot theories than to use their own common sense to see how ridiculously convoluted the schemes they purport the government is perpetuating have become.
1. What would be a specific sign that empire is the goal of the Bush Administration?
That we run their government as if it is another state. Won't happen. Guaranteed.
2. What would be a specific sign that we are on our way to a police state in the U.S.?
When you don't have the right to voice ridiculous concerns like this.
12 - Matt Libby
I was not trying to evade the questions. The conspiracy paranoia lately must've gotten to me.
1. The question is a little rigged. We are an empire already. The United States is the lone superpower in the world. There isn't a Russia from recent times, or a Germany, or Japan from WW II to oppose us with their own brands of government and rival military might. That alone makes this country an empire. The Romans were an empire because they were largely unopposed. Their military training and weapons were some of the best of the era. Germany tried to become an empire as well as Japan. Kill all the dissidents and rule through fear and intimidation. The mistake that they made was to, essentially, "strip mine" the countries that they were trying to acquire and overextend their control. We are a benevolent empire and, I believe, try to apply our power for the greater good. Saddam was trying to create his own version of the Roman empire, in the Middle East. Should we stop him now? Or wait and save everybody's butt, from a dictator that the local countries wanted to do nothing about, after the fact (i.e. France in WWII)?
2. To be honest, when I can no longer purchase a firearm.
13 - san
Tom, UN inspectors definitely found warheads equipped for the delivery of chemical weapons. I can source it if you want, or you can take my word for it.
Analysis of Bush administration policy is not a conspiracy theory. "Defense Policy Guidance", P. Wolfowitz and I. L. Berry, and "Rebuilding America's Defenses", numerous contributors, are real documents that state intent. If that's a conspiracy theory, then administration members planted the information in order to inspire such a theory.
"What I like most about the anti-war community is how rife with paranoia it is." Hmm... What would you call FBI investigation of antiwar advocates and shooting rubber bullets at a peaceful, if possibly unlawful, antiwar protest? Sounds like paranoia to me. Ergo, the FBI and Oakland police are actually antiwar factions?
"That we run their government as if it is another state. Won't happen. Guaranteed."
So if we run it like an occupied territory, that won't meet your definition of empire building?
14 - san
You're correctly defining a superpower, I suppose, but not an empire. An empire is a number of nations governed by a single authority. To become an empire, we'll have to get out there and collect those nations. Arguably, it looks like we've started.
15 - Andrew Ian Castel-Dodge
I don't think it is inappropriate to gloat, but I am pleased with outcome of this war so far. I was a reluctant convert to the war against Iraq. I was finally convinced it was justified early this year. I hope it continues to go successfully and hope casualties will remain as low as they are now.
To anti-war types: not all those who support this war are gun-ho morons. I happen to have met and attended several meetings with Kurds. I was convinced of Saddam's babarity with graphic ilustrations of his brutality.
16 - Brian Flemming
Matt,
"We are not an imperialistic population. I don't think you could get enough votes to make Puerto Rico a state."
Ahem. You mention Puerto Rico as an example of America's lack of colonial ambition?
"Who would you have us cooperate with? Saddam?"
First, I would have us not frame the issues we face in this simplistic, binary manner. It has one end point: guaranteed perpetual war. If everyone on the globe is either for us or against us, we will be fighting wars against our enemies forever. I know it feels good to get down to brass tacks--and say it's love Saddam or hate Saddam, which one are you?--but we will never, ever achieve peace on this planet with this kind of thinking.
I would have us cooperate with the rest of the world. I would have us elect a new leader who does not have contempt for international treaties and international organizations. I would have us be patient with international processes, using our strength to push our agenda but not as a bludgeon to insult the dignity of all other countries.
No, I have never advocated for "cooperating" with Saddam. I thought we should have pursued a toughened coercive inspections process that included bombing the fuck out of any site Saddam didn't give us access to, and included other methods of force if those didn't prove effective. It is obvious to all reasonable observers that we could have achieved such an inspections process had our President wished to pursue it. But he didn't. His goal, and the goal of those currently holding sway over Administration policy, is specifically not to cooperate with international bodies.
Bush's flagrant insulting of the U.N., his pulling out of environmental and other vital treaties, and the published doctrine of preventive war give us a future in which war is inescapable. By "cooperation," I mean we stop acting like this.
Tom,
Here:
Since 1991, in carrying out its mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 687, the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) has destroyed, or made harmless, a "supergun"; 48 Scud missiles; 40,000 chemical munitions; 690 tonnes of CW agents; 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals; and biological warfare-related factories and equipment. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found a nuclear weapons programme far more advanced than suspected, and dismantled it.
This is the first you've heard of it? On what were you previously basing your belief that Iraq had chemical weapons? Or didn't you think Saddam had them?
You can find more documentation at the source (UNSCOM) here.
" What I see coming from the pro-war side tends to be well-reasoned, documentable evidence that supports their cause, presented in a calm, factual manner..."
Okay.
"The anti-war arguments tend to come flying like shrapnel - angry and hot and generally based around what amount to conspiracy theories."
Okay.
"What gets me is, they're more likely to believe baseless, crack-pot theories than to use their own common sense to see how ridiculously convoluted the schemes they purport the government is perpetuating have become."
Okay.
1. What would be a specific sign that empire is the goal of the Bush Administration?
That we run their government as if it is another state. Won't happen. Guaranteed
I hope you're right.
2. What would be a specific sign that we are on our way to a police state in the U.S.?
When you don't have the right to voice ridiculous concerns like this.
I think there is a flaw in your thinking here. If it gets that far--that I can't voice criticism of the government's motives--wouldn't that actually be too late?
If what you're saying is that it's paranoid to worry about the erosion of civil liberties until we no longer have any left, and then it's time to get worried...well, sorry, I'm going to go with my strategy. Which is to look at verified instances of anti-Constitutional behavior by the government and raise hell about them while I still have the right to raise hell.
17 - san
Andrew Ian: "To anti-war types: not all those who support this war are gun-ho morons." So you're saying that you are unequivocally against violating US laws in order to promote this war?
18 - pro-war
Told ya so
19 - Tom Johnson
Brian: please don't act like I'm an idiot. You know exactly what I meant. You said that the UN had found chemical weapons and they did not. In the past six months they found chemical warheads, and only warheads, and could not uncover any of the actual chemicals that the coalition is uncovering right now. We all knew they were there, but they didn't find them (how hard did they look is the big question, I guess.) I am WELL aware of Iraq and Saddam's past. I wouldn't even be arguing against you if I wasn't.
What are your links supposed to do? New American Century? Explain why I'm supposed to take this seriously. It has nothing to do with the government, it's just a website that wants to suggest things to the government. All you did was post opinion pages, which do nothing but prove that you have nothing substantial with which to prove your point. And a link to your own site with a photoshopped picture . . . what exactly does this do again?
Brian, I haven't seen any of my civil liberties eroded. I'm free to say and do as I please, as free as I was before. The only people who seem to be having problems are those that were doing things that could get them in trouble in the first place - Bush administration or no.
And, as always, the anti-war arguments grow ridiculous and bloated. You have an answer to everything that supports your position, no matter how convoluted. And it always gets reduced to unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable conspiracies.
On a completely separate note:
I have to say, Blogcritics was fun, but this war crap has infiltrated what seems like practically ever corner of this site. It's gotten old. I came here to read about music, movies, books, and what I get is what I see on other sites that I'm no longer visiting or posting to - war BS. I'm tired of it. I've just about given up on Blogcritics, but I keep hoping it'll get back on track. The war issue is dead - there is no swaying anyone's opinion no matter what. I don't know why this is even continuing, other than that people just can't resist posting article after article about the subject. We all want to stand up for our convictions, but it's pointless when your opponent constantly one-ups you. No one is right, no one is wrong. As of this post, I'm doing what I can: no more comments on the war. We all should do the same and help return this site to something fun to read again.
20 - san
Tom, you should have clarified in your original statement that you meant UN inspectors had not found chemical weapons in Iraq in the last six months. Your comment implied that they had NEVER found WMDs.
"New American Century? Explain why I'm supposed to take this seriously." NAC is an organization with significant influence on the Bush administration. Some of their contributors are directly involved with the administration. Their papers and theories are repeatedly quoted and implemented by the Bush administration. That's why you should take it seriously: The government is using their suggestions.
"I haven't seen any of my civil liberties eroded."
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
-Pastor Martin Niemöller
21 - Brian Flemming
Tom,
You said that the UN had found chemical weapons and they did not. In the past six months they found chemical warheads, and only warheads, and could not uncover any of the actual chemicals that the coalition is uncovering right now.
What I said was this:
"... I believe it is likely Saddam has chemical weapons stashes in Iraq (the inspections, after all, found some, and they weren't done yet)..."
To me, you seemed to indicate that you disagreed with a claim that UNSCOM having found chemical weapons in the past meant there might be more. I had no way to know you meant "in the past six months." I guess it was a misunderstanding. You say, "You know exactly what I meant." No, I didn't. I hardly think it's obvious from your statement.
New American Century? Explain why I'm supposed to take this seriously. It has nothing to do with the government, it's just a website that wants to suggest things to the government.
Here's why you are supposed to take this seriously: This group, by all accounts (left and right), has enormous influence over the Bush Administration.
All you did was post opinion pages, which do nothing but prove that you have nothing substantial with which to prove your point.
Here is a link to a non-opinion site".
Brian, I haven't seen any of my civil liberties eroded. I'm free to say and do as I please, as free as I was before. The only people who seem to be having problems are those that were doing things that could get them in trouble in the first place - Bush administration or no.
You mean doing things like...being an Arab?
Your statement I would provide as another warning sign that we are on the way to a police state (not that we're there, that we're on the way). There are people being held right now by the U.S. government without charges, without lawyers and without any idea if they will ever be released. We don't know their names, we don't know what they are supposed to have done, we don't know why they were picked up in the first place. All we know is that they are being held. Your position is that they were doing something to deserve this treatment. How the hell could you know?
This kind of utter confidence that if the police do it, the person must be guilty--even without due process, even without the public's being informed--turns the police into judge, jury, and, possibly already in the U.S., executioner.
And, as always, the anti-war arguments grow ridiculous and bloated. You have an answer to everything that supports your position, no matter how convoluted. And it always gets reduced to unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable conspiracies.
As always, you provide no evidence to support this assertion. I don't mind being asked to support the claims I make, but I can't substantively respond to a general accusation of conspiracy-mongering. I don't know what you're referring to. If you somehow see analysis of this Administration's publicly declared foreign policy to be conspiracy theorizing, well, I guess we disagree.
I have to say, Blogcritics was fun, but this war crap has infiltrated what seems like practically ever corner of this site. It's gotten old. I came here to read about music, movies, books...
I just opened blogcritics.org to the front page of the site. On my display, twelve articles are visible at first. Ten of these are unrelated to the war.
This article, by contrast, was clearly related to the war, and you clicked on it and commented on it. I don't see how Blogcritics is in any way responsible for your frustration.
22 - Al Barger
Brian is just determined not to recognize this war as a significant success, no matter what the practical outcome. Whatever happens, he'll figure out how to set the goalposts somewhere else.
Indications are that the Baathists are pretty well kaput. We've wiped out the worser parts of their military, but only a relatively very few civilians- who are human shields on the Baathists hands to account for anyway. We're going to find some stashes of nasty stuff that will no longer be available for attacking us or anyone else.
We're a little safer, and the people of Iraq will be a whole lot better off. In the process of stopping Hussein's butchery for good, we've probably killed less civilians in the war than what Baathist thugs routinely would have in the same few days except for us destracting them, ie with bullets in the head and such.
It's looking like a win-win situation, but Brian's just not going to accept that these real world events are significant things if they clash with his ideology and political affiliations.
23 - Brian Flemming
Al,
The goalposts aren't moving. There is no inconsistency between any statements I made in this discussion and any I have made prior to it. I challenge you to prove otherwise using quotes. If indeed I have been inconsistent, you shouldn't have much trouble juxtaposing quotes to indicate that.
I have also gone on record, here and here, stating what it will take to convince me I am wrong. I did it specifically to set a definitive goalpost that I can easily be called on in the future.
I would invite you to do the same.
1. What would be a specific sign that empire is the goal of the Bush Administration?
2. What would be a specific sign that we are on our way to a police state in the U.S.?
I answered your question here, clearly and without weaseling out of it.
Will you answer these? Or do you want to leave everything open so that no matter what happens, you can shift your position?
24 - Eric Olsen
Brian, Sometimes I am off pursuing global domination and miss when I am summoned: I will be assured that we are not on an imperial march when we do not significantly engage any Middle Eastern country unprovoked within one year after this war ends. The American people simply wouldn't stand for it without overt provocation.
I will be convinced we are heading for a police state: when the state of our civil liberties is worse than it was when Hoover headed the FBI, when Republican senators wave through the next round of Patriot Act-type internal security measures, when the American people buy the security for privacy argument. I have no LARGE problems with Patriot 1, especially with the sunset clause, although I would like to know what's up with the book snooping aspect.
I believe our main difference is I have much more faith in the American people than do you and as a result I am not nearly as alarmist.
25 - Brian Flemming
Eric,
1.
I will be assured that we are not on an imperial march when we do not significantly engage any Middle Eastern country unprovoked within one year after this war ends. The American people simply wouldn't stand for it without overt provocation.
Actually, that wasn't quite the question. Am I to take this that you are saying if the U.S. DOES significantly engage another Middle East country, you will start to be concerned about imperial ambitions? For example, what if the U.S. decides to invade Iran, as 50% of the U.S. apparently supports, if Iran does not abandon its nuclear program?
2. It seems like we are mere inches apart on this question. I assume Patriot 2 makes you nervous, as do the secret trials, indefinite detentions without trial and use of torture?
I believe our main difference is I have much more faith in the American people than do you and as a result I am not nearly as alarmist.
Oh, in the American PEOPLE I do have faith. After all, they are the ones who elected Al Gore in 2000, and Gore had a firm commitment to the environment, to the same treaties Bush contemptuously rejected and to the U.N.
It's true I'm worried about how their emotions are being manipulated by this Administration, which has so much control over things like orange alerts and the media in general (how else to explain that 50% of Americans believe the completely unsupported claim that Saddam and 9-11 are connected?).
But if I didn't have faith in the American people, I wouldn't be out marching in the streets with them.