> Justin, I'm not drifting anywhere. Remember, I supported intervention in
Haiti and Kosovo, so my position of conditional support for intervention
against bad regimes is hardly new.
Yah, well, I still think you better watch out.
> The more interesting issue is why I
opposed the war in Afghanistan and Iraq--
Remind me.
> and I unsurprisingly think I have
greater insight on how to convince those of the broad progressive side who
supported "humanitarian interventionism" but should not use the same logic
in Iraq.
Share it. As far as I can tell you think we ought to have said, use the UN to liberate Iraq by requiring compliance with human rights standards? Maybe require the regime to have UN-monitored multiparty elections? I mean, do you think was would have won enough people to our side to haves topped the war drive? Really?
> Luke's position is exactly the one the left failed to address, not
necessarily on the Right's terms but on the substantive values that Luke and
I and you and most progressives share. What is needed is to address those
values and posit an alternative version of events.
I agree with that. Luke is (as usual) utterly wrong headed, but he does have the merit of posing things with brutal simplicity. But I think you are mistaken about the failure of "the left: to pose an alternative. We did, by and large: a world ruled by international law. Actually I think even our local WWPer would not object to that in the medium term, right Lou? I just don't think (it is now clear) thata nything could have stopped the Bushies, including domestic dissent. Frankly, if we;d been more of a threat, I think they would just have crushed us.I've seen how they've reacted to the threat, such as it is, that we pose here and now. We're building here for the long term.
> But the best way to convince people of bad motives is to articulate the idea
that an alternative does exist and the very fact that the Bush
administration ignores that alternative is best proof of those bad motives.
Well there was a perfectly good alternative that was actually literally on the ground in Iraq until jsut before the war started . . .
> UN mandates focused only on weapons
inspections-- notably quite different from the UN negotiations that led up
to the Kosovo intervention.
Well, until then (as Kelly noted), the issue was WMD, not "liberation." That was a sort of afterthought to put up when it became likely that there were no WMD, although some may still be "found."
> And of course my analysis was that the left could not have fully engaged
this alternative by starting last year but needed to have been articulating
it and organizing around it for the last decade.
OK, let's start on the next decade. Shall we start organizing for the liberation of who, N. Korea? Syria? Iran? I am serious here, you claim to have an alternative.
> Its failure to do so meant that its moral capital to credibly argue for an alternative was close to non-existent, especially with pro-Hussein groups like the WWP in leadership of antiwar rallies. At best, as you note, most antiwar activists were articulating a "none of our business" message, which I found incredibly unattractive.
For practical purpose, anything subtle is gonna be lost, and you have to assume that most people know nothing. they don't know that SH used to be our boy, they don't know about the history of US interventions, they don't have the equipment to deal with a nuanced analysis. That is also why, btw, publishing books like that by the guy who wrote the book on The Case For Attacking Iraq (if a bunch of stringent conditions are met) is liable to be captured for mere propaganda. You may find the Just Stay Out unattractive. I think thae idea that it's none of of damn bizness is actually pretty attractive to most Americans (and a fairly healthy attrude). It's not enough to stop them from supporting the war once troops are committed.There, history shows that nothing but defeat would do that.
> The Left was flatly outorganized on this issue and not because they had fewer resources but because they just didn't even do the organizing necessary or engage in serious intellectual engagement. Which is why it was claimed that the only "unity" position possible was the simplistic "no war" message and thus anyone, including pro-Hussein propagandists like the WWP, could speak in the name of that antiwar message. It was too thin a message and failed.
Frankly, if it weren't for people like you making a lot of hay about the supposedly pro-SH positions of some of the organizers, no one would know or care. I think we have actually done a super job of organizing. I think our moral basis is just fine. I think our analyses have been adequate. I just don't think that morality and analyses are enough. No message would have worked in the circumstances. None. If we had Jesus, Gandhi, King, Buddha, Albert Schweitzer, and the Pope (actually we do have the Pope), they would have been written off as a bunch a long haired failed hippy 60s leftovers recycling tired messages. Our best hope was that our contribution here would help generate enough international pressure -- but it turned out that the Bushie's unilateralism beat that. As I say, we're building here for the long term.
jks
jks
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030408/a866a7dc/attachment.htm>