I'd object and Lou would no doubt object. The first Gulf War was conducted according to international law and I and many on the left opposed that war, while I and a slightly different grouping on the left supported the Kosovo intervention despite not being sanctioned fully by international law (even if it arguably was sanctioned by international values such as preventing genocide).
International law is not an alternative. Like all law, it is a means. It is lacks content and social values unto itself. The retreat to legalism is exactly what I am criticiquing in the left message.
I opposed this war for a whole range of reasons, moral, realpolitick and geopolitical. On the moral side, I thought that there was a non-war alternative through continuing to press for change on behalf of the Iraqi people through the United Nations or other methods, such as support for internal resistance (and critique the first Bush and Clinton administration for failing in that). On the realpolitick side, this war is unlikely to lead to a real democratic alternative, both because of Bush's disingenuous motives and precisely because it was unilateral, Iraqi nationalism is more likely to be channelled in response into authoritarian counter-responses over time. And geopolitically, the war in Iraq endangers both us as US residents and others around the world by stoking hatred and strengthening authoritarian movements that will find ideological sustenance denouncing our actions.
Bits and pieces of this response were scattered across antiwar analysis, but it was marginal to the simplistic "no war" legalisms and "unity" rhetoric with forces that excluded such analysis. Speeches at rallies I went to were preaching to the converted, not speaking to those less convinced of Bush's complete perfidy and for whom an actual argument was necessary. A few on February 15th in New York attempted this, but they were such the exception, and so unreinforced by broader public outreach to that unconverted group, that I'm hardly surprised that it was ineffective.
While I am personally convinced of Bush's cynicism and bad motives, merely repeating or worse assuming it will not convince many people who needed to have actual arguments and alternatives presented.
-- Nathan Newman
> 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