[lbo-talk] Anti-war realists (was Re: Successes of the antiwar movement?)

[Timothy Francis-Wright]

Brad DeLong wrote:
> Well, the real problem was that the antiwar movement was trying to
> make a moral argument against the war, when the real argument against
> the war was a realist one. After all, all the real arguments that
> Saddam Hussein should have been allowed to keep his throne in Baghdad
> were procedural and prudential: [...]
> 
> But one of the antiwar movement's big problems is that the moral
> rhetoric of American peaceniks ("violence is not the answer" "no
> blood for oil" et cetera) does not map onto the
> prudential--realist--case that we should sacrifice the well-being of
> Iraqis to create a calmer and more orderly world. And if you don't
> map onto the realist case, you run an immense danger of falling into
> the role of apologists for what really was a very bad dictatorship.
> 

Indeed, back in September 2002, the best realists in academia
made a number of excellent arguments against war, but proceeded 
to make almost no impact on public opinion.  

In his Nation column a few weeks ago, Eric Alterman expressed
dismay that Hollywood types were the vanguard of the anti-war
forces.  I argued in the letters section of this week's Nation 
that realist scholars made their arguments at the right time
but made a hash at communicating, let alone resonating, with 
the public.  (The pdf file of the academics' 26 September ad 
in the New York Times is at
http://www.bear-left.com/archive/2002/Op-Ed.pdf)

--tim francis-wright