The Iraqi War -- Four Years Later

Four years ago today, America invaded Iraq in our on-going War on Islam. This somewhat unprovoked attack on the relatively weak dictatorship Of Saddam Hussein provided badly needed revenge for the Muslim world's 9/11 massacre. The balance of the cosmos was slightly restored by this.

Most lovers of "allah" celebrated their unprecedented atrocity -- often dancing in delight and revelling in an explosion of happiness -- so it was truly sweet for the good people of this earth to see the US moderately strike back on March 20th, 2003. Most Americans at the time enthusiastically supported this mild war, even if it took far too long to start, and even if most other Westerners generally opposed it.

Prior to the invasion four years ago, both friends and foes of this tactic in the planet-wide War against Jihad agreed on one thing: America would "win the war, and lose the peace." This prognostication proved to be exactly correct. No doubt the pundits and masses powerfully, if indirectly, saw our ideological weakness and confusion -- our moral bankruptcy.

And now, a whopping four years after the initial attack, Iraq is still almost entirely a quagmire and fiasco. A March 18th Washington Post editorial notes "the picture today is dire." Islam and jihadism haven't been defeated at all. Not in Iraq, nor elsewhere. Both are stronger than ever.

So what went wrong?

Firstly, after the quick war was over, America and company disbanded the Iraqi military and police. Most people sincerely, and seemingly wisely, thought them to be naturally or profoundly tyrannical -- mostly due to their strange and awful Bathist ideology. But this evil political party was never the problem.

The men with the guns were uncivilized, destructive, and wicked due to their ideology in general (Islam), and their polity in particular (dictatorship). The proper solution was for the American-led coalition to passionately denounce their religious ideology and energetically smash their tyrannical polity.

America should have loudly, proudly, arrogantly, obnoxiously praised our ideology of Western liberalism thruout Iraq and the Muslim world, trumpeting our vastly superior rationality and morality. Then we should have written this into their law. And this law should have been completely, carefully, expertly written before the invasion, and then implemented on Day One.

A constitution of liberty, justice, and individual rights should have been brutally forced down their throats. Any Iraqi military man or police officer who didn't like it, or who wouldn't enforce it, should have been allowed or forced to quit. Or been jailed. Or been hunted down and killed. And any citizen or group which similarly forcefully rebelled against the new liberal legal code -- especially the religious bastards -- should have been systematically attacked and slaughtered like the criminal, tyrannical monsters they are.

It's important to note here that the universal world-wide governmental belief-system of political correctness and multi-culturalism should have been summarily rejected for post-war Iraq. So too any political-cultural subjectivism and relativism. To repeat, America should have written the constitution and basic laws of Iraq, just like in Germany and Japan of 1945, and without their significant participation. If we wanted their stupid, slimy opinions on politics we could have beaten it out of them.

                                                                                         * * *

Instead of all this, of course, what happened was the evil god of Democracy was prayed to by all. Freedom was crushed. Indeed, it was never allowed to be born. The post-modernist elites and hordes -- of the West and Islamdom -- all promoted self-rule, autonomy, and democracy above individual rights. They all militantly refused or failed to see that democracy and liberty aren't synonymous.

In practice, this vacuous and depraved love for a method (voting) and effective indifference to the end (freedom) meant that a society which had been virtually enslaved for half a century got to choose its own form of governance. Naturally all these ill-prepared, beaten-down children chose tyranny. Because Isalm -- the almost universal garbage ideology of Iraq -- is so powerfully favorable to enslavement, the hounded and bewildered people of Iraq chose to stick with the ghastly Dark Age philosophy they most liked -- or at least were most familiar with.

This meant new-style socialism mixed with old-style sharia. This meant a dictatorship based upon collectivism, selflessness, aggressive jihad, and primitive medieval Islamic law.

It did not mean liberty, justice, and individual rights -- which almost every Iraqi secretly wanted, and even privately expected. It did not mean Western-style political liberalism which almost everyone could have, and would have, rallied behind in the directionless chaos of the immediate post-war period. Because Muslims are still human beings -- despite their horror story of a religion -- a powerful constituency for a "Jeffersonian democracy" could have been established in the Spring of 2003.

In the end, Iraqi Muslims rather rationally expected a Western liberal government would be created for them. They naively did not count on America's ideology of strong anti-Americanism and self-hatred.

Another reason for America's failure in Iraq is our sheer incompetence at security from the very first day. Once the military and police were disbanded, this became our job. But we didn't seem to even try.

And after many desperate and pitiful years of extraordinary American malfeasance on this, the various Iraqi groups eventually turned on each other. After many years of American-installed dictatorship and American-led criminality and tyranny, Iraqi bigotry ascended radically.

So all those delicately-adored -- but inexplicably vastly-delayed -- elections ended up being a pure racist joke. It was the loathsome "politics of identity" writ large.

Whether voting or trying to live in their neighborhoods, a previously strongly intermixed and united people desperately, helplessly turned -- for law and order, for liberty and justice -- to the only people they still thought they could somewhat trust -- "their own." Religious sectarianism and ethnic tribalism ascended tremendously under America's radically illiberal governance. American incompetence at security and freedom has now brought this dictatorship to the brink of civil war.

                                                                                       * * *

So here we are. Iraq is a pure disaster. There's virtually no hope for the future under America's wantonly evil rule. Recent polls say 80% of Iraqis want us out, and 51% favor violence against our troops.

So what do we do?

What we should have done from the beginning: Impose a liberal order. Repudiate what we did in Vietnam, and embrace what we did in Germany and Japan. We need to take the American Bill of Rights -- or some similar libertarian document - and slam-dunk it up their you-know-whats.

And all subsequent activist enemies of freedom should be treated as the egregious criminals and slave-masters that they truly are. No one should inflict upon these anti-freedom dissidents any cruelty or draconia. But they shouldn't enjoy a hint of mercy either. Just balanced and fair treatment -- based upon pure Western liberalism -- untainted by political correctness and multi-culturalism.

Liberty and justice for all Iraqis! And death to Islam, jihad, sharia, and democracy!

(Edited by Andre Zantonavitch on 3/20, 11:10pm)

Post 1

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 7:57am

Andre,

"...embrace what we did in Germany and Japan. We need to take the American Bill of Rights -- or some similar libertarian document - and slam-dunk it up their you-know-whats."

How many American troops do think that would take? How would that end the threat of terrorism from the rest of the middle east?

In Japan and Germany an unconditional surrender came first.

Post 2

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 12:20pm

Andre,

Good to see you back. I agree with your points that we should have been more aggressive, but I wouldn't take the Wash Post's pessimism as gospel truth. The 3/20 NY POST explained how while overall deaths are down since the "surge" the percentage of deaths in Baghdad over the rest of the country has increased, so the NYTimes story was that "more" are dying in Baghdad. This was a relative numebr, while the absolute numbers everywhere went down.

Christopher Hitchens and others who have supported the war but decried our meekness are saying that the "surge" is having some positive effect.

Of course, I have no special information, I'm just saying that the news of the last few months has been trending better, not worse. I'd refer you to Hitchen's column "fighting words" in slate. Sorry, no link, am off line at home, and am posting on lunch from public computer.

Ted

Post 3

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 12:24pm

And removing Saddam may have been revenge accidentally, but essentially it was justice and a duty of our President. Saddam was in violation of the '91 armistice, and therefore still in a state of war. Removing him was not the initiation of war, but a step towards ending a war with him that GHWB & Clinton failed to prosecute. Were they in office, I'd have them impeached for failing to uphold their oaths to enforce the armistice treaty.

Ted

Post 4

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 6:18pm

Mike E' asks:

How many American troops do think that would take? How would that end the threat of terrorism from the rest of the middle east?

If memory serves, 100,000 civilized British administrators (not even troops!) ruled 600,000,000 savage Indian citizens prior to WWII. This is a ratio of 6000 to 1. America currently has about 150,000 soldiers ruling 24,000,00 Iraqis. This is a ratio of 150 to 1. So the United States has FAR more troops overseas than it needs to get the job done.

What America lacks, and what the British possessed, was moral authority. You get this by being pro-freedom and pro-justice -- by being morally good. America isn't this at all. We stand four-square behind slavery. No wonder we need such a mind-boggling number of soldiers to defeat and rule such a low, weak, and pitiful enemy as the insurgents!

As a counter-example, I think if Nevada was suddenly forcibly converted to a purely liberal order by American troops, America would have little trouble defending and enforcing it. No doubt most Nevadans would initially strongly oppose legalized heroin and prostitution, as well as zero anti-trust laws and minimum wage laws. But they would rather quickly observe and learn its objective moral goodness and superiority. So few would take up arms against it. And in a very short time, the vast majority would vigorously defend this new freedom, however initially "radical."

This all basically happened in Germany and Japan. However evil and monstrous the ideology of moderate and average Islam is -- and I think it's extreme -- even the lowly Iraqis would quickly rally round a liberal order if we imposed it. It wouldn't take an infinite amount of time and money and troops like today's debacle.

And in my judgment, by mid-April of 2003, the Iraqi government and people were effectively helpless and defeated. They weren't in rebellion at all. It was a de facto complete surrender. They desperately wanted us to lead them to the Promised Land of political liberalism.

So maybe 5,000 or 20,000 troops -- objectively morally good, and subjectively beloved by most Iraqis -- for a few months or years would have done the job.

This could all easily happen in Iran too. Even Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. But America needs to promote and install freedom -- not filthy, miserable Islam and worthless democracy.

(Edited by Andre Zantonavitch on 3/21, 6:37pm)

Post 5

Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 4:43pm

Andre, I have two objections to your ideas about Iraq.

First, they propose actions by our government that would violate individual rights, of American taxpayers and soldiers, and of helpless and innocent Iraqis. Government may properly resort to arms only against an aggressor who threatens the rights of its client-citizens, who pay it for this protection. Clearly, when the state engages in foreign wars against bad dictators that pose no credible threat to its own citizens, that state is engaged in a massive assault on individual rights. Individual liberty requires that government refrain from violating the liberty or wrongly taking the lives of indivduals--domestic and foreign.

Second, your proposal displays profound and irrational contempt for Iraqis, who--whatever their considerable cultural shortcomings--possess rights. Moreover, you seem deeply infatuated with the notion that physical force can achieve the ends promised by its wielders--ends that you believe to be "good". But good ends must be chosen voluntarily, or they lose moral standing.

I'll spare you furthering lecturing about this. May I suggest you read, or re-read, Ayn Rand's essay entitled"The Roots of War".

Post 6

Friday, March 23, 2007 - 6:12am

Mark, I have some questions:

If Iraq actually were a threat to the US by your standards and the US went to war with Iraq, what would qualify as an innocent Iraqi and how would you prosecute a war without affecting them?

What level of aggression is required to constitute a threat? If Americans abroad are kidnapped or murdered and their killers are harbored by the country, is that enough of a threat? How much aggression is required?

I am not at this time making any statements as to whether Iraq qualifies for any of this or not, I just want to know where you draw the lines on these issues, because it seems to me that regardless of individualism, when we are dealing with Nations we actually are forced to deal with groups and the lines blur.

Post 7

Friday, March 23, 2007 - 8:08am

Mark: Kurt E' in Post #6 raises some interesting and challenging questions, and so I 'm reluctant to pile on. But I have some pretty strong views on this stuff, as you correctly surmise, so here goes:

In general, I seem to be familiar with your line of thinking. I consider it to be a kind of libertarian-based isolationism-cum-pacificism-cum-anarchism. Or something in that realm.

Ayn Rand, the Enlightenment thinkers, and the Founding Fathers certainly all agree on the "isolationist" part. But I really don't.

Current liberal theory seems not to understand the concepts of rescue and liberation. Just as a knight in shining armor can save a damsel in distress while violating no-one's rights -- albeit probably hurting and administering justice upon the bad guys -- so too countries can rescue and liberate their fellows. Do you dispute this?

And fairly often countries should do this thing of social moral goodness.

You write:

Government may properly resort to arms only against an aggressor who threatens the rights of its client-citizens, who pay it for this protection. Clearly, when the state engages in foreign wars against bad dictators that pose no credible threat to its own citizens, that state is engaged in a massive assault on individual rights.

This claim seems very arbitrary to me. Most Objectivists advance it, but I simply don't accept it. As far as I can tell, governments can intervene in third party affairs so long as they genuinely advance liberty. Rand herself famously, elliptically said: Free states "have the right, but not the duty" to save slave states.

At this special point in human history America has the ability to not just defend itself but many others.With great power comes great responsibility. We're almost like Superman. It costs us little in the short run to liberate certain hideously suffering states but -- if done right -- will benefit us hugely in the long run.

You and most other Objectivists and libertarians seem to think the enslaved states of the world can only rescue themselves. No-one else can legitimately or morally help. You seem to think liberation has to be internal and if it's external instead then -- some how, some way -- this necessarily involves "a massive assault on individual rights."

I just don't see this. How is imposing a liberal order a violation of anyone's rights? Personally, I want the Martians to land, invade, and "coercively" impose a zero-tax, zero-reg state on America. I would welcome such a new legal order -- one where my life, liberty, and property are no longer stepped on.

[cue the theme song from Smallville. ;-)]

Post 8

Friday, March 23, 2007 - 10:50am

- Why the United States should not use military for anything but defense

Andre,

I understand your point, but would have several arguments against it.

One is that it isn't practical. You can't FORCE freedom on anyone. It has to be understood and valued to be maintained. It has to be valued above calls made by the immams and tribal customs - or it won't hold. It wouldn't work.
Second, our government has no right to tax even one dollar to support that kind of crusades. And neither the constitution nor any other rational justification for government, as such, opens that door. The government just hasn't the right.
Third there are innocent lives lost in the conflict - the so-called collateral damage. Those deaths should only be accepted when it is necessary to defend ourselves against attacking nations.
That kind of crusade just gets in the way of real leadership by our nation where we become a shining becon of freedom - an example. From that position we can educate and the real war has to be fought in the minds and wills of the people of a country. A military crusade would actually hurt freedom in the long run since what is needed is a philosophical crusade.
The self-interest of our nation is what must drive our government's actions. I don't know what Mark would say, but I'd say it is not in our interest to become rescuers - the "social moral goodness" you mention is a moral quagmire when cut adrift from Objectivism with it's rational self-interest as the moral good.

I just read that between the EU and the USA we have continued to support Palestine despite saying we were going to cut off aid when they elected Hamas. They have actually received more money since Hamas was elected. We fund dictators and terrorists. Stopping all of what has been called "Aid to Dependent Dictators" would be a step that would actually help.

Post 9

Friday, March 23, 2007 - 12:59pm

What exactly is the definition of an armistice?

I believe it is a treaty that states terms under which the hostilities of war will be suspended, so long as those terms continue to be met, or until a new treaty, such as a peace treaty, should be concluded.

Does Mr Humphrey, or do any others who oppose GWB's ouster of Saddam, (1) deny that the US Senate ratified an armistice with Saddam in 1991? Do they (2) deny that Saddam was in violation of the terms of the armistice almost immediately, and then continuously until his regime was ousted by GWB? Do those who keep claiming that we should not initiate war (3) deny that it was Saddam himself who breached the terms of the armistice and who was therefore himself responsible for continuing that state of war? Or, in finally (4) upholding the terms of the armistice, and therefore upholding his oath of office to defend the constitution, which stipulates that treaties are the law of the land, is GWB somehow responsible for initiating force?

I would suggest that those who keep engaging in the fantasy that we were not already at war with Saddam for 12 years put down their Rand and read the presidential oath and the treaties clauses of the constitution and look up the word armistice in any dictionary.

Sure, war is hell. One could argue about whether the U.S. should have repudiated the armistice and allowed Saddam to stay in power. But uninformed claims that we should not have initiated a war when it already existed are not the (sorely and surely needed) criticisms of GWB's execution of said war; they are merely irrelevant, if not ignorant, fantasies. Neither the fact that GWB failed to emphasize the broken armistice, nor the fact that the media remained silent about it, nor the fact that most of the public can't remember what happened 12 or 16 days ago, let alone 12 or 16 years ago, justifies a rational debate on this site which evades the four enumerated points above.

I defy anyone here to refute them.

Ted Keer

Post 10

Friday, March 23, 2007 - 2:16pm

Armistice isn't the issue.

Ted,

1) Even though a violation of the terms of the armistice provide a technical justification for resumption of hostilities, they don't necessitate it.

2) National self-interest was touted in the form of WMD's that would probably be used if we didn't invade. Neither Congress nor the public were clamoring to go to war on the basis of the armistice. The armistice terms were not the issue then, and they are not our boss now.

3) GWB has shown neither an understanding of nor any grave concerns for the constitution since he is the major violatior of that document in recent history. I certainly wouldn't posit his oath as the reason we are in Iraq.

4) Saddam isn't the issue either. We pulled him out of his little hole in the ground long ago - since then he has been hung. We are currently "nation-building" for Iraq. One of the most unbelievably stupid national enterprises I've ever seen.

5) A technical state of war means nothing when you still have the option to resume hostilities or not and when you have the choice to continue with the hostilities or not. We keep choosing YES when there is NO GOOD REASON.

6) My post wasn't even about Iraq - it was a response to Andre's suggestion that the US become militarily involved anywhere there is a totalitarian regime that we could overthrow.

Tell me what national interest demands that we continue this idiotic mission. Did I miss the armistice term that said we have to stay there till Iraq is free, democratic, at peace and fully rebuilt?

Post 11

Friday, March 23, 2007 - 7:26pm

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Steve, I will answer your numbered points if you will answer mine. You are shrewd to copy my method, but it is disingenuous not to answer my challenges. That is, you answer a direct question with an irrelevant question.

I assume that we agree that Bush's handling of the war could have been better. I will also grant that much of what the federal government does is unconstitutional. But I assume that the above clauses imply that the president, in upholding the constitution, must enforce the supreme law of the land, and must therefore have upheld the terms of the armistice.

As for WMD's, it is you who bring them up, not me. I am not interested in the President's poor rhetoric and mixed motivations. I am not defending His Meekness. I am interested in his constitutional duties, and why so many people who scream about his violation of certain parts of the constitution choose to evade the clear meaning of "execute" and "supreme law of the land."

As I granted, his execution of the war can be criticized, it is you who are changing the issue that I raised.

Ted Keer

Post 12

Friday, March 23, 2007 - 9:47pm

Ted, you weren't paying attention. You said,

" ...it is disingenuous not to answer my challenges."

I answered that armistice wasn't the issue; that it did not necessitate a return to hostilities; that Saddam ceased to be an issue once captured, yet we remain; and, that Bush has not shown that he considers oaths binding on him. Those are answers to your challenges. I'll do each of them below...

-----------You asked these four questions-------------

(1) ...that the US Senate ratified an armistice with Saddam in 1991?

My answer is that it doesn't matter because armistice isn't the issue. An armistice wouldn't REQUIRE resumption of hostilities.

"But I assume that the above clauses imply that the president, in upholding the constitution, must enforce the supreme law of the land, and must therefore have upheld the terms of the armistice." [emphasis mine]

But the armistce does NOT require us to resume hostilities. That was what I said in my very first point.
------------------------------

(2) ...that Saddam was in violation of the terms of the armistice almost immediately, and then continuously until his regime was ousted by GWB?

I said that Saddam is no longer an issue - he is toast, yet we continue in Iraq.
---------------------------------

(3) ...that it was Saddam himself who breached the terms of the armistice and who was therefore himself responsible for continuing that state of war?

You are just playing with words in that question. "initiate war" IS what we did when we chose to resume hostilities - it doesn't matter that Saddam breached terms of an amistice or not. We weren't in a "continuing state of war" in any sense that is of any significance (were people being killed? No. Were bullets being fired? No. Was it inevitable that we return? No.)
----------------------------------

(4) upholding the terms of the armistice, and therefore upholding his oath of office to defend the constitution, which stipulates that treaties are the law of the land, is GWB somehow responsible for initiating force?

Force was initiated. Bush is the Commander in Chief. Nothing in a treaty required the resumption of hostilities. He doesn't pay attention to the constitution anyway.
----------------------------------

And further, armistice means the end of the war as much as it means a suspension - in either case it is no longer a state of war. Here is a definition from Wikipedia:

An armistice is the effective end of a war, when the warring parties agree to stop fighting. It is derived from the Latin arma, meaning weapons and statium, meaning a stopping.

-----------------------------------

We are not exactly having the same argument.

You have been arguing that GWB was required by treaty to continue a war started during his father's presidency and that it was Saddam that forced the resumption of hostilities by violating the treaty.
My argument was that the US should not use military for anything but defense of the country and this was in response to Andre's suggestion that the military should be used to remove dictators from a number of countries as a form of "social moral good".

Post 13

Saturday, March 24, 2007 - 8:07am

Steve: You make many good points, mostly of a conventional Objectivist variety. This is mostly what I dispute. But to answer fully, or even properly, with countervailing theories of my own would require a whole article or more. In lieu of that, here's a half-decent precis.

You write:

[Forceful liberation] isn't practical. You can't FORCE freedom on anyone. It has to be understood and valued to be maintained. It has to be valued above calls made by the imams and tribal customs - or it won't hold. It wouldn't work.

America and Britain did pretty much force freedom upon France, Holland, Germany, Japan, etc. against the wills of the dictatorial rulers. Britain did it upon India and Hong Kong. Rome did it upon everybody. They all loved it.

In Germany and Japan, pray note, the people had a fairly long and deep cultural tradition of right-wing, military, fascist tyranny. I also think the practical experience of freedom is very persuasive, even in really illiberal cultures. It takes longer, but eventually they learn, and then they don't want to go back. Altho' maybe if everyone was a committed principled commie or jihadi then that would perhaps necessitate eventually throwing half the population in jail for physical crimes of rebellion. This indeed might not be practical owing to sky-high prison occupation costs. But how likely is this? They're human beings. As such, they have a limited capacity for pure evil -- for rejecting that which results in intense freedom, morality, prosperity, and happiness. Practically speaking, these insurgencies never materialize historically. Only today's Dark Age can botch this. Even in Iraq, insurgency only came really slowly -- and only after giving America a thousand opportunities to get it half-way right.

Second, our government has no right to tax even one dollar to support that kind of crusades. And neither the constitution nor any other rational justification for government, as such, opens that door. The government just hasn't the right.

Are you sure? Who says this? Not Rand. The phenomenon of rescue/liberation converts potentially terrible enemies into outstanding friends and allies. It could be hugely in the rational self-interest of the free and liberating nation-state.

Third there are innocent lives lost in the conflict - the so-called collateral damage. Those deaths should only be accepted when it is necessary to defend ourselves against attacking nations.

The liberated states disagree. Even the intensely anti-American Iraqis initially thought the damage and price was hugely worth it. (Of course, they didn't expect our evident militant hatred of freedom and Americanism to be put into practice in their state. This is an easy mistake to make.)

That kind of crusade just gets in the way of real leadership by our nation where we become a shining becon of freedom - an example. From that position we can educate and the real war has to be fought in the minds and wills of the people of a country. A military crusade would actually hurt freedom in the long run since what is needed is a philosophical crusade.

The term "crusade" -- suggesting sacrifice and altruism -- can't defeat the liberationist argument. Showing a minimum of human empathy and solidarity doesn't mean undertaking a vast crusade. Changing minds and wills, as you say, is certainly best overall and in the long run. So too teaching by example. But a vicious punch in the face does short-term wonders to bullies, rapists, and slave-masters. It works even without a proper follow-up. Just hammer evil. America today has this might and superiority against most bullies. We're Superman. Why not use our powers? Moreover, those who live freedom tend to learn freedom. People who live slavery might learn the theory of freedom by bitterly, desperately scraping and clawing their way out with great agony over countless years, such as the beyond-pitiful North Koreans. But there are other ways to learn.

The self-interest of our nation is what must drive our government's actions. I don't know what Mark would say, but I'd say it is not in our interest to become rescuers - the "social moral goodness" you mention is a moral quagmire when cut adrift from Objectivism with it's rational self-interest as the moral good.

Expending a minimalist amount of money, troops, time, effort, etc. to defend the hideously suffering innocent and create vast new friends, allies, markets, etc. does not immediately plunge a nation-state into a moral quagmire of altruism. It can be a "win-win" situation. In today's world, given a decent knowledge of liberalism -- which admittedly no-one has outside us avant-garde liberals -- it can easily be a "mega-win, mega-win" situation.

...But enough already! Hope this was semi-helpful. :-) I don't claim the last word on Rescue and Liberation Theory in foreign policy. I do claim today's accepted Objectivist theories lack a great deal.

(Apologies for rude "candy-striping.")

(Edited by Andre Zantonavitch on 3/24, 8:25am)

Post 14

Saturday, March 24, 2007 - 10:49am

deleted, network error
(Edited by Ted Keer
on 3/24, 12:28pm)

Post 15

Saturday, March 24, 2007 - 10:50am

While you are correct that we are not having the same argument, Steve, it is you who first addressed me by name, while ignoring my points or claiming that they are irrelevant. You accuse me of not paying attention, yet did you not see that in my first post I said that criticism of GWB's execution of his responsibility to enforce the armistice (i.e., to remove Saddam) was "sorely and surely needed"?

You have substituted your criticisms of him, with which we most likely have little disagreement, for an answer to my direct and numbered questions. If it was not your intention to anwswer those questions, there was no need to address your post to me by name. Indeed, my post was addressed to Mr. Humphrey and those who might believe that GWB was initiating force by enforcing the terms of the armistice, rather than responding to force. Do you hold that GWB and not Saddam was the initial aggressor?

We can certainly debate whether the way in which GWB has responded to the Iraq situation was properly done. But I will not even begin to debate that until I get a clear answer to at least these questions, which do not commit you or anyone to supporting the specifics of GWB's actions:

1) Was Saddam in compliance with the terms of the armistice, or not?
2) Is an armistice a treaty ratified by the Senate, or not?
3) Are treaties the supreme law of the land, or not?
4) Is executing the law a responsiblity of the President and the executive branch of the government, or not?

Again, it is true that in fact our government often does things it shouldn't, and doesn't do things it should. (I once heard a U.S. District Attorney on ABC's Nightline, in response to a challenge that the Brady gun-control law was unconstitutional, brazenly admit that 90% of what the federal government does is unconstitutional.) But is it an Objectivist position to hold that whether or not a President upholds his oath of office and enforces the very clear terms of a treaty is a matter of whim? All I ask is an acknowledgment that the removal of Saddam, by the resumption if necessary of hostilities in some form was clearly required by Saddam's violation of the armistice. I am not asking you, Steve, or anyone else to endorse the specific form of the military response of the current administration. I am simply asking whether the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, the treaties ratified by the Senate, and the actions of the President are matters that should be governed by clear meaning and objective fact or merely at the pleasure of our rulers.

Finally, please refrain from suggesting that I am "not paying attention," or so forth. I don't think it benefits either of us to waste time addressing the other's understanding, rather than addressing the issues themselves. I clearly stated that I had read your numbered points Steve, and that I would answer them if you would first answer the original numbered points of mine. If you do not wish to answer my points, a simple statement to that effect would suffice. I don't think that quoting my points and responding to them "yes" or "no" will compromise the arguments that you wish to make about GWB's methods.

Ted Keer

Post 16

Saturday, March 24, 2007 - 12:15pm

Hi Andre,

I'll give you a reply to your points later (today is going to be busy for me).

For now I'll just say that I don't consider the "candy-stripped" reply rude. Not at all. I appreciate it as a way to make these discussions clear and more focused. The only time it is rude, is not in the candy-stripping as such, but where the replies aren't honest in their attempted rebuttles and are more like lawyers word games - and that is not the case in your replies.

Till Later,
Steve

Post 17

Saturday, March 24, 2007 - 1:51pm

Hi Ted,

I'm short on time today, so this will be brief - with more to come later.

Yes, I addressed you by name but I didn't ignore your points - I said they were not the issue. Isn't that okay to do? I also listed them and answered each one.

Next you appear to get all huffy when you say,

"You accuse me of not paying attention, yet did you not see that in my first post I said that criticism of GWB's execution of his responsibility to enforce the armistice (i.e., to remove Saddam) was "sorely and surely needed"?

So, let's look at that sentence you refer to:

"But uninformed claims that we should not have initiated a war when it already existed are not the (sorely and surely needed) criticisms of GWB's execution of said war; they are merely irrelevant, if not ignorant, fantasies."

You have labeled those claims that GWB "initiated a war" as uniformed, irrelevant, if not ignorant, fantasies. When that is how you characterize the views of others, you shouldn't get all huffy if they say something so mean as, "you aren't paying attention."

I ask you, and everyone else that is willing to take the time to make a reply - Am I crazy or did I not address the points you made and did I not specifically address the issue of "initiated a war"?

Then you get into your lawyer's-examination-of-the-hostile-witness kind of thing. "Please answer the questions with a 'Yes' or 'No'.

I'm sorry Ted, but looking at the avatar you have up there now, this unsmiling, little baby, while you petulantly demand that I answer a bunch of questions that I already answered is a non-starter. I'm not on a witness stand. I don't have to answer 'yes' or 'no' and I took the time to quote each of your questions and then to answer each of them directly and to the point. This has gone beyond 'paying attention' - I feel like I fell down the rabbit hole.

I'm also unable to find any armistice agreement, treaty or senate ratification thereof. I can only find a signing of a cease-fire agreement (not labeled as an armistice, not ratified and not a treaty) that occured in a tent on the air strip in Safwan in 1991 between Iraq generals and the generals of the coalition forces. All of the language we have used for going to war has been in the form of various public laws that reference various UN Security Council resolutions. There most certainly is no grand and compelling, constitutionally mandated, supreme law of the land, or binding treaty requirement that compelled GWB to start sending troops to Iraq.

Post 18

Saturday, March 24, 2007 - 3:41pm

Aggression or Response?

Steve, I have been relying upon secondary (perhaps quaternary) sources for my understanding that there was an armistice (or peace treaty) ratified by the Senate after the cessation of hostilities during the first action. So I assume that the burden is upon me to demonstrate it.

In any case, we were party to the UN sanctions regime and thus his violations of all the UN Security Council resolutions certainly allowed us to remove him from power, and the 1998 law making "regime change" U.S. policy in itself also implied that we should remove him from power. I will grant that this is not the same, necessarily, as mandating that we remove him from power, although our perpetual inaction would only serve to prove Osama Bin Laden's claim that America is a paper tiger to be true.

As for huffy? Again, those characterizations were applied generally to people who insist that GWB was initiating, and not responding to aggression - not to people who criticize Bush on his methods or ineptitude. Since you have taken offense, and have still not said that you yourself (now that this is an issue) think that Saddam and not GWB was the aggressor, I ask you whether or not the shoe fits? Do you characterize GWB as an agressor? I don't expect that you do. And saying that my points were not the issue is not answering them with argument, it is changing the argument. You still have not, counter to your protestations, answered my questions directly, "yes" or "no," as they were put.

Shall we agree on this: I will take the burden of demonstrating that Bush was obliged by some treaty or law (by his constitutional oath and the clauses of the Constitution I cited) to remove Saddam if you will simply answer this - was GWB responding to, or was he initiating aggression when he removed Saddam?

Ted Keer

Post 19

Saturday, March 24, 2007 - 3:43pm