Matthew Yglesias

I think Clarke hit it right in 60 Minutes -- there are lots of dictators I'd like to have out of power. I'd just add -- especially those that directly threaten America and our allies -- Like N. Korea!

I'd also like a cure for AIDS, and end to starvation, etc. If deficits don't matter, why don't we do all those, too?

This has always been the problem with bush-enabling. He has some truly superior speechwriters, and delivers some remarks that, on the face of them, are inspiring and properly directed (he also reads loads of dreck, but i digress).

but his ability to turn nice ideas into policies - or his ability to cause his administration to turn nice ideas into policies - is nonexistent, partly because he resents expertise, partly because he and his administration are ideologically blinkered, partly because he truly believes that K street lobbyists know the right thing to do, partly because he is a shallow, ill-informed human being.

I'm sure that Drezner appreciates the fact that you linked to his bloviations. It would be nice if you would cite someone who was half-way intelligent, though.

The fact that I warmly support the idea of having a President of the United States does not mean I support ANY candidate for President. For instance, Lyndon Larouche.
This distinction seems worth maintaining in human existence, and I recommend it to Daniel Drezner.

Hey, RAJ, I like Drezner, and I think he's a fair sight more honest than most.

And if you read his post carefully, as well as his past work, you'll see that he's actually not that far from where Matt is.

The important thing is that as Michael Ignatieff has learned you can't separate intentions from consequences.

Just because there exists a scenario in which a particular policy (going to war, transforming the ME) might fit with your personal beliefs doesn't mean you should SUPPORT the policy. You have to look at the underlying motivations and make judgements about the capabilities of the players.

This is the trap liberal hawks fell into when supporting Bush. This is not an intellectual game. By lending support, liberal hawks gave Bush cover. I'm glad everyone is coming around now but its too bad folks didn't see this before the fact.

Drezner previously missed the boat when he suggested the important critique was the "process critique" not the "substance critique". Its become increasingly clear that the two are part and parcel of the same thing.

Good point, lerxst, and it's one that runs throught the debate about Vietnam to this day.

The hawks still say "if only we were allowed to do X" while the hawks-turned-doves say "it was never winnable, and we could have started a nuclear war with China/Russia," and the doves say "it was morally wrong."

One wonders, if Iraq descends into civil war, to what extent the what-iffing will proliferate.

"Hey, RAJ, I like Drezner, and I think he's a fair sight more honest than most."

That's nice. Drezner is an idiot. For reasons that I mention on his comments.

Go troll somewhere else, RAJ.

TedL at March 24, 2004 10:56 AM

Perhaps you might want to defend his idiotic commentary, TedL.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

This is the trap liberal hawks fell into when supporting Bush. This is not an intellectual game. By lending support, liberal hawks gave Bush cover. I'm glad everyone is coming around now but its too bad folks didn't see this before the fact.

Presumably, they have different estimations of his abilities than you do. I'd not call it a "trap."

Chris K: "Presumably, they have different estimations of his abilities than you do."
Presumably, they were in awe of his amazing buttocks. Ah, the presumably universe. Age cannot wither it, nor custom stale its infinite variety.

We are trying to pursue two exclusive paths in the oxymoronic war on terror. One is to reduce the use of fear, hatred, and violence as political tools. The other is to be better at it than anyone else. The first path is complicated and subtle. The second path gets votes. We saw the power of insane hatred on September 11 and we secretly lust after that power. We are eager and willing to hate anything: Saddam, Democrats, Republicans, France, tax hikes, or Super Bowl half-time shows. A leader needs to be courageous enough to resist easy appeals to vengeance and fear and be honest and realistic about the challenges of changing the world.

Mr. Yglesias,
Governments by their nature do not do complicated very well. This is one reason why central planning of economies leads to disappointing results. One must set governments tasks where blunt instruments will suffice.

"The general point I would like to make -- Daniel Davies' "anti this war now left" idea -- is this. There are policies that fit under the general heading "invade Iraq" and, especially, "promote Middle East transformation" that I would be happy to support. It doesn not follow, however, that I should support any policy that parades under the banner "invade Iraq to promote Middle East transformation."

My problem with the 'anti-this war now left' is that it does very little to combat the problems that make up the 'now' part of the war. International sentiment is against US involvement? Daniel Davies is pouring the fire on there. A grand strategy to promote Middle East transformation? You hear very little from him. Constructive ideas about what Bush ought to do? Practically non-existant. Davies is a great example. If you read him on his website or on Crooked Timber he engages in grand fantasies that further inspections would have led to French support for an invasion of Iraq even though he now knows that the inspections wouldn't find anything. The French position would turn pro-invasion over inspections that don't find anything? Is he crazy?

The anti-this-war now left, refused to engage in the work necessary to reshape the Middle East in a constructive way. Instead of forming a coalition to constructively change the method of the war, they chose merely to oppose the war. They had two years to organize, but they let ANSWER do it for them. Instead of helping form a European opinion that would suggest alternative solutions, they engage in mere oppositional tactics.

They are against this war NOW but do not take the steps to set the stage for an appropriate war. Blame Bush all you want, but don't pretend that you were part of the solution.

Rubbish, Sebastian.

Considering that even the Dems were toothless in the face of a GOP-controlled Congress, Senate and White House, what "constructive change" could any domestic opponents of the war apply to the "method", let alone Olde Yerpeans?

Alternatives to immediate war *were* suggested: inspections - and look how far that got us.

Now the pooch is screwed and you want the "anti-war" left to get involved combating the NOW problems of the war? Ever hear of the term "moral hazard"? It's something I recall you propounding in the wake of the Spanish elections: appeasement only encourages repeat behavior.

If moral hazard is not to be a valid excuse for the anti-war crowd (this includes the paleo-right as well) to wash its hands off the pile of crap the warmongers have left behind, then there need to be very strong indicators that repeat behavior is not in the cards.

Put simply, this means eating crow and making up. To date this has not been forthcoming from the crowd who started this crap in the first place. I've never seen a bunch of ideologues so grimly determined not to accept personal responsibility for their actions as this crowd in the White House and their apologists. It's always someone else's fault. Actions they ram through against great opposition that go sour are always someone else's fault. It's Clinton's fault, France's fault, the UN's fault, the anti-war left's fault, Spain's fault, the media's fault, Clarke's fault, Plame's fault -- anybody and everybody's fault, but the fuckers actually in charge making the decisions and calling the shots.

Crap. I call moral hazard, and until some internal accountability is shown in this administration it's no-one's responsibility to help them screw the pooch even more.

The idea that BushCo invaded Iraq to "sew the seeds of democracy in the Middle East" is totally absurd. They either thought Iraq had connections to terrorism and WMD or they didn't. If they didn't honestly think that that was the case (hard to believe but possible - with some paranoid conspiracies incorporated), then we can speculate all day long, but to assume the most charitable possibility given the lying, bullying, extorting, etc. would be naive and stupid.

One could just as easily make the case that the neocon crowd didn't want to make peace in the middle east, but quite the opposite. By creating a wedge between the U.S. and Europe, they give Sharon more flexibility to get tougher (and get the UN out of their business). By invading Iraq and installing a friendly neighbor on the "Eastern Front," they give the "might makes right crowd" a "moral" example and a more plausible military strategy in dealing with their neighbors. "Israel and the U.S. are in this together now. No one can take away our best friend in the world, and no one can make the claim that Israel is a liability. No, we're in this together. Us against the terrorists, and let the world be damned."

Then again, it's all speculation. Who really knows...

"Alternatives to immediate war *were* suggested: inspections - and look how far that got us."

You either aren't part of the 'not this war now' left, or you aren't thinking rationally.

We know now that the inspections weren't going to find anything. If that is the best you can offer, you don't get rid of Saddam. Which was exactly my point. The left didn't move forward on getting to the point where 'this war ever' would make sense.

So I'm calling bullshit on their current pose of 'not that war then'. If the left really wanted to get rid of Saddam (which I frankly am unsure about) it most certainly was not taking the steps necessary to make it possible. It was engaging in all the useless game-playing that Saddam had used for more than a decade to stay in power.

So far ALL of the good that has been done in Iraq has been done because Bush decided to invade.

The 'not this war now' position is revealed as a pose because those holding the position were not working to bring about a point where getting rid of Saddam would ever work.

You cannot just overthrow a government and install democracy. This is so naive it is hard to know where to begin.
And the idea that a chaotic Iraq, which a year ago was stable and threatening to no one under the inspection regime, is better is nonsense. The world is worse off now that Saddam is no longer in power. We have chaos and killing where there was stability.

And, though religious fundamentalists like Bush don't get that the "war" on terror is a war against religious fundamentalists, it is. One cannot drag the Muslim world into the 21st century overnight. Hell, we didn't give our women the right to vote until 1920 so we shouldn't be so arrogant. Stability ensured by our military power (sorry, but a few thousand terrorist deaths hardly destabilize the US) with the progression of our cultural hegemony will do the job.

In case no one noticed, Saddam was a secular leader. If you feel the need for war (and who doesn't now and then) why not attack Iran; an undisputed leader in worldwide terrorism, run by religous zealots. It is time to return the favor to the Bush administration that it bestows on every critic: the war on terror, and Iraq especially, was a ploy to get re-elected. It is all political. Fearmongering is good politics.

The 'not this war now' position is revealed as a pose because those holding the position were not working to bring about a point where getting rid of Saddam would ever work.

I call bullshit on that. Because the right has certainly not been working to bring about a point where intervention against tin-pot dictators -- the post-hoc rationale for the Iraq diversion -- would become a policy that was enforced consistently.

"I call bullshit on that. Because the right has certainly not been working to bring about a point where intervention against tin-pot dictators -- the post-hoc rationale for the Iraq diversion -- would become a policy that was enforced consistently."

How does this relate? It A) isn't a statement of any position I've heard. And, B) it has nothing to do with the fact that the 'anti-this-war-now' stance did very little if not nothing to advance the possibility of war against Saddam. This suggests either that they didn't care about getting rid of him, or that they confused wanting to get rid of him with doing something about it.

Sabastian,

"The anti-this-war now left, refused to engage in the work necessary to reshape the Middle East in a constructive way. Instead of forming a coalition to constructively change the method of the war, they chose merely to oppose the war."

That's a false premise. The left and the right, post 9/11, should have been united behind the destruction of Al Qaeda and state-less terrorists organizatons. That may have had a residual effect on the middle east but it should not be our primary policy objective. Mainly because it is not really possible to re-make the middle east. That meme is a pipe dream. We will have stability in Iraq, or what passes for stability, because we have 100k boots on the ground to enforce it. Absent that military presence, we will have chaos and civil war.
Meanwhile, Al Qaeda is still out there, searching for soft targets across the globe, raising money in fundamentalist Mosques and biding their time. We tried to make these points in the run-up to the war but were called traitors and appeasers. Why should we abandon that position now? THis was a war of choice and the people who are responsible for this mess should be held to account for it's failings. They would not want to share the credit, why should we allow them to escape the blame.

Sebastian:

you have written extensively about your concerns with the "anti-this-war-now" position. your principle concern appears to be that this position would leave Saddam in power indefinitely.

As a firm believer of the anti-this-war-now position, i can say that you're absolutely right.

There's a lot of bad in the world, and US presidents should have a high bar to clear before spending blood and treasure trying to fix it. If you want to assign blood guilt to the left for not having a plan to shut down Saddam's rape rooms, so be it. But that's a tricky argument. You open yourself to the claim of hypocrisy, in that some of GWB's new best friends in the 'Stans are just as bad.

I base my support of the anti-this-war-now position on the following two premises: 1. Saddam presented no immediate/present/growing threat. (i.e., he could be successfully contained for the foreseeable future, and his conduct of his internal affairs was not regionally destabilizing [contra Yugoslavia]) 2. The likelihood of success of the PNAC grand vision was way too small to justify the risk of failure and cost in blood and treasure. Factors i considered in weighing the likelihood of success included considering american tolerance for long-term foreign entanglements and the Bush admin's lack of truthfulness (i.e., the statements about knowing where the WMDs were) in the runup to the war.

Since the war ended, I haven't been persuaded that my two basic premises were wrong. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that containment could not have succeeded. And I see substantial evidence that my worst fears of our fucking up the occupation are coming true. I may yet be proven wrong, although it will take some heroic efforts from the next president to do so. But the fact that, ex post, Iraq might end up not being worse than it was under Saddam, does not negate my ex ante calculation.

To put it more simply, I remain baffled by the very idea that one can deliver democracy at the point of a gun. and I remain baffled that we would start our war on radical nihilistic Islam by attacking a secular regime.

maybe, just maybe, there is a case for america to launch preemptive wars to bring peace to the middle east. but that wasn't the case made to the american population.

cheers

Francis

"To put it more simply, I remain baffled by the very idea that one can deliver democracy at the point of a gun."

I remain baffled by people who apparently believe that Japan and Germany are not democracies. Perhaps you believe that you cannot deliver democracy with a gun--only with firestorms and nuclear weapons. I'll file that away for future consideration.