The zero-tolerance policy on mistakes in Iraq
Norm Geras makes a good point about the criticism of mistakes in Iraq:
. . . I have never seen, in all the voluminous discussion since the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein's rule, anything from the anti-war camp (perhaps I just haven't read widely enough) that made a distinction between mistakes and avoidable mistakes, or mistakes and culpable mistakes. Plainly what happened at Abu Ghraib was culpable and was worse than a mistake. But on the sundry other matters, unless you have a distinction between avoidable and culpable mistakes and other kinds of mistake, including for example mistakes understandable in the circumstances, unless you allow that some of the mistakes may have been due to the scope and nature of the undertaking itself, it suggests one of two things: either that the undertaking could have been carried out altogether smoothly and unproblematically; or that the criticism of mistakes is motivated more by an impulse to oppose than by a desire for the undertaking to succeed.
(Via Instapundit)
. . . I have never seen, in all the voluminous discussion since the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein's rule, anything from the anti-war camp (perhaps I just haven't read widely enough) that made a distinction between mistakes and avoidable mistakes, or mistakes and culpable mistakes. Plainly what happened at Abu Ghraib was culpable and was worse than a mistake. But on the sundry other matters, unless you have a distinction between avoidable and culpable mistakes and other kinds of mistake, including for example mistakes understandable in the circumstances, unless you allow that some of the mistakes may have been due to the scope and nature of the undertaking itself, it suggests one of two things: either that the undertaking could have been carried out altogether smoothly and unproblematically; or that the criticism of mistakes is motivated more by an impulse to oppose than by a desire for the undertaking to succeed.
(Via Instapundit)
posted by Kate Marie | 2:01 PM | Permalink
|
14 comments
14 Comments:
This is either a logically very weak or purposefully disingenuous observation. If one believes the war was a mistake to begin with, why would one distinguish between "mistakes" and "culpable mistakes" in discussing it? From the perspective of someone who feels the war should not have been undertaken, every mistake committed in its conduct was avoidable. I wonder if Norm Geras can parse out the "mistakes" and "culpable mistakes" in Republican criticisms of US operations in, say, Kosovo. Moreover, I and many of those who opposed the Iraq war from the outset did so on the widely professed conviction that there was no way it could be "done right," virtually every move the US made would have negative consequences (foreseen or unforeseen) that would undermine the successful prosecution of the mission. In that sense, the distinction between "mistakes" and "avoidable mistakes" does not even merit being called semantic, it is purely imaginary.
By your logic, Madman, I could make the inititial "mistake" of ordering a cheesburger since it's bad for my health. This would then make it irrelevant that MacDonald's negligently cooked a razorblade into my meat patty?
My mistake for ordering that artery clogger in the first place!
Wonderdog,
I like your analogy, but for me it best illustrates the relationship between the Bush regime and its critics this way:
I tell you, "there is a razor blade in the burger, watch out, you might get a bloody lip." You say "don't worry, I've got strong lips, I'll bite around it, etc. etc. etc." Then, when your lip starts bleeding you blame me for making it happen by warning you.
Okay, let's take your analogy. What if my lip bleeds AND I get E.Coli from it being undercooked? Still my fault?
By the way, do fries come with this burger? I'm getting hungry.
Wonderdog,
OK, now you've got a bloody lip and E. Coli. The E. Coli may not be your fault, but does that make you any less foolish for biting into the burger? Let's say you bite into the burger, cut your lip, and find to everyone's surprise that the razor is poisoned. Should we call your getting poisoned a "mistake" or a "culpable mistake," and are you any less poisoned in either case?
P.S. The razor-burger only comes with fries if you order a "Gitmo Combo"
Okay...Let's say I order a chicken salad sandwich...nah, forget it.
I'll take the Gitmo combo and an Abu Ghraib shake.
Is that you, Wonderdog, enjoying your combo and shake down in Club Gitmo?
I think Geras's point is fairly basic. The antiwar group may have opposed the war to begin with (wrongly, as lifelong leftist Geras believes), but once the war has begun, you're either for a successful outcome for the U.S./new Iraq government/Iraqi people or you're not. If you want to take the position that we shouldn't have been there in the first place, fine, but what's the purpose, in that case, of harping on "mistakes" (since they were ALL avoidable) except to voice once again your opposition to the undertaking?
Do you want the undertaking in Iraq to succeed? If so, does it make sense to say that any criticism of the undertaking which doesn't distinguish between culpable mistakes and "understandable" mistakes is justified because we shouldn't have been there in the first place? Geras suggests that many of those on the left who relentlessly harp on "mistakes" in Iraq are arguing in bad faith. Do they want the "mistakes" to be fixed in order to ensure the success of the venture? No, as yourself say, Madman, they think we'd all be better off with Saddam and his heirs still in charge -- that the initial "mistake" of removing Saddam spawned all the other culpable and avoidable mistakes. Okay, then, but isn't it a bit disingenuous to harp on the secondary mistakes (without making any distinctions between them) as though they want to see them corrected without mentioning that they feel justified in such indiscriminatory sniping not because they're hoping to see the venture succeed (though they may well be) but because they wish that the intitial "mistake" (Saddam's removal) could be corrected?
Kate Marie,
Opposition to the war does not equate with support for Saddam, nor does criticism of mistakes made by the Bush administration equate with a desire to see the new Iraqi government fail. Ultimately the success of this new government is in the hands of Iraqis- no amount of US effort can definitively secure a particular outcome, just as no amount of US mistakes can ultimately derail the formation of a new Iraqi nation if the Iraqi people have the political will to form one. US actions can, however, ameliorate or aggravate the degree of human tragedy experienced by both Iraqis and Coalition forces in the months and years ahead. In this regard, every mistake made by the US is a "culpable mistake," as the US has interposed itself into the process of political change in Iraq and must bear responsibility. One might protest "that's not fair, the Iraqis get credit for success, but the US is blamed for its failings." Well, that is the parcel of goods one buys when one invades another nation. One might also insist that any suffering the war must be measured against the suffering that MIGHT have transpired had Saddam remained in power, sanctions remained in place, etc. etc. This is facile and unpersuasive. The US could have done any number of things, it chose to invade. Maybe those other options would have helped the situation, maybe not- we'll never know. Harping on counterfactuals now is an abdication of responsibility and a failure of leadership- the "mother of all cop-outs." The hard fact right now is that NOTHING the US can do is "right," there is no positive path for the US that leads to "success." Success or failure will be decided by Iraqis. The best the US can do is no harm, and each failure in that regard is a culpable mistake.
I'm not suggsting that opposition to the war suggests support for Saddam (though Geras has some very good posts about the antiwar approach in the run-up to the war), but that opposition to the war meant a desire to leave Saddam and company in power for the time being. Am I wrong? You are free to think it's facile and unpersuasive to discuss counterfactuals (which I haven't done), but then I'll feel free to think that relentless harping on "culpable" mistakes from those who opposed the war to begin with is equally facile and unpersuasive. If those in the antiwar camp want to support the Iraqi people, how about a little outrage the next time an "insurgent" blows up a bunch of Iraqi policemen or children? I'm not persuaded by the "we invaded, so it's our fault" mentality . . . especially since, prior to 9/11, what do about Iraq was not particularly a top priority for the progressive crowd; it was more like "what to do about imperialist global hegemon, the U.S., and the fascist state of Israel." To put it bluntly, the antiwar camp's concern over mistakes is a bit rich, since the only reason they've decided to turn their gaze toward Iraq is because the U.S. decided to intervene there. [I don't include you in the "antiwar camp" as Geras uses the phrase -- I think Geras means to designate groups who habitually oppose any U.S. (or Israeli) action. Geras has a very good article in Dissent magazine about the "reductions of the left."]
Kate Marie,
Opposition to the war most certainly did not equate to a desire to leave Saddam and company in power. Any person of conscience wanted to see Saddam Hussein deposed, but many people of conscience understood that a US invasion would quickly produce a situation completely beyond the control of the US. Here we are more than two years into the occupation of Iraq and that is just the situation we face. Has or will the war produce something better than the status quo ante bellum, and will it have been worth the human toll? It is too early to say, and may prove ultimately unanswerable. You call harping about "culpable" mistakes (a nit that Geras decided to pick, not me) facile, but what positive remedies do you propose? How would you define success in the mission as it stands, and what course would you chart toward that end? Do you see any possibility that coalition forces will bring an end to the insurgency?
Forced to predict, I would venture a guess that once Coalition forces have withdrawn the new Iraqi government will ultimately (though it might take many years) prevail over the insurgency. I don't think, in the form it finally takes, it will be a model of liberal democracy or a perfect haven of human rights, but it will likely be better than Saddam's regime. Will that justify the human costs of the war? Will anyone be able to argue that this course and only this course could lead to that end? No. And that is the best case scenario.
Madman,
Just returned from a mini-vacation. Sorry for responding late.
I said opposition to the war equated to a desire to leave Saddam in power *for the time being.* If that's not the case, perhaps you could explain to me how it isn't. You think that leaving Saddam in power while we brokered a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and drastically reduced our consumption of oil would have been a better solution; not only does that leave Saddam and/or his sons in power for at least several more years, it also assumes that the U.S. can "control" the situation diplomatically/economically better than it can militarily. I don't think that's a given, Madman. President Bush is certainly right that the past sixty years of diplomacy and the preference for "stability" in the Middle East has not worked. You seem to want to say that's just because they've never tried your solution. You're welcome to your opinion, but I think you're fooling yourself about the human costs of our intervention relative to the costs of maintaining the status quo (assuming that's even tenable over ten years or so). The human costs of maintaining the status quo would only be borne by a different group of people.
Kate Marie,
Insisting that opposition to the war is equal to a desire to leave Saddam in power for the "time being" or otherwise is no different from declaring that my failure to play the lottery every day is equal to a desire not to win a million dollars. The fact that I don't play the lottery bears no relation to my feelings about a million dollars, just as my sorrow at the invasion and its consequences bears no relation to my feelings about Saddam Hussein and his psychotic regime.
In any case all of this discussion of the status quo is evasion. Whether the current situation is better than the status quo is a red herring- one can go round and round on that issue without distilling a definitive answer. What is undeniable is that the situation now is bad and of America's making. You still have not said how and when you feel the situation in Iraq will improve. Where do we go from here? What do we (the US) dare to promise to Iraqis now? That US soldiers will defeat the insurgency? That the insurgency will only last 5 years? Ten? That we can preclude the outbreak of civil war? That Iraq's government will be a liberal democracy? Which of these or any promises do you feel confident in making, and what steps do you see the US undertaking to secure them?
P.S. You underestimate the potential impact of reducing US oil consumption and aggressively pursuing peace in Israel/Palestine. The "stability" Bush derides has been maintained largley in the service of US oil imports, and any move the US makes to "rock the boat" in the ME while still dependent on oil is pure pretension. A true move to de-couple the US economy from ME oil would send shock waves through the region, the effects of which would surely be quicker than the 12 years Donald Rumsfeld now estimates may be required to defeat the Iraqi insurgency.
Dear Madman,
Here is more of Norman Geras on this issue.
More later.
Post a Comment
<< Home