Sunday, September 04, 2005
The Left debates the war
Even ideological allies differ on the war's gains vs. its costs
By Thomas Cushman Special for The Republic Sept. 4, 2005 12:00 AM
Consider the following passage: "It is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers."Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region."This sounds a lot like George W. Bush. But these are in fact the words of President Bill Clinton on the occasion of his signing into law the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. It was the U.S. Congress and a Democrat President who put forward the humanitarian rationale for the war in Iraq, a war of liberation and democratization that was set in motion by a Republican president with the consent of the Congress in 2003. Throughout this war, it seems that the only legitimate position among liberals is to oppose it. This is not the case. I am the editor of a new collection of essays by a group of leading liberal writers, scholars, and political leaders who have defended the war on humanitarian grounds.Our support of the war was inspired by many factors. Most of us felt a strong sense of solidarity with the Iraqi people, who had experienced a long history of brutal oppression under Saddam, including systematic torture, executions and genocidal campaigns.Saddam's regime killed more than 300,000 of his own people. We were dismayed by the failure of the United Nations to enforce its own laws and principles and by the flagrant violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions by the Hussein regime.Many of us were especially disheartened that many of our colleagues on the left chose to vilify and degrade the United States as an "empire" bent on world domination rather than focusing on the evil of Saddam's regime and assisting the Iraqi people to rid themselves of it.Most of us were convinced by Saddam's own history of aggression, his previous use of weapons of mass destruction, and his efforts to conceal his activities from Western inspectors that he did possess WMD and posed a threat to world peace and security.At the time, it did not seem wise to give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt, a move that the United Nations and anti-war advocates never failed to do. As it turns out, the WMD argument, Bush's central rationale for the war, turned to be unsubstantiated. In the present period of strife in Iraq, can we still make humanitarian arguments in defense of it?The Bush administration never made the humanitarian case strongly enough in the days leading up to the war. My own answer to this question, shared by many of the authors in the collection, is yes. Liberal democratic states that wage war to remove tyrants have a duty to foster social reconstruction and democratization and to facilitate the entrance of the new society into the community of civilized liberal democratic nations.It might seem strange to stress this moral duty, since most of the news in Iraq these days appears to be bad. But this is in the nature of the news: bad news is newsworthy and good news is ignored.Those who continue to argue against the war and thereby encourage the defeat of this revolutionary experiment amplify the bad news. Those of us who see this as a bold new experiment in freedom and democracy focus on what has gone right in Iraq.Saddam Hussein has been deposed and faces trial. Last year, free and open elections occurred in which 7 million Iraqis proudly voted in the first democratic elections in Iraqi history. A Kurdish president was elected in a land where Kurds had been persecuted throughout the reign of Saddam. A new civil society consisting of hundreds of new non-governmental organizations is emerging.At present, the new democracy is working on a constitution. It is a thorny process, and no one can say what the concrete results will be. But one must take heart in at least the fact that it is happening.As we observe this process, it is a good idea to remember how difficult was the process of the writing of our own U.S. Constitution. How many times did the new American republic almost fall apart over serious differences of opinions among the authors of American destiny? Even our own country did not avoid a civil war over some of the issues that were never adequately addressed at the time of the writing of our own constitution. If you are a liberal who finds Bush himself and his conduct of the war problematic but also cannot stand the cynical naysaying and shrieking despair of the anti-war left, then you will find some comfort in the views of those of us who consider ourselves to be liberal anti-totalitarians. The anti-war movement has failed the Iraqi people, not only in not supporting them in their revolutionary experiment but by deliberately creating an impression of the war that is laden with their own negativity and despair, rather than focusing on the successes of the war and assisting the Iraqi people in their struggle for freedom. The anti-war forces have not only ill-served the Iraqi people but have obscured some of the central facts of Iraqi public opinion. According to extensive survey research carried out under the auspices of Oxford University, the majority of the Iraqi people supported the war to depose Saddam Hussein.Almost three years after the war, in spite of the brutal realities of the occupation and the war against democracy and freedom being waged by Baathist and al-Qaida terrorists (whom Michael Moore once lovingly compared to American Minutemen), most Iraqis feel that the war was worth it. Even more importantly, a significant majority of Iraqis feel hopeful about the future. These are not the stories that you will hear in the media, but they are heartening to those who hope that the Iraqi revolution will succeed. Survey research also shows that Iraqis want the American occupation to end and the opportunity to forge their own destiny. The war has created a curious mixture of feelings of liberation and humiliation among the Iraqi people. It would, however, be a serious mistake if coalition forces were to leave now.The process of democratization cannot succeed without adequate security, and Iraqi security forces are not yet ready to take on that responsibility on their own.If American forces pull out now, this will be a victory for the fascists who are trying to destroy Iraq's path to freedom and democracy. To retreat now would give these forces a victory that would not only destroy the hard-won achievements made inside Iraq but would also deal a serious blow to the ideals of Western civilization, liberal democracy and freedom by emboldening the very forces that would like to destroy these ideals.Indeed, our own future depends fundamentally on preserving and advancing the liberal democratic dreams of the Iraqi people and defeating the enemy in Iraq, even if the road sometimes appears to be impossibly rough and rocky.
About the authorThomas Cushman is a professor of sociology at Wellesley College and the editor in chief of the Journal of Human Rights. He is editor of the collected essays A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq, recently published by the University of California Press.
if(ScriptsLoaded) stInit();
Even ideological allies differ on the war's gains vs. its costs
By Thomas Cushman Special for The Republic Sept. 4, 2005 12:00 AM
Consider the following passage: "It is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers."Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region."This sounds a lot like George W. Bush. But these are in fact the words of President Bill Clinton on the occasion of his signing into law the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. It was the U.S. Congress and a Democrat President who put forward the humanitarian rationale for the war in Iraq, a war of liberation and democratization that was set in motion by a Republican president with the consent of the Congress in 2003. Throughout this war, it seems that the only legitimate position among liberals is to oppose it. This is not the case. I am the editor of a new collection of essays by a group of leading liberal writers, scholars, and political leaders who have defended the war on humanitarian grounds.Our support of the war was inspired by many factors. Most of us felt a strong sense of solidarity with the Iraqi people, who had experienced a long history of brutal oppression under Saddam, including systematic torture, executions and genocidal campaigns.Saddam's regime killed more than 300,000 of his own people. We were dismayed by the failure of the United Nations to enforce its own laws and principles and by the flagrant violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions by the Hussein regime.Many of us were especially disheartened that many of our colleagues on the left chose to vilify and degrade the United States as an "empire" bent on world domination rather than focusing on the evil of Saddam's regime and assisting the Iraqi people to rid themselves of it.Most of us were convinced by Saddam's own history of aggression, his previous use of weapons of mass destruction, and his efforts to conceal his activities from Western inspectors that he did possess WMD and posed a threat to world peace and security.At the time, it did not seem wise to give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt, a move that the United Nations and anti-war advocates never failed to do. As it turns out, the WMD argument, Bush's central rationale for the war, turned to be unsubstantiated. In the present period of strife in Iraq, can we still make humanitarian arguments in defense of it?The Bush administration never made the humanitarian case strongly enough in the days leading up to the war. My own answer to this question, shared by many of the authors in the collection, is yes. Liberal democratic states that wage war to remove tyrants have a duty to foster social reconstruction and democratization and to facilitate the entrance of the new society into the community of civilized liberal democratic nations.It might seem strange to stress this moral duty, since most of the news in Iraq these days appears to be bad. But this is in the nature of the news: bad news is newsworthy and good news is ignored.Those who continue to argue against the war and thereby encourage the defeat of this revolutionary experiment amplify the bad news. Those of us who see this as a bold new experiment in freedom and democracy focus on what has gone right in Iraq.Saddam Hussein has been deposed and faces trial. Last year, free and open elections occurred in which 7 million Iraqis proudly voted in the first democratic elections in Iraqi history. A Kurdish president was elected in a land where Kurds had been persecuted throughout the reign of Saddam. A new civil society consisting of hundreds of new non-governmental organizations is emerging.At present, the new democracy is working on a constitution. It is a thorny process, and no one can say what the concrete results will be. But one must take heart in at least the fact that it is happening.As we observe this process, it is a good idea to remember how difficult was the process of the writing of our own U.S. Constitution. How many times did the new American republic almost fall apart over serious differences of opinions among the authors of American destiny? Even our own country did not avoid a civil war over some of the issues that were never adequately addressed at the time of the writing of our own constitution. If you are a liberal who finds Bush himself and his conduct of the war problematic but also cannot stand the cynical naysaying and shrieking despair of the anti-war left, then you will find some comfort in the views of those of us who consider ourselves to be liberal anti-totalitarians. The anti-war movement has failed the Iraqi people, not only in not supporting them in their revolutionary experiment but by deliberately creating an impression of the war that is laden with their own negativity and despair, rather than focusing on the successes of the war and assisting the Iraqi people in their struggle for freedom. The anti-war forces have not only ill-served the Iraqi people but have obscured some of the central facts of Iraqi public opinion. According to extensive survey research carried out under the auspices of Oxford University, the majority of the Iraqi people supported the war to depose Saddam Hussein.Almost three years after the war, in spite of the brutal realities of the occupation and the war against democracy and freedom being waged by Baathist and al-Qaida terrorists (whom Michael Moore once lovingly compared to American Minutemen), most Iraqis feel that the war was worth it. Even more importantly, a significant majority of Iraqis feel hopeful about the future. These are not the stories that you will hear in the media, but they are heartening to those who hope that the Iraqi revolution will succeed. Survey research also shows that Iraqis want the American occupation to end and the opportunity to forge their own destiny. The war has created a curious mixture of feelings of liberation and humiliation among the Iraqi people. It would, however, be a serious mistake if coalition forces were to leave now.The process of democratization cannot succeed without adequate security, and Iraqi security forces are not yet ready to take on that responsibility on their own.If American forces pull out now, this will be a victory for the fascists who are trying to destroy Iraq's path to freedom and democracy. To retreat now would give these forces a victory that would not only destroy the hard-won achievements made inside Iraq but would also deal a serious blow to the ideals of Western civilization, liberal democracy and freedom by emboldening the very forces that would like to destroy these ideals.Indeed, our own future depends fundamentally on preserving and advancing the liberal democratic dreams of the Iraqi people and defeating the enemy in Iraq, even if the road sometimes appears to be impossibly rough and rocky.
About the authorThomas Cushman is a professor of sociology at Wellesley College and the editor in chief of the Journal of Human Rights. He is editor of the collected essays A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq, recently published by the University of California Press.
if(ScriptsLoaded) stInit();
Comments:
Post a Comment
