May 19, 2004
Duty...
I was in a long comment-discussion here. I thought it was over, but then got one more comment. I should let it drop, but hate having my words twisted into something I didn't mean. (Of course I wandered a lot—my meaning was probably fuzzy.) And it seems very significant to me that my points are repeatedly missed. My theme is that there are duties and restraints that fall to an opposition party in wartime. And I think people are either missing the point because they don't want to confront the issue, or because they are psychologically incapable of seeing it. So, responses to some points:
And I really have to laugh at Weidner's claim that the Democrats should have wanted the matter fixed in private. The fact is that the Pentagon had months to fix this in private, and wilfully ignored the problem
You are blurring two things--what we want and what's necessary. Any loyal American should WANT the problem to be fixed quietly if possible, because the publicity has surely encouraged our enemies. If that wasn't feasable then publicity might be necessary and helpful. Democrats, especially in the Senate, have a LOT of potential leverage, but never even tried to use it to put quiet pressure on the Pentagon for reform. There's a difference between being forced to use publicity and leaping on it as a political opportunity. Come to think of it., the Democrats in Congress also had months to try to fix the problem; it went public in January. They didn't try. They didn't care. When the pictures were leaked they grabbed a political opportunity and ran with it.
Weidner's claim that openly criticizing the government only assists the enemy is a shameful, un-American thing to say. Is he claiming we should shut up and let the government carry on without any criticism?
Total distortion of what I said. I've never said the government shouldn't be criticized, and I didn't say criticizing "only assists the enemy." Assisting the enemy is ONE of the things it does. I would be glad to learn that Dems had embraced publicity reluctantly, as a lesser evil. But I don't think they did. The duty of the opposition party in wartime is to support the war, and within that context to make constructive criticisms. And to avoid destructive criticism even if it hurts you politically [And if you don't agree with that statement, make a case. Don't hide behind Abu Ghraib. Confront the issue. Tell me why I'm wrong.]
Weidner says these prisoners weren't innocent, they were "prisoners believed to have attacked Americans." That's an appalling excuse...
I knew that strawman was coming. I'm not making excuses, OK? I'm NOT arguing in favor of prisoner abuse. That's not even the subject here. The subject was how the Democrats reacted, compared with how I feel a Loyal Opposition should react in wartime. The subject is how this is being presented. If Dems wanted to minimize the harm to our cause, they would have been quick to mention that many of these prisoners were probably thugs. If they wanted to maximize harm they would spin things as if they were a bunch of innocents. (Blurring in the process the difference between innocent-because-nothing's-proven and innocent because they did nothing wrong.)
You mention My Lai. That's a very good illustration. We hear about it endlessly. And always presented in a distorted form to make America look as bad as possible. (No, I am not excusing the My Lai Massacre.) No mention is made of the tens-of-thousands of American officers who didn't order civilians fired upon, despite extreme provocation. No mention is made that the communists were deliberately committing war crimes to try to provoke massacres. If the endless repetition of My Lai were really intended to fix problems and make the world better, then all the facts would be presented. Instead the purpose is moral preening and weakening America.
If Weidner thinks campus leftists aren't concerned about Sudan, he hasn't been hanging around very many campus leftists lately. But it's not a top priority with them, because our own government isn't the one that's doing that stuff. Our own government is doing enough bad things to keep the leftists occupied...
Proves my point very nicely, thank you. They are NOT concerned. You argue for the power of publicity to pressure government to fix problems. So where are the lefties mobilizing publicity to pressure the government to take action in Sudan? Where are the lefties who think a million dead Sudanese might be a teensy bit more important than our humiliating prisoners? Or at least come in a distant second? (And NO, I am not trying to say that dead Sudanese EXCUSE prisoner abuse.) But the actions of campus lefties speak volumes.
Weidner is upset that the news doesn't report on the good our forces do. I rarely see such a blatant whine about the media only reporting bad news, and I'll save this one. But the point is, of course, that as Weidner himself says no number of good deeds are an excuse for bad ones... Even more to the point is that what matters in Iraq is what the Iraqis think of our actions, and it's pretty clear they're a lot more steamed up than any liberal Americans are. No number of schools, or closing Saddam's torture chambers (in order to open our own) will make up for this in their eyes.
I'm pretty sure this is just a falsehood, I follow a lot of Iraqi and military blogs, and I think the reaction of ordinary Iraqis is that Abu Ghraib is bad, but minor compared to the overall situation (see here). (Just being a private in Saddam's army often involved worse abuse than those prisoners endured, as millions of ordinary Iraqis know.) And we have Polls.
Lastly, Weidner disagrees with the notion that we should ask ourselves why our enemy hate us. Why shouldn't we? Understanding one's enemy's motives and behavior is one of the best available tools for fighting them. But Weidner isn't interested in knowing why liberals behave as they do, so I guess he can't be expected to be interested in why our enemy behave as they do...
Actually, we conservatives discuss "why they hate us" frequently. Our grand-strategy for the GWOT flows out of those thoughts, and is not just ad hoc. My problem with the left is that they start with the premise that they hate us because we are doing something wrong. And their conclusions flow from the premise. (and that ties in with the thought of this post, that the world is real for them only when Americans come onstage.) It's that attitude I was referring to, the "we must have done something wrong because they hate us" attitude.
And I am very interested in why liberals behave as they do. I prod the subject all the time. Of necessity I judge from appearances, but I am interested in evidence that I am wrong. I'm pleased to hear that Sudan is an issue on campus. I've filed that as a data point. I suspect that if the US Army were to invade Sudan to end the genocide they would suddenly decide that genocide isn't so bad. But hopefully my suspicions are wrong.
Incisively put, John.
Leftists, who require as a condition of life a complete certainty about their moral position, are the last people on Earth who ought to be flogging Rightists about their own moral confidence...but of course, perfect confidence in the rightness of one's own position is shaken merely by the knowledge that others disagree.
Can't have that, can we?
Nice analysis of the Left's position, and your response was crystal-clear.
Keep up the good work!
Posted by: sf at May 20, 2004 08:20 AMOK, I'm the guy who made the post to which John is replying, so I guess I'll wade in.
duties and restraints that fall to an opposition party in wartime.
If there are any legal restraints in wartime, they do not apply. Legally, we are not at war. The last time Congress actually declared war was December 8, 1941. The Korean War was dubbed a "police action." I'm not sure what this one is.
As for moral responsibilities, there is no higher moral responsibility than to denounce these horrors being perpetrated IN OUR NAME. Because you say what I quote next, there's no need to address the question of the best form of denunciation. But the influence of sheer revulsion should not be discounted.
If that wasn't feasable [to criticize quietly] then publicity might be necessary and helpful.
Precisely. It is extremely disturbing how the Pentagon continues to this day to brush this off and minimize it. Loud protest - and much of the loudest protest has been coming from Republicans, like Senator Graham - seems to be the only thing that will move the administration at all.
Democrats, especially in the Senate, have a LOT of potential leverage
Pardon me while I snort at this grotesque political delusion.
I would be glad to learn that Dems had embraced publicity reluctantly, as a lesser evil. But I don't think they did.
That's what it always looks like if your favored side is the subject of the criticism.
I knew that strawman was coming. I'm not making excuses, OK? I'm NOT arguing in favor of prisoner abuse.
Sorry, man. You said it. "And your portrayal of the prisoners as innocent blank slates, becoming anti-American just because of what WE do, doesn't fit the facts. That area was for prisoners believed to have attacked Americans." As far as we know, many of them WERE factually innocent. And if abuse of the guilty isn't OK, it makes no difference even if they were guilty.
If Dems wanted to minimize the harm to our cause, they would have been quick to mention that many of these prisoners were probably thugs.
What difference would that make? Would it reconcile the Iraqis to the abuse? "Oh, they're guilty ... that makes it OK, then."
Anyway, it's hardly necessary for Democrats to cite the prisoners' crimes, as the administration is doing a good enough job of that.
No mention is made of the tens-of-thousands of American officers who didn't order civilians fired upon, despite extreme provocation.
For that matter, no mention was made during Clinton's impeachment of all the interns he didn't get blow jobs from. My heart bleeds for you, man.
Actually, the sterling Vietnam behavior of one fine American officer has been in the news lately, a Lt. Kerry. This hasn't prevented certain Republicans from trying to vilify the honor of this brave man.
But yeah, we don't hear much about the amazing, striking, shocking spectacle of people behaving with ordinary human decency. Now that would be news.
Actually, there's one hero out of Abu Ghraib. That was Spc. Joseph Darby, if I've recalled his name correctly, the guy who turned in the photos of abuse to the Army investigators (not to the Democrats, or the media). He's now at home in upstate Maryland, shunned by his pro-war neighbors. Guess he just didn't make his criticisms quietly and reluctantly enough for them.
They are NOT concerned.
As I'd just said they were, this speaks much for your power of perception.
You argue for the power of publicity to pressure government to fix problems. So where are the lefties mobilizing publicity to pressure the government to take action in Sudan?
Watching horrified at the spectacle of what happened when our government took action in Iraq.
Big difference between our government policing itself according to our own laws, and going in to other countries and making them do what we want. Even if we all agree that it'd be desirable for those other countries to do what we want.
That's why I have to laugh at your disingenuous statement:
I suspect that if the US Army were to invade Sudan to end the genocide they would suddenly decide that genocide isn't so bad.
Not as bad as what would happen if we invaded? Probably, judging by Iraq. The only thing that'd be "sudden" about that conclusion is that we'd be suddenly forced to make the comparison.
Leftists aren't busy protesting Sudan because they don't want a US military solution; and because the Sudanese aren't watching our protests. And also because, as I already said, they have enough else to do. In your own terms, the publicity would be a distraction from events they could have more influence over.
My problem with the left is that they start with the premise that they hate us because we are doing something wrong.
I started my post over at Trowbridge's by saying that you have a profound misunderstanding of what drives and concerns liberals, and this demonstrates it.
The premise the left actually starts with is "They hate us for a reason; what can we do to ameliorate those reasons?" Whereas the right seems to start with the premise, "They hate us; let us stop them from hurting us," and stopping them is often necessary, but if that's the entire approach we can find ourselves ineffecually flailing away at a rising tide.
What we have here, as some wise blogger observed, is a difference between demand-side and supply-side solutions. The right has been applying supply-side programs to a lot besides pure economics. For instance to abortion, trying to criminalize abortion rather than trying to find ways to cut down on the need for it. (And despite anti-abortionists' claims, the people working for abortion rights are very very active in demand-side solutions, particularly birth control.)
This is usually futile. Any free-market economist will tell you, if the demand is there, it will be filled.
Nobody's claiming that a demand-side approach would eliminate terrorism. But it might cut it down more effectively than a combination of police-state approach at home, and mad military adventures abroad.
Yes, there are some leftists who "hate America." What they really hate is what America has done; they expect better of us than that. If they've been driven mad, they have good reason. But don't expect me to take responsibility for them unless you want me to hold you responsible for every mad utterance of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, who hate America more than anybody - they hate the freedom and morality that America stands for, and that candidate George W. Bush so firmly argued for in the presidential debates and the 2000 Republican platform, but which seem to have been ignored since.
Posted by: Simon at May 23, 2004 12:11 PMPS: By "Republicans like Senator Graham" I mean, of course, Senator Graham of SC. There is also a Democratic Senator Graham of FL.
Posted by: Simon at May 23, 2004 12:27 PMUnderlying this blog are certain rules of logic. One of them is that it is possible to compare two wrongs without necessarily excusing the lesser one. And to choose the lesser one and consider it a good thing, even if imperfect. . You seem to be unable to comprehend that idea, no matter how carefully I spell it out.
There's no sense discussing any further, we are not on the same wavelength.
Posted by: John Weidner at May 23, 2004 02:34 PM... to choose the lesser one and consider it a good thing, even if imperfect.
And if we presume that the Abu Ghraib tortures are a lesser evil than Saddam's tortures, that makes them an imperfect good thing??!!?
You're right: I don't understand that at all.
Not to mention that the last time I said that you were saying that, you replied that you weren't saying that. Push your comprehension reset button, Mr. Weidner.
Posted by: Simon at May 23, 2004 03:06 PMAnd in that case, why can't the Democrats' failure to perfectly follow the John Weidner Recipe for Constructive Criticism be considered an imperfect good thing?
Posted by: Simon at May 23, 2004 03:09 PMThe liberation of Iraq as a whole is the sort of "imperfect good thing" I refer to. We make mistakes, but the evils we are preventing are far far worse. In Saddam's Iraq, thousands of people were tortured and murdered each month. Thousands of children died of malnutrition and simple childhood diseases while oil-for-food money was spent on palaces. Hundreds-of-thousands of bodies are now being dug up from mass graves. And everyone but the elite lived lives that were stunted and constrained and fearful.
The operation as a whole was good, even though parts were bad. Even if we knew in advance that Abu Ghraib was going to happen the invasion should still have gone forward, because the good done far far outweighs the bad. If you can't SEE that, you are morally stunted.
Our moral duty is to both condemn the bad AND to praise and cherish the good. But you are only interested in condemning the bad. (And only when it is American) That is moral posturing. You are avoiding the complexities of life to just focus on the little piece that makes you feel morally superior.
I don't know why I'm bothering to write this. You won't get my point. You haven't once. You will just say "Aha! You're trying to excuse Abu Ghraib."
Posted by: John Weidner at May 23, 2004 07:19 PM"Actually, the sterling Vietnam behavior of one fine American officer has been in the news lately, a Lt. Kerry"
Sterling behavior? Are you referring to the same Kerry that has admitted to committing what he describes as "war atrocities"?
Posted by: Lance Jonn Romanoff at May 24, 2004 01:55 PM
