catapult magazine

Anybody remember those heated debates we had here before, during, and after the American invasion of Iraq? An article I read today reminded me about the argument we had about WMD, the UN, weapons inspections, and preemtive war.

http://www.slate.com/id/2137953/?nav=tap3

So I’m wondering if people still generally have the same ideas about this thing as then, or has anybody changed their mind.

Here’s one of the treads from those bad-ol days:
http://www.cultureisnotoptional.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=315&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

I couldn’t agree more. It takes time to cultivate good taste, be it in music or paintings or fine food and wine; it also takes time to cultivate understanding of the Iraq situation. No one person can cultive taste and knowledge in everything. So what was the disagreement?

To return the original question (has anyone’s mind changed about Iraq), before we got sidetracked people seemed to be considering whether, given what we know now, they would still have made the same decision. In general I don’t think it’s very helpful to examine things in retrospect. Everything is clearer in hindsight. What I’d like to know is what people think of the current situation: not so much how we got here, but….here. Given the current situation, has anyone changed their minds about Iraq? Perhaps you supported the war at its beginning, but seeing things now makes you regret your support, or vice-versa.

We could also take another route. Being somewhat reasonable, what would have to happen for you to change your mind? If the goal of a free, democratic country in the Middle East were realized, would you change your mind? I guess what I’m asking in part is that people let go of the past and its mistakes/accomplishments. Consider the current situation, whatever you may think about how we got here.

A way to restate the question would be: Does the end justify the means? I think the ‘means’ (unprovoked unilateral invasion) was wrong and even the best of ‘ends’ won’t make that right. Even if it Iraq could be turned into a stable liberal democracy right now, the humiliation Iraqis have experienced in the process will undoubtedly simmer until it erupts at a later date.

I consider this a lose-lose situation. All the invasion has done was to make a bad situation worse and now there’s no way to make it right. I think that hundreds of thousands will die in the coming civil war and their blood is on the hands of Bush and his advisors.

I hope I’m wrong about the future of Iraq, and I understand that bad ‘means’ can seem to result in good ‘ends’ at times (perhaps by accident or by providence), but generally I think that bad ‘means’ lead to bad ‘ends’.

Dan, I’m not sure how you reconcile such stark pessimism with your former hopeful statements about people’s ability to change things positively, even bringing good in what was formerly bad. It seems strangely convenient to set this hope aside in this instance.

I hope you’re wrong about Iraq, but it’s possible you’re right. I don’t think the ends justify the means, but I do believe in forgiveness, in a genuine break from the mistakes and wrongs of the past. Muslim ideology tends to produce a shame-based forgiveness: you get me once, I’ll get you ten times over. It’s the spirit of Lamech manifesting itself today. So I recognize the challenges of the present situation.

The possibility of forgiveness is a hope the West can still bring. True, forgiveness seems all but entirely divorced from Christ and all but entirely aligned with the values of liberalism. Nonetheless, as a Christian principle it has historically shaped and continues to shape our basic assumptions. We now take it for granted, and in society at large it is rarely connected to Christ in any way. But still it is a value that helps society live peaceably. If something was learned from the widespread Muslim response to the Denmark cartoons of Muhammed, it is that shame rather than forgiveness shapes Muslim-dominant societies. Shame leads to escalading violence; forgiveness breaks the cycle of escalading violence and allows a peaceful context which is necessary in a world broken by sin.

Refusing any hope for positive progress in Iraq on the basis of the wrongs of the past leads to…hopelessness. Why bother talking about our opinions about Iraq if there’s no hope, if it has been wrong, is wrong, and will inevitably be wrong and get worse (it’s just a matter of time)? Isn’t this the attitude you were just objecting to?

Yup, good point. I’m truly pessimistic about Iraq now and I’m not sure that leaving American troops there longer will make much of a difference in the long run. Bad decisions were made in 2003 and the world will have to live with the consequenses of those decisions for decades to come.

A positive example would be Regan in 1986 who made the excellent decision not to invade Libya to remove the Hussein-like dictator, Gadaffi, and install a liberal democracy there. Today Libya is still no America-loving capitalist republic but it has ceased to be a threat to the world and ceased to be a terrorist-producing ‘rogue state’.

The purpose of my earlier arguments was to establish the principle of human agency: that humans have the ability to make positive change in the world and to make good and bad decisions. I think the rather hopeless situation in Iraq perfectly illustrates the power of bad decision-making to make a bad situation worse. Grant was saying earlier that the decisions of human leaders don’t really matter and I was taking issue with that.

The reason "Libya is still no America-loving capitalist republic but it has ceased to be a threat to the world and ceased to be a terrorist-producing ‘rogue state’. " is George W Bush. He put everyone on notice, and overthrew 2 governments and put in their place infant democracies. Gadaffi saw the writing on the wall.

I think you’ve got your timeline wrong. Gaddafi committed Libya to fighting against Al Qaida two years before September 11 and he was one of the first Muslim leaders to denounce the 9-11 attacks. Libya also handed over the Lockerbie terrorists in 1999. Clearly Gaddafi’s 180 degree turn had nothing to do with George W. Bush.

When did he give up his WMD search? It sure wasn’t pre-911.

You’re right that the official announcement came in 2003, but four years previously Libya opened its doors to UN weapons inspectors who didn’t bother coming because intelligence agencies didn’t consider Libya’s WMD program a threat anymore. In other words, the WMD program was already abandoned in 2003 but Gaddafi was milking the situation for all it was worth. Bush milked it too, presenting it as proof that his domino theory was bearing fruit (oops, sorry about the mixed metaphors there)

How would you explain the situation in Lebanon? Was that also a "happenstance?"