a lengthy e-mail conversation with a conservative supporter of President Bush’s war policies. I can’t say that any great result is achieved here, but it seems to me that a variety of worthwhile points get made, some issues get clarified, and perhaps an objective reader may derive a sense of which side comes off the better. The discussion is in two parts; the second, and more interesting, part begins with my critique of Bush’s 2002 National Security Strategy paper, though the first part is of interest as well.
LA to correspondent:
In your article, you express, in passing, the conventional pro-Bush wisdom about the necessity of the Iraq occupation, that if we weren’t fighting our enemies in Iraq we would be fighting them here.
This argument has never made the slightest sense to me. It seems like a complete non sequitur. Perhaps you could explain why, of all the possible measures we might take in order to protect America from Islamic terrorists, the policy of parking our troops in Iraq and letting them be blown up by terrorists is the sine qua non of defending America from a terrorist attack?
Correspondent to LA:
Well we haven’t parked our troops in Iraq and let them be blown up. We’re fighting a war. We’ve killed or captured many of the top leadership of the terrorists. Every time we capture one of these guys we disrupt their networks and force them to change their locations, contacts etc., in effect put them on the run. By taking the battle to Iraq we’ve opened up a front on the borders of Syria and Iraq—two terrorist sponsoring and housing states—kept the entire al-Qaeda network off balance and on the defensive, which is a difficult position from which to launch attacks against a far away place like the USA. Why do you think all those terrorists are pouring into Iraq—which is just where we want them because we have our military there—if Iraq is a distraction. They are doing this because they understand that if we destroy them in Iraq they have no base and they are essentially crippled.
LA to correspondent:
When I initially heard that argument a couple of years ago, it seemed plausible to me, and clever. We go to Iraq, this draws in the jihadists to fight us there, and this gives us the opportunity to kill off lots of them.
The problem is: (1) The supply of young men in the Arab world willing to do martyrdom operations is essentially infinite. (2) Our occupation of Iraq and the chance to strike a blow at the U.S. is obviously generating new jihadists who weren’t there before, the potential number of whom is, again, essentially infinite. (3) The war in Iraq does not require anyone in the Arab world to go to Iraq. They remain free to attempt to organize attacks on the U.S.
The upshot is, by occupying Iraq we’ve sparked a terror war that is essentially endless, in which two of our men are being killed each day and about ten maimed for life, while about 23 Iraqis are being killed each day and scores more maimed for life . Meanwhile, there is nothing about the Iraq war that necessarily stops potential terrorists from targeting the U.S. All this goes against your argument.
However, you are making one point that makes me re-think my position somewhat. If the jihadists see Iraq not just as an opportunity to kill Americans and apostates, but as the all or nothing struggle for the survival of the Islamic lands, then that would, as you say, tend to draw all of their available energies into Iraq rather than elsewhere. That would be the logic. At the same time, however, even in this case there is nothing about the Iraq situation that prevents them from directing their efforts elsewhere, even as they’re sending lots of little killers to Iraq. So I’m not sure your point adds anything new.
Correspondent to LA:
The supply may be infinite but if the naysayers particularly the Dems would shut up we could shut down the Syrian border, and confront Iran and sew this thing up.
LA to correspondent:
Why couldn’t Bush shut down the Syrian border on his own? Why does he need Democrats and naysayers to shut up in order to do that?
Your implication is that Bush’s inadequate and disastrous policy is the fault of the left.
Of course, given the constant political attacks on him, any further expansion of military activity at this point would be difficult. But to act as if the leftist attacks are the main factor preventing a more effective policy is not correct. Bush’s policy in Iraq from the very first, when he had much greater ability to act as he wanted, has been PC. It’s been a PC war, using a minimum of troops, because from the start the Bush people were convinced that as soon as Hussein fell, Iraq would start moving toward democracy and that there would be no resistance to the U.S. liberators and to a new Iraq democracy. This catastrophic error and failure of insight was not the fault of Bush’s leftist critics.
On another point, surely, knowing what you know about human nature, you don’t share the Bush/neocon assumption (i.e., the liberal, Jeffersonian assumption), that all people are reasonable and peace-loving and capable of getting along harmoniously without coercion—that all people will adopt democracy as soon as they are given the chance?
I know that you hold to the hope that democratization might be a viable strategy. But I also suspect that you do not share the utopian assumptions of the main promoters of this strategy.
Correspondent to LA:
You don’t take into account the political situation. The real villains in this piece are the Democrats not Bush. I agree he should just do it. But he does have literally the whole world against him. You are a conservative and therefore you’re supposed to be a realist. But your argument shows that you are anything but. Already Bush has been more aggressive in confronting our enemies than any President I can think of. Better than Kennedy; better than Reagan. Yet you are merciless in your attacks on him. PC indeed. He didn’t use a minimum of troops because of his PC or for the reasons you assert. He did so because the political rule since 1973 has been no body bags. Or minimize the body bags. I.e., do it on the cheap. That’s because of Teddy Kennedy not Donald Rumsfeld.
Also, I believe the main promoters of this strategy are not utopian in their asumptions but look on democratization as the only realistic option. Have you read the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States White Paper? That’s what you should critique, because that’s where the entire rationale for the “neo-con” approach to the war on terror, including the war in Iraq, is laid out.
LA to correspondent:
With respect, I think you’re getting a few things wrong here.
1. If the Syrian border is the source of ongoing reinforcement of insurgency, what political factor would prevent Bush from sealing the border more effectively? That doesn’t involve invading Syria. It just involves more forces at the border. I don’t see how Democrats can be blamed for Bush’s failure to do that. Further, the borders have been unprotected since we took Iraq.
2. I agree that Bush has been aggressive, but this aggression has become hopelessly entangled and compromised by the “spreading democracy” idea which, having started as the supposed means of ending terrorism, has become the goal instead, replacing the ending of terrorism as the principal U.S. goal. We have converted our military forces into forces for the spreading of democracy. We now have an ideological army. The top generals and middle level officers all speak the Bush/Rice/neocon ideological slogans. This is a perversion of the function and purpose of the armed forces. Throughout this nightmare, the political goal has steadily replaced the goal of defeating the terrorists. When asked how progress is going in Iraq against the insurgency, the administration and the generals have pointed to evidence of progress toward democracy! If we’re “moving toward democracy,” that means that we’re moving toward defeating the enemy. Have you not noticed this? Ideology has replaced reality.
3. You say the reason for small number of troops was the “no bodies” rule. I disagree. The Powell doctrine, of using maximum force, is also directed at minimizing casualties. Powell warned against using insufficient forces which would expose our troops to more casualties. The statements from the administration prior to the war show they thought there would be “no problema” as soon as Hussein had fallen. On Meet the Press just prior to the war, Cheney said the whole country—not just most people, but the whole country—would greet us as liberators. He made no exceptions to that prediction. This was their thinking. The idea was to have minimum impact on Iraq, because of our conviction that Iraq would move rapidly toward democracy once Hussein was gone.
Correspondent to LA:
1. Sealing the Syrian border is probably not feasible. What is required is a confrontation with Syria. As I said, I’m for this, but no President has ever had to operate in wartime with the kind of seditious opposition that Bush is facing now. I happen to agree with you policy wise and think that a confrontation with Syria would help his political position. But I can see his advisers arguing the opposite.
2. I don’t think spreading democracy can be separated from military policy. Consolidating an Iraqi government involves more than just military operations. The infrastructure has to be restored, the Sunnis have to be brought in, the egos have to be subordinated to the task, goodwill has to be generated etc. etc. Once there’s a viable Iraqi government in place, our military tasks will be lighter and our political back will be better covered.
3. Maximizing force also means maximizing costs, a political problem. Did it occur to you that the Powell Doctrine is the doctrine of the biggest appeaser in the Bush White House?
LA to correspondent:
You mentioned the 2002 National Security Paper. Here is part of President Bush’s introduction to it, with my comments in bold:
The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom—and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise. [There is a huge non-sequitur built into this. The fact that freedom and democracy are the only sustainable model for national success doesn’t mean that everyone must have national success. Maybe Moslem countries don’t want and will never have our model of national success. Besides, Bush’s premise is false. The Japanese have national success but their system is largely hierarchical.] In the twenty-first century, only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity. [But what if Moslems care more about Islam than they do about prosperity?] People everywhere want to be able to speak freely; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children—male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. [No—Moslems do not want freedom etc. more than anything else. They want to live as Moslems! And if some of them want to stop being Moslems, that would trigger an internal terror war with the Moslems who want to go on living as Moslems.] These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society—and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. [This is messianic delusion of the most dangerous kind. “I, Bush, perceive the single universal truth that all humans want, deserve, and must have, and I will bring it to them.” But what if they don’t want that truth? Or what if they want it, but that the whole nature of their society and culture makes it impossible? Or what if, even if they got it, it would only liberate the most destructive forces in their society?]
… Freedom is the non-negotiable demand of human dignity; the birthright of every person—in every civilization. … Today, humanity holds in its hands the opportunity to further freedom’s triumph over all these foes. The United States welcomes our responsibility to lead in this great mission. [This is madness. This is Bush speaking as the messiah-dictator of the globe.]
Correspondent to LA:
Your comments are as hysterical as the left’s.
LA to correspondent:
Other than my final comment about Bush, there was no hyperbole in any of my comments, but rational arguments and questions that go to the core of the Bush position. That you dismiss these questions as hysteria confirms my oft repeated observation that rational, critical discussion of the Bush policy has been banished.
Correspondent to LA:
It was the final comment to which I was referring.
LA to correspondent:
Ok, then what about the rest of my comments? Do you agree with me that these are important questions that challenge the very assumptions of the Bush policy? Yet the Bush team has never addressed these questions. Indeed, how could they, since no one has ever asked them these questions?
Correspondent to LA:
I think your other comments ignore the political battle for men’s minds and instead come from a place of very abstract principle that ignores these realities. It’s like a critique of the Declaration of Independence because all men are obviously not created equal.
LA to correspondent:
To talk about the age-old nature of Moslem, clan-based societies is to treat the issue abstractly? You’ve turned the argument on its head. You are saying that people who use concrete historical facts against the DOI’s abstract assertion of equality are the ones who are being abstract. And in the same way you’re saying that people who use concrete historical arguments against Bush’s abstract assertion of universal sameness and readiness for democracy are the ones who are being abstract.
Beyond that, you are dismissing the very possibility of criticizing the irrationality of Bush’s position. And it’s very important for us to do that.
The non-sequitur built into the Bush policy is that because freedom is the only successful model and all people want to be free, therefore all societies especially Moslem societies are capable, with our help, of transforming themselves into democracies. Even if Bush’s premises were true (which they are not), that would not lead to his conclusion that Moslem societies are capable of becoming democracies. All kinds of concrete and moral conditions are needed for a society to become a sustained democracy. Those conditions don’t exist in the moslem world. Bush ignores both the conditions, and their non-existence in the Moslem world. So why should anyone believe that his policy, which is based on ignoring reality, is workable? Why should one U.S. soldier die or lose an arm for the sake of an ideology?
Correspondent to LA:
If you were writing a book about this war you would be correct. But you are advising a president. A president has to deal with political realities which are not necessarily identical to historical realities. Roosevelt formed a coalition in defense of the “four freedoms” with Stalin. That’s acting from political necessity. You abstract always from political reality, not from historical reality. That’s our bone of contention. If the Declaration of Independence said “All men are created with a right to property” it wouldn’t have inspired a revolution and eventually the world. Bush’s crusade for democracy is part of a political battle for men’s minds.
LA to correspondent:
This is an interesting point. But please tell me what are the political realities that explain and justify Bush’s use of transparently false and unsustainable arguments to commit our country to an open ended war and a crusade to transform the whole Moslem world.
Correspondent to LA:
I don’t have time to continue the dialog. Your critiques of Bush fail to address the political issue. That’s my point. I think we are committed to destroying the Axis of Evil in the Middle East which includes the present regimes in Syria and Iran but not much else.
LA to correspondent:
Ok. Then by way of concluding this discussion, I will sum up your objection to my argument as I see it. What you seem to mean by my failure to be “political” is:
“I think your other comments ignore the political battle for men’s minds and instead come from a place of very abstract principle that ignores these realities.”
What I think you’re saying is that Bush’s rhetoric, even if false, wins men’s minds and changes political realities. If people start to feel that democracy is their true destiny, then that will change their actions.
And my reply would be, deliberately planting false ideas in Moslems’ minds, such as that “all people are capable and deserving of freedom, democracy, and prosperity” (thus implying that it is America’s responsibility to deliver those things to the Moslems) can only have destructive results, creating expectations that cannot be fulfilled, and damaging people’s ability to deal effectively with reality as it exists. Clinton made the Haitians feel that democracy (and the accompanying cure to all their social ills) was their destiny. When it didn’t happen, they got angry and disillusioned. Feminism told women that they had the same abilities and capacities as men and could perform in the same social functions as men. When that turned out not to be true, many women became bitter and disillusioned and turned against men and America. Liberalism told blacks that they had the same average abilities as whites and could perform equally as well as whites . When that turned out not to be true, blacks turned angrily against whites and America. The common thread is to make America responsible for delivering goods that it can’t deliver, which only increases the guilt and resentment
Bush stands solidly in this destructive liberal tradition. If this is “politics,” I’m not having it.
Correspondent to LA:
My quarrel is with the bolded words:
“deliberately planting false ideas in Moslems’ minds, such as that ‘all people are capable and deserving of freedom, democracy, and prosperity’ … can only have destructive results”
LA to correspondent:
Ok. But what this means is that you agree with my point that telling Moslems that they’re capable and deserving of democracy does have destructive results—along with, in your view, some positive results.
Correspondent to LA:
I wouldn’t phrase it that way, because as I see it this is an ongoing struggle, but ok.