Why They Fight
~Published in the Daily Illini on April 10th, 2006. This was published as a dual defense of the Iraq war - the first from me, a conservative, the second from Brian Pierce, a liberal. I have posted both, beginning with mine.
I am left wondering whether anything, even democracy for 30 million Iraqis, can be worth the 35,000 dead and the countless in pain. Is an enduring democracy worth this extreme suffering?
No one can earnestly deny or trivialize Bush's repeated mistakes. But we should not allow disappointment or hatred toward him to blind us while answering the distinct question of whether creating liberty in Iraq is worthy.
The United States was right to invade Iraq for three primary reasons. First, spreading democracy is the only long-term solution to dictators and violent Islamism. Second, the world has a moral obligation to intervene when human beings arbitrarily die by the hands of a dictator or mob. Third, just as our Founders believed, liberty is worth the pain.
We have always known freedom. Both of my grandfathers fought. They suspended their freedoms with the belief that evil exists among men, but that good can only lose if it remains passive and blinded by illusions of peace. I have been spoiled by their sacrifices. It is easy for me to forget how often the delicate life of human liberty has nearly been ended by kings, Nazis, or Communists. My grandfathers fought for human liberty - the instinct of every person to carve their unique paths to happiness. Let us use the hammer of liberty to remind evil that so long as America thrives, they never shall.
I honor those living and dead, Allied and Iraqi, who believe as our Founders did, that freedom among humans is not easily gained and that the blood of the brave is often necessary. Those brave understand that some things in our world are greater than their lives - that eternal freedom for millions is worth their sacrifice and they make that sacrifice daily. They believe a human life without liberty is not human at all.
Was it necessary for the 13 colonies to create a war with the world's greatest power for freedom? Was it necessary that thousands of our Founders died? They believed it was - why do we doubt them now? Iraq's founders believe it is - why do we doubt them now?
Democracy is not supposed to be easy or quick. It is much easier, as we know from the Cold War, to prop up dictatorships or to leave them in place. Things seem calmer and less messy. Sure, that's nice, our hands have no blood, at least none that we notice. We don't have to hear about the daily deaths. But the people still die, they still hear the midnight knocks from the government-licensed murderers upon their doors, they still live in fear.
It might be true that the U.S. is wrong about democracy. That it is not worth the necessary pains to establish it. But the majority of the world does not think so. If liberty is not worth our fight then nothing is.
Our greatest weapon against terrorists, just as it was against Communists, is the allure of freedom. Every man, every woman, has an instinct to be free. Someday democracy will warm the earth as the realization of humanity.
That day when freedom and prosperity cover all humans is not far. But it grows further with sentiments that run counter to the entire foundation of this country. When we in the free world sit back and relax, seeing that our fight is over, we then slow the final wave of democracy.
Is it necessary for people to die in the Middle East? It isn't necessary if we wish to leave them dangling in tyranny, but if we wish for them to join us in knowing the liberty and creativity of democracy then I say yes it is necessary, and it is worth it. The Iraqis agree. You go tell them that the lives of their family and our soldiers are not worth their lasting liberty - you go tell them.
Billy Joe Mills is a senior in LAS. He is an optimist. His column appears on Mondays. He can be reached at opinions@daily illini.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On liberals and liberty
I am a liberal, and thus stand in staunch opposition to any number of things my fellow columnist, Billy Joe Mills, advocates. I am pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, pro-nationalization of health care, and anti-privatization of Social Security. I wept uncontrollably the night President Bush won the 2004 election.
I stress my bona fides as a blue stater to emphasize why I applaud Billy for his column last week defending the Iraq war and fully agree with his position. Intervention in Iraq is a liberal cause, and thus I have no shame in supporting it.
To a certain extent, I feel like the wool has been pulled over the eyes of the Republicans who have supported this war. They've been tricked by the fact that Bush is waging it, and thus believe it must be a war representative of the values of Bush voters.
It is actually more representative of the values of Woodrow Wilson voters. It was Wilson who once said, "No man can sit down and withhold his hands from the warfare against wrong and get peace from his acquiescence."
Yet today's liberals have sadly turned away from their noble roots. Democrats used to believe that America should have a strong presence internationally, and that sometimes that presence must take the form of military force. Now the long shadow of Vietnam looms over the left, and we have replaced our idealism with cynicism.
I acknowledge that our effort in Iraq could end in failure. This war has been waged recklessly. I write this column not to express my certainty that we will prevail - history will be the ultimate judge of whether this was the right war at the right time waged in the right way.
I write instead to the overwhelming majority of liberals on this campus who share my values and yet turn their backs on them. I ask you not necessarily to change your minds, but merely to open them.
Liberals should not blind themselves from a noble cause simply because they have distaste for the man engaging in it. Hostility toward President Bush is justified, but not toward the ideal of using America's influence confidently in freedom's cause.
It seems arbitrary to me to watch the slaughter of 400,000 Sudanese and summon moral outrage at the injustice of doing nothing, then cry out that America has no place imposing its way of life on Iraq, as if Saddam Hussein's brutal oppression is nothing more than a quirky cultural difference that must be tolerated in the interests of peace and national sovereignty.
Must we stifle our moral outrage in the face of unambiguous human rights violations unless those violations take the form of genocide? Has civilization evolved so little that the only thing we can collectively agree is crossing the line is the systematic slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents?
We cannot go everywhere there is injustice, but our inability to go everywhere ought not preclude us from going anywhere. We cannot stand down in the face of evil under the pretense that there's too much evil to stand up against. We will stand up against as much as we can, and have faith that free states will serve, as they always have, as beacons to their neighbors. America's influence does not extend everywhere, but it is considerable enough that it can extend to both Iraq and Sudan, especially if the rest of the world can find the integrity to stand up with us in defense of the oppressed.
John Stuart Mill once wrote, "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
If history has taught us anything, it is that liberty is worth the fight, and we must be willing to defend it not just for ourselves, but for all those who are entitled to its blessings.
Brian Pierce is a junior in LAS. His column appears on Wednesdays. He can be reached at opinions@ dailyillini.com.
I am left wondering whether anything, even democracy for 30 million Iraqis, can be worth the 35,000 dead and the countless in pain. Is an enduring democracy worth this extreme suffering?
No one can earnestly deny or trivialize Bush's repeated mistakes. But we should not allow disappointment or hatred toward him to blind us while answering the distinct question of whether creating liberty in Iraq is worthy.
The United States was right to invade Iraq for three primary reasons. First, spreading democracy is the only long-term solution to dictators and violent Islamism. Second, the world has a moral obligation to intervene when human beings arbitrarily die by the hands of a dictator or mob. Third, just as our Founders believed, liberty is worth the pain.
We have always known freedom. Both of my grandfathers fought. They suspended their freedoms with the belief that evil exists among men, but that good can only lose if it remains passive and blinded by illusions of peace. I have been spoiled by their sacrifices. It is easy for me to forget how often the delicate life of human liberty has nearly been ended by kings, Nazis, or Communists. My grandfathers fought for human liberty - the instinct of every person to carve their unique paths to happiness. Let us use the hammer of liberty to remind evil that so long as America thrives, they never shall.
I honor those living and dead, Allied and Iraqi, who believe as our Founders did, that freedom among humans is not easily gained and that the blood of the brave is often necessary. Those brave understand that some things in our world are greater than their lives - that eternal freedom for millions is worth their sacrifice and they make that sacrifice daily. They believe a human life without liberty is not human at all.
Was it necessary for the 13 colonies to create a war with the world's greatest power for freedom? Was it necessary that thousands of our Founders died? They believed it was - why do we doubt them now? Iraq's founders believe it is - why do we doubt them now?
Democracy is not supposed to be easy or quick. It is much easier, as we know from the Cold War, to prop up dictatorships or to leave them in place. Things seem calmer and less messy. Sure, that's nice, our hands have no blood, at least none that we notice. We don't have to hear about the daily deaths. But the people still die, they still hear the midnight knocks from the government-licensed murderers upon their doors, they still live in fear.
It might be true that the U.S. is wrong about democracy. That it is not worth the necessary pains to establish it. But the majority of the world does not think so. If liberty is not worth our fight then nothing is.
Our greatest weapon against terrorists, just as it was against Communists, is the allure of freedom. Every man, every woman, has an instinct to be free. Someday democracy will warm the earth as the realization of humanity.
That day when freedom and prosperity cover all humans is not far. But it grows further with sentiments that run counter to the entire foundation of this country. When we in the free world sit back and relax, seeing that our fight is over, we then slow the final wave of democracy.
Is it necessary for people to die in the Middle East? It isn't necessary if we wish to leave them dangling in tyranny, but if we wish for them to join us in knowing the liberty and creativity of democracy then I say yes it is necessary, and it is worth it. The Iraqis agree. You go tell them that the lives of their family and our soldiers are not worth their lasting liberty - you go tell them.
Billy Joe Mills is a senior in LAS. He is an optimist. His column appears on Mondays. He can be reached at opinions@daily illini.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On liberals and liberty
I am a liberal, and thus stand in staunch opposition to any number of things my fellow columnist, Billy Joe Mills, advocates. I am pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, pro-nationalization of health care, and anti-privatization of Social Security. I wept uncontrollably the night President Bush won the 2004 election.
I stress my bona fides as a blue stater to emphasize why I applaud Billy for his column last week defending the Iraq war and fully agree with his position. Intervention in Iraq is a liberal cause, and thus I have no shame in supporting it.
To a certain extent, I feel like the wool has been pulled over the eyes of the Republicans who have supported this war. They've been tricked by the fact that Bush is waging it, and thus believe it must be a war representative of the values of Bush voters.
It is actually more representative of the values of Woodrow Wilson voters. It was Wilson who once said, "No man can sit down and withhold his hands from the warfare against wrong and get peace from his acquiescence."
Yet today's liberals have sadly turned away from their noble roots. Democrats used to believe that America should have a strong presence internationally, and that sometimes that presence must take the form of military force. Now the long shadow of Vietnam looms over the left, and we have replaced our idealism with cynicism.
I acknowledge that our effort in Iraq could end in failure. This war has been waged recklessly. I write this column not to express my certainty that we will prevail - history will be the ultimate judge of whether this was the right war at the right time waged in the right way.
I write instead to the overwhelming majority of liberals on this campus who share my values and yet turn their backs on them. I ask you not necessarily to change your minds, but merely to open them.
Liberals should not blind themselves from a noble cause simply because they have distaste for the man engaging in it. Hostility toward President Bush is justified, but not toward the ideal of using America's influence confidently in freedom's cause.
It seems arbitrary to me to watch the slaughter of 400,000 Sudanese and summon moral outrage at the injustice of doing nothing, then cry out that America has no place imposing its way of life on Iraq, as if Saddam Hussein's brutal oppression is nothing more than a quirky cultural difference that must be tolerated in the interests of peace and national sovereignty.
Must we stifle our moral outrage in the face of unambiguous human rights violations unless those violations take the form of genocide? Has civilization evolved so little that the only thing we can collectively agree is crossing the line is the systematic slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents?
We cannot go everywhere there is injustice, but our inability to go everywhere ought not preclude us from going anywhere. We cannot stand down in the face of evil under the pretense that there's too much evil to stand up against. We will stand up against as much as we can, and have faith that free states will serve, as they always have, as beacons to their neighbors. America's influence does not extend everywhere, but it is considerable enough that it can extend to both Iraq and Sudan, especially if the rest of the world can find the integrity to stand up with us in defense of the oppressed.
John Stuart Mill once wrote, "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
If history has taught us anything, it is that liberty is worth the fight, and we must be willing to defend it not just for ourselves, but for all those who are entitled to its blessings.
Brian Pierce is a junior in LAS. His column appears on Wednesdays. He can be reached at opinions@ dailyillini.com.
posted by Billy Joe Mills at 12:36 AM
28 Comments:
Billy Joe,
I am very disappointed that in your most recent column you said nothing about your unwillingness to personally fight in the war you believe is so vital. You owe that much to your readers if you want them to take you seriously.
Wally
Some crazy guy wrote this insane stuff many years ago...seems most people today would think him a nutjob:
"Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Wally-
If I may, I suggest that you review information on the ad hominem logical fallacy. An excellent article on the fallacy can be found on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem. Primary quote:
"An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or they are wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by them rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself."
Here, you are leveling a charge commonly leveled at conservatives who support the war in Iraq, namely that those who have chosen not to fight have no authority, whether intellectual, moral, or otherwise, to assert their position in favor of the war.
Getting beyond simply calling your argument a logical fallacy, though, I would like to address this particular charge simply because it boils my blood to hear it mentioned again and again.
The essential basis behind the accusation you have made is that only those who have experienced war or are willing to experience the war they support would be able to have a basic understanding of what such war would entail. They would be the only ones who have the requisite appreciation of the death, destruction, and utter senselessness that much war entails. That person would then be able to make the appropriate balance between their reasons and desire for war and the devastation that results. As a corollary, this assertion also suggests that the person supporting the war in question - here, the Iraq War - would not support it if they themselves had personally experienced it.
There is certainly some truth in the argument that only those who have actually "seen the elephant," as it were, can have an ultimate appreciation for war. I myself cannot even begin to fathom the danger, fear, and chaos that must characterize modern war. However, a mere lack of this "ultimate appreciation" does not mean that a person cannot understand what war entails or cannot have a reasonably informed opinion of it.
Neither Mr. Mills nor myself have been to war or served in the military (and I assume the same is true for Mr. Pierce). That does not mean that any of us do not have an appreciation of the horrors of war and have not made our decision about what opinion to hold on this war without considering those horrors. One need not be a soldier to weigh war in your own mind: you need only understand that the decision for war will mean that people (both soldiers and innocents) will die and destruction will result. If one understands that fact and has decided that the reasons for the war are justified despite that knowledge, then that person's opinion should be considered as valid as anyone else's.
Billy-
Excellent article as always. I was prepared to argue with you on Fukuyama's "End of History" ideal of spreading democracy as compared with my own adherence to Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" view, but you have convinced me otherwise. Keep up the good work.
Brian-
Yours is the first liberal defense of the Iraq War I have read, and I found it quite compelling. Indeed, the Bush administration's foreign policy much more closely resembles that of Woodrow Wilson than of any other Republican president I could name (with the possible exception of Bush 41). I occasionally find myself wondering whom Bush 43 will be compared with in the history books - on foreign policy, I suspect his administration will ultimately be compared with Wilson, Truman, and the two Roosevelts. Each pursued policies of international engagement, each pursued policies of intervention, and each believed that asserting American power beyond our borders was in our national interest. In any event, excellent article, sir, and I look forward to reading more of your thoughts in the future.
Oh, I almost forgot. If you haven't already read it, I highly recommend Philip Larkin's poem "Homage to a Government."
It's available at http://plagiarist.com/poetry/?wid=4842
Matt,
I did not attack Billy, I just asked for him to explain why his actions did not reflect his words. An excellent article can be found on Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy.
Primary quote: "Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practice."
Wally,
1) I've now counted thirty-nine times (over various articles) where you've repeated the same comments(tiresome).
2) You can't handle guys like Billy Joe Mills, Brian Pierce, and Matt Diller, so don't try.
3) You keep forgetting to leave your rank and branch of service. Your repetitive observations might carry more weight if you were a soldier, but a soldier would understand that Billy Joe has continually supported those in uniform. You don't need to wear the uniform to love those that do.
PS: Your last couple of posts have left off that clever postscipt directing us to the Army website. I miss that.
Wally--
First, we could make a similar argument to you, something like this: If you truly believe fighting for the liberty of Iraqi citizens is not worth the fight, then why didn't you go live in Iraq under Saddam Hussein's brutally oppressive regime? If that kind of life is good enough for Iraqi citizens, why isn't it good enough for you?
Of course we aren't making that argument, because it's patently absurd, just like yours is.
There is a legitimate point to be made that anybody who supports this war should be willing to send themselves into harm's way or watch their loved ones go into battle and risk their lives if it meant advancing this cause. I believe I am willing, it's just that my enlistment would not advance this cause. You've never met me, so I don't expect you to know that I'm probably the skinniest, wimpiest college student you're likely to see, and my enlistment, I assure you, would do harm to anyone around me. Not to mention I'm openly gay, and they sadly don't let people like me serve in the military.
It's the same kind of argument I encounter sometimes when I discuss my opposition to the death penalty. People will inevitably come at me with, "If you're mother were raped and killed, wouldn't you want to see the guy who did it killed?" First, that just seems completely irrelevant to the soundness of my argument, and, second, while there is no possible way I can know this for sure unless it happens, I do honestly believe that I would not want that guy killed. The fact that I cannot know this for sure should not obligate me to assume that I'm wrong.
Plenty of people fighting in Iraq support the effort there. It would be a disservice to them and a disservice to those who have lost their lives fighting for this cause if I were to sacrifice my power to formulate an opinion and think freely simply because I did not serve with them, just as it would be a disservice if I were to tell you that you are obligated to support the war because there are people fighting and dying in it right now (which is an argument stupid people do make). All American citizens have been afforded the blessing of being able to think freely and opine freely for the very reason that men and woman have fought and died for that blessing. I cannot in good conscience sacrifice my opinion for yours simply because I am unable or not well suited to wear the uniform.
It is a sad reality that some people fight in war and die, some people fight in war and don't die, and some people don't fight in war at all. It is an incredible unfairness in our and every society that this is true, and it is just one more in the long list of reasons why war is never something to enter into haphazardly and should only be waged in the name of the greatest of causes. The defense of the innocent and oppressed, I believe, is one such cause. I encourage you to explain to me why it is not, or why in the case of Iraq my perspective is in some way skewed. There are plenty of intelligent people out there who think it is, and I could easily be wrong. You seem to be less in the business of persuading me and Billy than of making some pathetic and futile attempt to make us feel guilty.
Brian,
Billy also made a similar list of excuses when I asked him why he did not support the war enough to be a part of it. You and Billy should compile a book of these excuses and sell it to your fellow war supporters. There is good money in excuses.
You say "You seem to be less in the business of persuading me and Billy than of making some pathetic and futile attempt to make us feel guilty".
You're right. I've given up trying to introduce you and Billy and the minority of people who still support this war to reality. The reality is all there, out in the open, for anyone who is willing to take a look.
However, I really do hope that one day you will feel shame for supporting and prolonging a useless war that is killing Americans almost every day. By denying reality and continuing to support this war, you are partly responsible for their deaths. It’s a small part, but it is real, and it is why you and Billy disgust me.
You are willing to support this war as long as it takes, as long as you, personally, don't have to risk a thing. It is easy to think, “what's another 100, 200, 500, 1,000 dead U.S. soldiers”, when there’s not a chance in hell that you will be one of them.
I know you do feel a little of this shame, and that's part of the reason why you deny the reality of the situation in Iraq. You absolutely need Iraq to be a success, otherwise, how can you live with yourself? All the dead and wounded, all the human suffering, all the money wasted...you have to keep the war going so that you can say the ends justified the means (if something positive ever comes out of this war, and if not I guess the war will go on forever).
This will be my last post on Billy’s blog. I see that there is no helping him. He will continue to scream how great and just this war is as kids die day after day, year after year. And maybe, someday, years in the future Iraq might be a democracy. But if that ever happens, it will be a Pyrrhic victory.
Really, please, if you respond to one thing about this post, please tell me this: How many would have to die for this war to not be worth it in your eyes? Is there a limit at all? Is democracy in Iraq worth 3,000 U.S. lives? 5,000? 10,000? 20,000? 100,000? Or is it worth as many as it takes, as long as it’s not you?
Wally
Billy and Brian,
Thanks for your columns on the Iraq war. They left me with a question and a suggestion.
If this war is a matter of moral urgency, why haven't you enlisted in our all-volunteer military?
See Eugene Jarecki's "Why We Fight" if you haven't already.
I salute you both for subjecting your writing to public scrutiny.
-Ryan Croke
(The previous note from Ryan was from an email, here is my response)
Good friend,
If the only people allowed to advance arguments supporting the war are those fighting, then I'm afraid there could be no public debate in the country on the war, since those people are busy fighting. My small service, while far more cowardly, is the attempt to bring the optimistic and the good news from Iraq to those who read the Daily Illini. Since when in the country did it become so traitorous to fight for spreading liberty to previously enslaved people? Perhaps liberty is not worth the necessary pains, but if so then this country would have never come to be. It is far too easy for us all to forget when we live as comfortably as we do. Give the Iraqis time, you will see that the hunger for democracy overwhelms all other motivations...It has in two-thirds of the world, why not the Iraqis?
Billy
Your retort distracts. Only guys up to 39 can enlist for combat.
There are plenty of war supporters over 39. (Most of them, no?)
The older demographic has more than enough brainpower to sustain the debate at home. Youngsters like us stand to contribute more to war efforts on the battlefield than in print or --God forbid-- on the Quad(!).
You like the gamble in Iraq?
As they say, put your money where your mouth is, Billy.
-Ryan
Wally,
I do not deny the reality in Iraq. If you read my column, you will read the following:
"I acknowledge that our effort in Iraq could end in failure. This war has been waged recklessly. I write this column not to express my certainty that we will prevail - history will be the ultimate judge of whether this was the right war at the right time waged in the right way."
President Bush has disgraced this cause and the lives lost in its name with his incompetence. I do still believe, however, that there is a good chance we will be successful in creating a liberal democracy.
I cannot answer your question as to how many would have to die before the cause became unworthy--I do not evaluate justice with that kind of cold calculus. But how many would have to NOT be killed in order for you to think it WAS worth it? Were the lives of the millions that died fighting Hitler worth the cause of defeating him? And if I, in a similar position I am in now, were unable and unfit to serve in that war, would you consider me hypocritical for still supporting it?
There is a point at which this war will no longer become worth it. I can't say when that point will come, it depends on any number of factors. I do not believe that point has arrived, or is close to arriving. We have a different view of the "reality" on the ground. That's fine. But if you want me to change my mind and stop being the disgusting supporter of this war that I am and stop being partially responsible for all the deaths there, you would better serve your cause with facts than demagoguery.
Ryan,
One of the reason Americans fight in Iraq is for the precise
reason that we may enjoy things like the freedom of the press
here at home. Should I recant my right to speak while they
defend? Wouldn't that be the exact opposite of what they
fight for and desire?
I don't know this Wally fellow (he's too much of a coward to give his full name), but I do know that most liberals aren't as smart or as reasonable as you are Ryan. That's why I'm quite disappointed that you would make the arguments of an unpersuasive person like Wally and not try to attack the underlying thesis behind my claims (I'll expand on that thesis later). You haven't made any substantive refutations to my claims, especially the data that I presented in my first Iraq column.
My over all thesis, which Matt alludes to when he brings up the class Fukuyama v. Huntington debate, begins with my article entitled, "Can Muslims be Democratic." This presents a wealth of data and links as to why I believe cultural determinism is a Western-centric fallacy - the desire to be free overwhelms culture and that culture can always be maintained alongside democracy. That's one of the best things about democracy, its malleable - French democracy is different from American is different from Japanese, etc. David Brooks also wrote a great column recently to refute Huntington.
The second article, "Telling Iraq's Whole Story" presented the data that supports my optimism for Iraq. It also points out that history shows we must be patient when establishing democracy among previously enslaved people. Sure, plenty has gone wrong in Iraq, just as in every war there are many blunders. Lincoln changed Generals about 10 times during the Civil War and there were numerous blunders costing thousands of lives, sometimes as many in a day as we have in three years in Iraq. Yet, do we dwell on Lincoln's failure there or do we recall the big picture and the main thrust of the war? Same with Washington or Eisenhower? So I tried to provide the big picture of Iraq's progress and to hopefuly foreshadow what our views on Iraq will be like in 10 years when our passions subside and the big picture becomes clearer.
This most recent essay, "Why They Fight" was mostly a rough-edged emotional flow. I tried to convey how important living under liberty is. We all know that it is, but none of us have ever experienced otherwise. Our Founders experienced far less persecution than the Iraqis under Saddam, yet they felt it necessary to risk death anyways. That is really significant. I mean stop and think about that. They took on the world's great power, what drives a collection of men to such lengths? What could possibly be important enough to compel them fight against such odds. Must have been something real damn important, a feeling we barely remember today. But I believe that the Iraqis are some of the only people on the planet capable of understanding those sentiments fully. I know them only vaguely, as I have lived, like you, in extreme comfort all my life. Yet my answer to Patrick Henry's question might be different from yours, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"
It is difficult to defend this war, but only because so many people have forgotten. Even I sometimes doubt the good that may come from all of this. That is why I began my article saying, "I am left wondering whether anything, even democracy for 30 million Iraqis, can be worth the 35,000 dead and the countless in pain." But I answer yes there is one thing worth that, the Founders agree, the Iraqis agree, Lincoln agrees, Kennedy agrees, Roosevelt agrees, why do we now doubt the greatest thinkers of our past?
Messrs. Diller and Pierce have made gallant responses to these arguments of Wally and Ryan that do not respond to my thesis in any kind of substantive way. I have also tried. Perhaps they simply cannot respond. But that is not so, there are plenty of good arguments to counter my beliefs. Sometimes they make me doubt myself, but upon full thought I recall that liberty is something so special that trying to sing its praises just makes me sound silly. Liberty is what it is. If you can't understand why its so important to diffuse throughout humanity, then I'm not sure I can persuade that fundamental belief.
Mr. Diller,
Thanks for your comments. I originally said something specifically attacking Fukuyama for abandoning the war in recent hours. I would mention Fukuyama and Huntingon in one of my articles, but I always worry that non-poli sci geeks will just ask, "huh." Brian is not alone as a liberal on this. I believe one of the greatest liberal thinkers in the country is on his side, Peter Beinhart of the New Republic. A couple years ago he wrote a great piece encouraging the rejuvenation of the liberal belief that democracy is good and it is our duty to spread it, check it out for free here if you have not already:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1292836/posts
Anyways, thanks for the defense buddy. And thanks to Brian for having the courage to stand up on this issue alongside me, great to have you there.
Billy Joe,
Is there really a Ryan Croke, or is that just Wally under a different name?
Exact same lame and tiresome statement over and over. And Ryan, I don't see where you mention that you're a soldier either. If only soldiers have a right to be in this debate then maybe all college students should shut up and we'll just leave everything to the military.
Ryan, please leave your dorm room, check the hall, and find someone who can intelligently debate the issues expressed in the columns and in this blog. Address what was discussed, rather than distract by accusation.
In a recent poll: When Iraqis where asked if they wanted Americans to leave within six months,82% responded "No" - only 18% "Yes"
Billy Joe brings us facts and observations about why the war has relevance and purpose. Please, if you wish to participate, tell us why it has no relevance and no purpose. Tell us why the Iraqi people are wrong, tell us why they are the wrong type of people to try to help, tell us why America should be more isolationist, and why Americans should stay home and be safe and cozy and not get involved.
There are arguments for these positions. I too grow exhausted by our losses, I wish our young people could come home by Easter.
But do not any longer tell us that, because they are not in uniform, these other young people (Billy, Brian, and Matt) do not have the right to support what our soldiers are doing by bringing us some positive results of the effort.
The entire concept of liberty supports their right, and yours, to a part in this debate.
Billy Joe,
I know, I know...I said the previous post was my last...
I just need an honest answer from you, please. One, honest answer so I can understand where you are coming from. And please, take it seriously and do not dismiss it.
U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 2359
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 17269
and 250 BILLION DOLLARS SPENT
My question to you is this: At what point does this war become not worth it?
Please do not use a sunk-cost argument as you have done previously.
Obviously the potential for democracy (and really, that is all we can fight for… that one day, months, years, or decades from now, Iraq MIGHT be a democracy) is worth something. But is it worth 3,000 dead Americans to you? 10,000? A million? At what point, if ever, would you stop supporting the war? Is democracy worth your own life? (although you seem to have answered this question already…)
So please, tell me, at what point would you stop supporting this war. Or would you blindly support this war forever, until the resources of our military and treasury are dried up (again, as long as one of those resources does not include you)?
Provide a serious, thoughtful answer.
Wally
Wally,
In terms of our war expenses, our GDP since the war began in 2003 has been about $32 trillion dollars. That's looking at our ~$11 trillion annual GDP since 2003. Taking your number of $250 billion, which I'm not certain is accurate, that is 0.7% of our 3-year GDP. That's essentially nothing to us, so the money is totally insignificant. Numbers are insignificant without perspective.
In terms of life, the question is much more difficult and personal. Far fewer Americans have died in past wars that have accomplished much less. Thinking that the U.S. could overthrow a dictator who was killing 25,000 Iraqis per year indefinitely and establish liberty among them while minimizing our losses is quite amazing. If many dead are not worth liberty then do you think our Founders should have not created a Revolution? That is a simple question which I do not think you can answer honestly. As Brian said, there is a threshold to when this war would be beyond my tolerance and would be beyond the worth of establishing liberty in Iraq. But we are not even close to that point right now and with the rate of death slowing we will likely never approach it.
We have a simple disagreement on how important liberty is to a group of human beings, I can't change your innate lack of appreciation for the difference of life that Iraqis now enjoy compared to the nightmare that used to wake them always.
Billy,
You say numbers are insignificant without perspective...so here is some perspective you might want to think about...
The U.S. has spent over 250 billion to invade and occupy Iraq.
Instead, we could have paid for 36,116,570 children to attend a year of Head Start.
Instead, we could have insured 163,281,552 children for one year.
Instead, we could have hired 4,725,581 additional public school teachers for one year.
Instead, we could have provided 13,218,941 students four-year scholarships at public universities.
Instead, we could have built 2,455,231 additional housing units.
Instead, we could have fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 11 years.
Instead, we could have fully funded world-wide AIDS programs for 27 years.
Instead, we could have ensured that every child in the world was given basic immunizations for 90 years.
As for the cost in terms of human life, it appears that all life is cheap to you except your own. Trust me, Billy, you’re not winning over anyone to your side with your columns.
Wally
Wally,
Thanks for finally, after about 3 weeks, making a decent argument with some support. While I'm not sure where you are getting those numbers from since you cite nothing, I will assume they are factual. While you are still wrong and cowardly anonymous, I appreciate the effort.
Unfortunately, even this argument is pretty easy to combat. Spending the 0.7% of 3-year GDP on the Iraq war does not preclude us in anyway from still supporting the efforts you listed. If it had been a much larger share of GDP, then I would agree the Iraq war costs have prevented us from funding the efforts you list. The U.S. economy is absurdly robust and the Iraq war has not prevented us from doing any of the things you list.
Not to mention, what we actually did with the money accomplishes broader and more significant humanitarian changes than the narrow ones you list. Of course those are worthy, but helping the Iraqis to liberty will allow them to do many of the things you list in their own country. Plus, by spending that money we arguably freed up far more money in the long-run for the Iraqi people than if we had allowed Saddam to continue to waste it on palaces and whatever other Saddamistic (I enjoy inventing words, plays off of "sadistic"). As I stated in the first article $50.7 billion has already come from oil revenues alone.
Furthermore, you should add to your list the following:
"We could have spent $250 billion to grant liberty to 30 million people and to fundamentally alter the political landscape of the Middle East. They get freedom, we get security."
I don't necessarily try to "win" people over with my columns. Rather I wish to plant seeds of doubt that will hopefully germinate once passions have subsided and the individual honestly scrutines his beliefs. As a smaller victory, I also hope to stimulate debate - which it seems I have.
Dear Billy,
---"We could have spent $250 billion to grant liberty to 30 million people and to fundamentally alter the political landscape of the Middle East. They get freedom, we get security."
It is far from decided whether this gamble will ever produce stability or democracy...so far all the evidence points to no. But hey, thanks for playing!
---"I don't necessarily try to "win" people over with my columns."
Well, that's a relief. I thought you were actually trying to be convincing.
---“While you are still wrong and cowardly anonymous, I appreciate the effort.”
I’m cowardly? That is the ultimate irony. Why don’t you visit http://www.goarmy.com/ and put your money where your mouth is. If this war is as important as you make it out to be, how can you in good conscience not be fighting it? You expect other people to fight your wars for you and that is just sad. You are a coward, plain and simple.
Look, it all comes down to this: You’re just an undergraduate school newspaper columnist at a state school in the Midwest. No one really cares what you have to say. I’ve done my best to set you straight, but obviously you simply do not get it. When the Daily Illini was cleaning house of conservatives, I am very sorry that they missed you. Please break an editorial rule so you can join your friend Acton Gorton.
Wally
Wally, my buddy, my love,
If I am so insignificant, as you state,
"Look, it all comes down to this: You’re just an undergraduate school newspaper columnist at a state school in the Midwest. No one really cares what you have to say. I’ve done my best to set you straight, but obviously you simply do not get it."
Then just how insignificant is someone like you who responds on a blog to a DI columnist that is insignificant? By your measure that would be absurdly insignificant. However, I disagree, I think that the people who comment here have incredibly bright things to say and I welcome frequent dissent. This is democracy, I apologize if you don't like it because its tedious and messy and frustrating.
Oh and so you think the DI should have no strong intellectual conservatives? Is that what this is about? You hate debate so much and are so confident in your own position that you don't feel it is even necessary to debate things? I get it now, that's the root of your repeated argument that I can't believe in a war that I didn't fight in. Would that mean I am not allowed to say that fight Nazi Germany was a good thing since I didn't fight in WWII?
I laugh very hard when people repeat their arguments over and over. This sentiment is expressed when you say, "I’ve done my best to set you straight, but obviously you simply do not get it."
hahahahah...that's so funny, because you think that repeating your argument will make it clearer or something strange like that. What you don't get is that you aren't making very good arguments and repeating bad arguments just makes you look silly. You think that we are so dumb that we will better understand your side if you say it a thousand times?!?! hahahha...If I copied and pasted this post 40 times on this blog would it make my arguments more persuasive?
It is very possible that I am wrong about all of this - no one should be blindly arrogant about their positions. I am willing to compromise and alter my opinion as new facts are brought before me. But Wally I don't think you understand this process.
If my country called on me to go fight somewhere I knew little of, I would readily attend. They have not called on me. Once a real soldier, and not just some punk suburban white boy like you, tells me that I do a disservice by telling the good that has come from their sacrifice then I will concede this point. Until then your sheltered, myopic, and faith-based opinions remain silly and callow. And yes, I do mean faith-based, in the same sense you probably distaste religious conservatives for accepting things on faith, so too you should distaste yourself for the same convenient practice - one that lacks difficult scrutiny of issues.
By the way, I'm quite proud of living and growing in the Midwest.
Love,
Billy Joe Mills
P.S. Let me know if you ever want to reveal yourself, it is easy to be an anonymous critic - in fact I can think of nothing easier.
Dear Billy Bob...um...I mean Billy Joe,
---"Oh and so you think the DI should have no strong intellectual conservatives?"
No, I think that they should find one.
---"Would that mean I am not allowed to say that fight Nazi Germany was a good thing since I didn't fight in WWII?"
Nice strawman. Serious question: Would you have enlisted if you were alive then? Are you only willing to fight wars that have already been fought?
“You think that we are so dumb that we will better understand your side if you say it a thousand times?!?!”
Provide some serious answers, and then I will stop asking. You have never provided me with a good answer as to why you believe in this war, but only if other people fight it for you.
Wally
P.S. Please just forget about the war all together and focus on other important conservative issues such as the War on Christmas, the promotion of Intelligent Design, and keeping people in vegetative states alive as long as humanly possible. Don’t try to apply your twisted values to things that actually matter.
Wally,
Even when you finally say something intelligent like "this is my last post" you still aren't capable of backing it up.
I can tell now when you're losing the argument with Billy Joe, you fall back on the www.goarmy.com posting.
Wally-
You said:
"Please just forget about the war all together and focus on other important conservative issues such as the War on Christmas, the promotion of Intelligent Design, and keeping people in vegetative states alive as long as humanly possible. Don’t try to apply your twisted values to things that actually matter."
You've confused fundamentalist issues with conservative issues. The issues you have described above are important a certain subset of the electorate, most of whom are religious conservatives. I would refer you to Billy's earlier column on conservative thought at http://billyjoemills.blogspot.com/2006/01/conservative-manifesto.html for a better definition of conservatism in the Millsian sense. In my world (and, I believe, in Mr. Mills'), issues such as the ones you have listed are properly considered by individuals rather than by governments. It's an easy mistake to make, since most of the media today equates fundamentalism with conservatism. However, painting all conservatives with the same brush is inappropriate for the basis of this discussion.
Billy-
I think you're likely right on not wanting to stick the Fukuyama-Huntington debate into your column. Something that fascinates a poli sci dork like me would likely cause the eyes of most of your readers to glaze over. I need to read more about Fukuyama's shift of opinion, but I was quite shocked to hear of it.
I suspect that, ultimately, Fukuyama and Huntington will be shown to have represented the two extremes of thought in post-Cold War international relations. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle - the trend toward democracy will continue, but may be affected by either a) cultural factors or b) a lack of democratic tradition in those societies. I do hope that ultimately you will win this argument, and that democracy will spread across the globe. However, I have been disappointed too many times by various countries (Russia, Belarus, Venezuela, etc.) who have democratically elected autocratic leaders to fully accept Fukuyama's vision as of yet.
Mugs-
The only point I would make to you is on Mr. Croke. Ryan Croke is one of the more decent and honorable human beings I know. I, too, was disappointed by his resorting to repeating Wally's arguments, but rest assured he is an honorable man.
Evan,
Thank you much for the respectful dissent, it is appreciated.
You wrote, "I also believe, however, that our first committment should be to our people."
It is true that our first priority should be to Americans. However, our GDP is currently 1/3 of the entire world's. Our economy is absurdly robust. I believe we have the obligation and the duty to breach our borders and expend our wealth where it can do great good. This hasn't always been true for us and it has never been true for any other country. Our wealth and power puts us in a unique position. What's more is that often our humanitarian and liberty interests coincide with our national security interests. Our greatest weapon, whether against Islamism or any other threat, is letting liberty catch burn across the field of humanity.
You wrote, "It seems that the potential loss in the future could be very high."
In terms of U.S. lives lost I don't feel the numbers will increase dramatically from their current levels. The rate of death seems to be steadily declining. For this I reference the Iraq Index that is linked to from my original Iraq column.
Nevertheless, I appreciate your comments here. Your concerns are certainly reasonable and legitimate. Even with "Iraq's whole story" in front of me, I realize there are still eminently reasonable arguments against my position. The fact is that we will only know who has come down on the right side of this fuzzy line in about 7 or more years.
Thanks.
Evan,
I agree that it is possible Iraq was not our best choice or our most significant threat. But, I do believe that Iran's threat is currently being exaggerated. They recently announced the birth of their nuclear program. It took them a lot of time and money to get it going. What's interesting is that they are not even close to weaponizing the technology. I forget the exact statistics that I read in the WSJ, but apparently they have so far produce around 1% of the necessary capacity to actually make a nuke (I'm not great with the science on this issue). The point is that Iran
Anyways, I believe we chose Iraq over N. Korea or some other country for two reasons.
Iraq’s location in the Middle East gives us hope that neighboring Muslim people will see the success of Arab-Muslim democracy and will be more likely to rise up to establish it on their own - Brian aptly called it a “Beacon.” Plus, Americans recognize Saddam as a face of evil, which made Bush’s job of selling the war easier. Intervening all over the world in places where evil exists would be ideal, but we cannot practically do so – Iraq was the best alternative.
David Brooks recently wrote a good column with many historical references to MLK, de Tocqueville, Moses, Exodus, etc. He compares Exodus with Iraq.
I thought he made a good point at the end:
"Remember, fewer Iraqis have died in the second Iraq war than in the first, when Saddam crushed the Shiite uprising we fomented. The world wasn't bothered by that extermination -- there were no rallies in the streets. We were all being realistic.
The nation will adopt one mind-set after the trauma of Iraq, yours or Moses'. Right now, the public mood is with you, but I can't imagine yours will long prevail."
Billy,
"Plus, Americans recognize Saddam as a face of evil, which made Bush’s job of selling the war easier. "
The blatant lies were what sold the war, really.
Wally
Billy-
Real Clear Politics actually had a blog post today on the Iran enrichment question. It's at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/04/media_misfire_on_iran.html
Basically, what the article says is that its present rate of enrichment, it will take Iran more than 13 years to enrich enough uranium to build a bomb. They currently have 164 centrifuges working, and have a goal of eventually operating more than 54,000 centrifuges. Using that many, they could enrich enough uranium for a bomb in 16 days - but that capability is at least a decade away, if not more. These figures don't say anything about if they are committing their entire production line to a bomb or not, but since weapons-grade uranium takes a lot longer to enrich than uranium used for power generation purposes, my guess is that this is how we will know if they are building a bomb or not. If nuclear power plants begin to come online in Iran in the near future and it looks like they're shipping the uranium there, there's much less to worry about. If no new plants come on line and they're still enriching uranium, well... then we've got a problem.
A bigger issue, in my mind, is ensuring that none of the uranium or nuclear waste byproducts falls into the hands of terrorists. Not to develop a nuclear weapon, mind you, but for fear that such materials could be used to build a dirty bomb.
Matt,
Thanks for clarifying all of that. I had read the ratio of 16 centrifuges to ~50,000 necessary to build a nuke in the WSJ, but had much trouble remembering those exact numbers. But you also gave some details that I was ignorant of. I think this statistic is very important when discussing whether invading Iran is an imminent necessity. The headlines and the TV usually just make the scary announcement that Iran now has nuclear capabilities, but they neglect to put it in the kind of thorough perspective that you and the WSJ provided. That seems to be the problem with a lot of issues, especially Iraq, which I hope I have demonstrated. Perspective, baby.
Post a Comment
<< Home