A Moral Failure - Why did so many on the left march to save Saddam Hussein?

Wall Street Journal ^ | 8/4/03 | Norman Geras

[NormsRevenge]

This article is adapted from a talk I gave to the Workers' Liberty summer school in London on June 21 under the title "After the Holocaust: Mutual Indifference and Moral Solidarity." To be fair to those who invited me, I should point out that although the views I expressed in this part of the talk met with a perfectly civil reception, they plainly weren't shared by most of the audience.

[houston1]

Perhaps they opposed it because we were being given a rotating list of reasons for justifying the war. Depending on what day of the week it was, you were liable to hear any of the following reasons:
1)Iraq was supporting Al-Qaeda (ignores the fact that Saddam was supported by the CIA for years because he kept Iraq secular and repressed muslim fundamentalism in his country)
2)Iraq was responsible for 9-11 (same as above & not proved yet)
3)WMD (not proved yet)
4)To remove a dictator & free the Iraqi people (true, but it isn't the US's job to replace every dictator in the world with a democracy)
5)"They tried to kill my daddy" (true)

I personally was never convinced that we needed to attack a country that has never attacked us first, mainly because the Bush administration couldn't seem to make up it's mind about what the justification for the war was, it seemed to change from day to day. I felt they should have come up with one solid reason and stuck with it instead of several claims, none of which was proven to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that the senate majority leader couldn't explain why we went to war either, a month after the fact, is telling.

[Loose_Cannon1]

"The Democrats would wail about the Republicans breaking down a door of a local crack house because they thought a young women was being raped inside, only to find that it was just a 4 year old child that was getting raped.

Of course they would. Because to them, beating and raping a child who only four years ago could have been murdered while still in the womb, does not give Ashcroft the right to intervene without regard to the civil rights of the so-called 'accused'.

We have become a society that doesn't regard the reality of the situation as being immoral or wrong, but rather who needs the protection from the bad Republicans. The leftists will say, almost as if they were in a trance, that Saddam was a bad guy--BUT, that doesn't mean we should have taken him out the way we did.

My question is --'Why NOT???'. Give me a reason why murder, rape and torture are to be ignored. Tell me exactly why it's ok to make this last one moment longer!

The leftists have convinced themselves that they must oppose everything Pres. Bush does. Everything. And that is what's tearing them apart from the mainstream of America--and why President Bush will be overwhelmingly re-elected.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The leftists are strange!

They seem to have trouble with the action Bush took in Iraq. It was a good thing and fulfilled a moral human rights obligation!

[NutCrackerBoy]

Why did so many on the left march to save Saddam? Because they are morally bankrupt.

I'll go out on a limb, disagree, and ascribe morals to the marchers; even a self-consistent set at that.

I'll go further and ascribe a great deal of discriminating intelligence to them. After all, many of the world's leftists and liberals are way smarter than I am.

The root cause, so to speak, of the insupportable position described so well in this post, is inertia.

One identifies with a group based on a set of morals, and he learns a set of behaviors. Where the intelligence I posited comes in is that these people know how this whole wave of patriotism with victorious and just wars is going to play out, perhaps better than supporters of the war do. After an entire life's utter commitment to a cause, with ample currency in the world until now, the protesters and their ilk are to be marginalized. A different faction is going to reign supreme. Very few people of any stripe can eat crow fast enough to be reasonable in the face of having backed the wrong horse.

[gaspar]

"Pluralist Marxism" is Trotskyite codeword for anti-Stalinism. It really doesn't mean anything because Trotsky was as much a totalitarian as Lenin and Stalin. And his was on a grand scale.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Bush Doctrine Unfolds :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
	click here >>>	Bush Doctrine Unfold	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

[Tax-chick]

And the justification for our intervention in Liberia is, what ... exquisitely coherent? But you don't see howling mobs of leftists defecating in the streets over that, do you?

The kinds of reasons you give (whether one agrees with them or not) are not what motivates liberals. If they bring them up at all, it's just to hide their real agenda.

[Monti Cello]

I disagree with your conclusion that the war was unnecessary, but the sell job by the administration was lacking. There were many valid reasons to pursue the war -- that's why there were many reasons forwarded, but the emphasis was not consistent, and I will agree that a single guiding principle was not hammered home.

Then they got overextended trying to offer concrete evidence to placate the UN, when Saddam's strategy was apparently to prevent any such evidence from coming to light. Bush did not emphasize clearly enough that the rules of engagement had changed since 9/11 and then got bogged down trying to justify it terms of pre-9/11 concepts.

[Paradox]

This was the result that hundreds of thousands of people marched to secure. Well, speaking for myself, comrades, there I draw the line. Not one step.

This controversy has brought to light the "honest" liberals. Those who have a certain, if sometimes flawed, logic and reasoning to their creed. Hitchens is another one. You've got to hand it to these guys, they must not have many close friends (of course, I exaggerate, I hear Hitch has tons of friends and is a great guy to hang around).

If only all leftists were of this ilk, we could get into some serious debate about the issues, instead of ducking the invective hurled our way. Truth be told, I dont know if that would ever be possible, because I suspect that many of those "rational" liberals would come over to the Right. That is exactly what happened to me.

[The Electrician]

Sounds like you want a single, unified, simplified, "Cliff's notes" rationale for going to war. Why can't you accept that there are and were many valid, stated reasons (with perhaps some not-so-valid ones as well). As Mr. Wolfowitz tried to explain, for which trouble all he received was a bunch of false headlines in the Guardian, that of all the valid reasons, WMD was the one that got nearly universal buy-in, and so that was the lead rationale that was advanced. But that does not make the other reasons any less valid or important or just.

[The Electrician]

Just think for a moment about the argument that this recent war was illegal. That something is illegal does not itself carry moral weight unless legality as such carries moral weight, and legality carries moral weight only conditionally. It depends on the particular law in question, on the system of law of which it is a part, and on the kind of social and ethical order it upholds.

In my view, this is perhaps the most crucial part of the author's argument (although it is a wonderful article that is overflowing with well-reasoned and insightful commentary - wonder why the author doesn't realize that he is a lone voice of reason in the wilderness of the left, and that his moral and logical compass aligns much better with the right or with the libertarians, and not at all with the lefties and liberals). And when it comes down to it, the left does not believe in objective truth or morality, which is why the sanity of the author's argument got such a tepid response from his audience.

[republicofdavis]

"be exploited and superexploited"

Outstanding article. But this phrase jumped out at me from the first paragraph. Is this an actual concept that the left has defined? How much more exploited than simply exploited does one have to be to be superexploited?

[NutCrackerBoy]

Perhaps they opposed it because we were being given a rotating list of reasons for justifying the war.

Be all that as it may, the author asks how a principled liberal could ignore the humanitarian justification.

One specific way was by believing inexorably (Helen Thomas - style) that the civilian casualities to come would be worse if inflicted by war than if inflicted by Saddam Hussein, who after all usually only tortured and killed dissidents.

Second, consider that the real reason for the war was not humanitarian, but a need to control events in the Middle East. Add that the military's preferred approach would have been to inflict more civilian casualties to save coalistion soldiers' lives. Therefore, any talk about the humanitarian goal is pure politics on the part of the administration and to be resisted.

[NutCrackerBoy]

How much more exploited than simply exploited does one have to be to be superexploited?

Remember that the author openly espouses socialism, and therefore sees capitalism as inherently exploiting workers. So that is his definition of "exploitation" I think.

The author has the ability to recognize that absolute power over people by brutal torture is worse.

[MEGoody]

"Perhaps they opposed it because we were being given a rotating list of reasons for justifying the war."

There is no such 'rotating' list. There were a number of reasons for going to war. The leftist liberal press would focus on one reason a a time, trying to shred it apart. When they realized the public wasn't 'biting,' they'd move on to the next reason.

Why not go back and read the text of Bush's first speech on Iraq? He listed all the reasons from the beginning.

[lepton]

First, the opposition was to pretty much every response, not to any details.

1)Iraq was supporting Al-Qaeda (ignores the fact that Saddam was supported by the CIA for years because he kept Iraq secular and repressed muslim fundamentalism in his country)

He was semi-supported as a balance to Iran, though that is not relevant to your argument regarding support of Al Queda.

2)Iraq was responsible for 9-11 (same as above & not proved yet)

Who said that?

3)WMD (not proved yet)

Proved for years. Iraq even admitted to large quantites of a wide variety of materials.

4)To remove a dictator & free the Iraqi people (true, but it isn't the US's job to replace every dictator in the world with a democracy)

Not every one, but it doesn't follow that lacking the ability to fizx all wrongs one shouldn't work to fix some, especially when it falls into line with fixing so many other problems.

5)"They tried to kill my daddy" (true)

Petty attack. Any reason at all for saying it except to belittle? Has Bush ever expressed such a thing? Is Bush lacking in other justifications?

Bush's opposition predominantly argued against his actions by silly arguments like the bit about his "daddy", and "War for Oil", and other drivel as "justifications".

You forgot: Hussein agreed to a cease-fire condition of turning all WMDs and long-range weapons over to the U.N. for certified disposal and demonstrating none were retained. He flagrantly ignored this...justifying a resumption of the war. It was Iraqs responsibility to demonstrate that they had complied.

Only a very few of the groups the author is talking about complained in the least about Clinton making the same arguments. This despite Clinton's obvious personal opportunism.

[Pagey]

Why did so many on the left march to save Saddam Hussein?

I'm paraphrasing from something I read in The Federalist a few years ago: "...because wanting to appear compassionate and likeable is easier than defending moral absolutes and taking a stand." That's why.

[happygrl]

I personally was never convinced that we needed to attack a country that has never attacked us first, mainly because the Bush administration couldn't seem to make up it's mind about what the justification for the war was, it seemed to change from day to day.

Should we then announce amnesty for Saddam and restore him, after apologies, to his office since none of these justifications have been satisfied ? If not, why ?

[happygrl]

Just keep thinking, professor, and eventually you may get it right:

That is precisely how many of those previously on the left - David Horowitz, Dennis Miller - did "get it right" because they did rethink their positions and honestly critqued their own politics. Rather than be snide, I'm always glad when there is evidence that one of these lefties is seeing the light.

The vast majority of those on the left today are morally bankrupt.

I would go farther and say that, the positions that the left take are morally bankrupt; therefore ALL those on the left are as morally bankrupt as their positions.

I think this is the conclusion the writer has come to, with respect to the War in Iraq; he is pointing this out to his fellow leftists. He is on the way to separating himself from leftist politics, as it conflicts with his moral world.

This is a good thing and I applaud the writer.

[happygrl]

I am amazed that the author can so clearly see into the hypocrisy of the anti-war crowd, while remaining blind to the fact that the left is NOT and NEVER WAS about "basic human rights" and "democracy."

You have to understand it as emerging from a form of moral/mental illness. The fact that he can see the hypocrisy means that the light has turned on. Many others have made the trek from left to right; it happens when the cognitive dissonance of beliving in the leftist world view becomes so great that one's world view is shattered. Give him time and he'll become a Conservative.