A particularly loathesome version of “antiwar” sentiment keeps cropping up. As Joan Baez memorably said of Jane Fonda during the debate on letting into the U.S. the refugees from Communist tyranny in Viet Nam, in which Baez was in favor of the boat people and Fonda and her red friends were against it, on the grounds that it would constitute criticism of a socialist state, (I paraphrase from memory),
“We always knew in the antiwar movement that there were some people who were against the war and other people who just wanted the other side to win.”
There’s no doubt anymore about which side some people are on:
lewrockwell.com/blog
December 22, 2004
No sympathy for the dead Americans
Posted by Mike Rogers at December 22, 2004 08:46 PMThere was little apparent sympathy for the dead Americans on the streets of Mosul on Wednesday.
“In fact, what has happened in Mosul yesterday is something expected,” said Sattar Jabbar. “When occupiers come to any country (they) find resistance. And this is within Iraqi resistance.”
“I wish that 2,000 U.S. soldiers were killed, not 20,” Mahmoud added.
Those dammed Iraqi ingrates! After the empire bombs their homes, orphans or kills their children, poisons and cripples innumerable folks (including Americans) they are still ungrateful!? What more sacrifice need the empire and its slaves offer to people living in other countries?
The same malicious mind was responsible for the sick sentiment discussed here: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/016527.php
With the exception of the Christian thing, whereby I pray for all men’s souls, I find it hard to be sympathetic toward any man who trespasses on another’s property with weapon in hand and winds up dead because of it. We do not lament thieves and vandals in our own cities, why should I laud them abroad. Those who live by the sword should not be surprised when they die by the sword.
You tell me I should feel sympathy, Tom? Here is your sympathy: that you and so many others have lied to fine and impressionable young men, decieving them into believing that with magic words like “war” and “freedom,” you can wave your hand and suddenly theft and vandalism are praiseworthy pasttimes, suitable for the noble and the pure. There is my sympathy.
Be careful when you say so-and-so hates America. I love this land with all my heart. I love its people and its culture. However, I share no love for the state that governs it. I feign no surprise when it’s grandiose deceptions are subjected to reality, and I am hard pressed to cry for its agents who suffer, even those with the best intentions. I am at a loss that you can extrapolate that Lew and others who share this viewpoint are somehow against the land and culture they obviously love. You insult me when you say it, it is not true.
Aaron G. is under the impression that I favored going to war with Iraq. I did not.
He seems unable to understand that one can be opposed to going to war and yet also not favor killing the soldiers who were sent into battle against a truly evil dictatorship. Like too many of those who protested against the disaster of the Viet Nam war, some of those clustered around lewrockwell.com and antiwar.com have gone from opposing the war to hoping that the other side wins and calling for killing more American troops. That is not only objectively evil; it also undercuts the arguments of those who caution against war. But then, that crowd has demonstrated that they don’t really care to have any influence on the world. How much better they find it to build their little cult at the expense of a wider pro-peace movement. Such people are to libertarians what the Trotskyites were (and in a very diminished way, still are) to the left: a sect that diminishes the chances of success for the wider movement of which they are a part whenever they can lure a few people into their sect.
Huh? Tom Palmer ignores the susbance of Aaron G’s post. Tom equates “failing to feel sympathy for fallen US GIs” with “hoping the insurgents will win.” What most of the “LRC crowd” (and presumably Aaron G.) support is the immediate withdrawal of US troops, who we see as illegitimate occupiers. (Most Iraqis seem to feel the same way.) If US tactical success — i.e., the killing of many “insurgents” — means our troops will stay there longer, then yes, I hope such victories will be few and far between. I cannot fathom how this makes me “anti-American” or “pro-terrorist.” If American forces are acting unjustly, how can any lover of liberty cheer at their successes? If you care about the troops, then by God, let’s bring them home immediately.
GB assumes that I was responding only to Aaron G’s posting. He should look at Mr. Rogers’ toast to the killing of U.S. soldiers in the posting at http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/006888.html that started the discussion. If you “care about the troops,” you won’t call for them to be killed. Call me old fashioned, but that seems pretty straightforward to me.
Well, no, not so straightforward at all. Surely you acknowledge there’s a short-term and a long-term problem. I certainly don’t wish for any Americans serving overseas (many of whom I know personally) to be killed. But I recognize that a quick and decisive US military victory over the insurgency is very unlikely. In the long run, the best chance of getting these Americans back home again is for things to go “badly,” militarily, for US forces. I don’t want Americans to be killed, but I do want US commanders and their civilian counterparts to be pessimistic about their chances of success, which increases the chance they’ll call off this whole misguided adventure.
Mike quoted several Iraqis who had no sympathy for dead Americans. Somehow, this makes him anxious for more American deaths?!
Why not write Mike and ask, “Would you prefer: a) an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq, with 0 further troop losses; or b) several more years of occupation with 1000s of further losses?”
Can there be *any* doubt which option Mike would pick? But Mr. Palmer surely *will not* write and ask him, because he is obviously disturbed to the point of dementia on the topic of Lew Rockwell.
Mr. Callahan has also failed to read what was just above his posting. Let me give the address once again: http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/006888.html
Mr. Rogers has toasted the deaths of Americans, under a photo of a burned out American tank, a toast made all the more vicious by showing it directly next to a tank of the Third Reich, thereby equating American soldiers with Nazi soldiers.
GB suggests that if things were to go really badly next week or next month, American forces might be pulled out quickly, thereby saving more over the longer term. That is both very unlikely (although one could a set of counterfactuals — implausible ones, I should add — under which such an outcome would be likel) and remarkably foolish. Why would one openly hope for such an outcome? Openly toasting the deaths of American soldiers is precisely what discredits those who are truly working for peace. Mr. Rogers does no credit to the cause of peace. He is, as the left used to say, “objectively pro-war,” because the antics of such people discredit those who favor peace. Mr. Rogers is quite free to renounce his earlier statements. If he does, it will be to his credit.
“Unlikely and foolish.” This is where Tom and I part company. Tom’s preferred alternative — that US forces quickly and efficiently, with little loss of US life or limb, defeat a well-organized guerilla movement with substantial popular support, then leave the country — seems much less likely and much more foolish. Iraq is a quagmire, and the idea that US forces can win eventually, if they only Stay the Course, is incredibly naive.
Heck, why stop with the Iraqi insurgency — let’s go ahead and win the whole dang War on Terror! (How ironic for a Cato guy to support the concept of a War on Terror — what’s next, the War on Poverty, the War on Hate, the War on Evil?)
Just my two cents:
I want the troops to come home. Until they do, the American deaths and foreign deaths are an inevitable result of continuing the occupation. To support the occupation is to objectively support the deaths. Any American deaths that occur during the occupation are to be blamed on the state, not those who oppose the occupation.
Dr. Palmer pointed out once that American forces take casualties to avoid massive collateral damage of innocent Iraqis. If this is the case, does that mean supporting a policy that protects Iraqis means you support Americans dying? Or does it mean that to support saving Americans lives means you objectively support more civilian deaths, if you take your preference to the extreme?
When the government is at war like this, it is a negative-sum game. The occupation means violence and death and destruction. To support this occupation until a “liberal government” is set up means to support American deaths indefinitely, since the US will likely never impose such a government by force against an unwilling populace. The problem is the war, and the warmongers. Therein lies the true support for more American casualties. If you look at the most hawkish literature, there is widespread explicit agreement that Americans are too “squeamish” about casualties. Such an attitude is the real sickness, the anti-American philosophy that leads to shot-up bodies, destroyed homes, civilian fatalities, lost dreams, shellshocked nightmarish realities for veterans, widows, orphans, and cities of blood. The occupation, so long as it continues, will mean American deaths — regardless of what Mike Rogers thinks or what anyone believes he thinks. To support occupation until victory is to support more American deaths, and it is misdirected at best, and disingenuous at worst, to blame this tragic loss of life on people who opposed the war, have always opposed it, and want it to end immediately. At least, that’s my opinion.
Yawn… “a truly evil dictator” Gosh, he seems to be like so many of the US’s allies – a garden variety dictator without much distinction other than being wealthy. He even asked permission from Bush’s dark father before he invaded the brutal dictatorship of Kuwait. Oh well, too many facts for Talibanos like you. No need for reality when everything is good versus evil and the definition is arrived at by nothing more than one’s relationship to Beloved Leader who is some sick sort of messiah to you Godless freaks.
If anyone killed stupid Pat Tillman, its sheeple like you.
There is nothing like a war to lower the level of argument. It is understandable, we want to control the monster that has been unleashed, we are helpless to do that, so we talk nervously, angrily, we attack others for their stupidity.
I like what Bob Smith had to say. While we squabble over these theoretical points around which we have staked our philosophical life, the State grows bigger.
The only thing we haven’t tried in history is non-intervention. Eventually we will be so broke we won’t have a choice, irrespective of our noble or ignoble intentions.
Anthony’s two cents are worth thinking about.
Those are hard questions. Let me ask another. (But before doing so, I should point out that I have the habit of asking questions to which I don’t have the best answers, or even any good answers. I’ve been attacked in the past for asking questions, on the assumption that they thought I knew the answer.)
Anthony states that “To support the occupation is to objectively support the deaths.” Does that mean that “To oppose the occupation is to objectively support the deaths” that would result from withdrawing? I think we could be confident that there would be quite a number of public beheadings and disembowlings. If those are a consequence of something that one supports, does one objectively support those deaths? Or does it matter that someone else did the killing? If it matters that someone else did the killing, who deserves the blame for the deaths of American soldiers?
With regard to the training and commitment of U.S. military personnel to expose themselves to risks to avoid harm to noncombatants, it’s not clear that someone who supports that policy supports more Americans dying. Those are choices made by the military forces themselves. Just as a police officer (say, in a shootout with kidnappers) will expose himself or herself to greater danger to avoid harm to the victims of the kidnapping or to bystanders, the military takes additional risks. Is that objectionable with police forces? If not, why is it objectionable with regard to military forces?
It’s helpful to distinguish between kinds of war, or occasions for war, when discussing the horrors it entails. In a war to defend one’s country from a totalitarian invader (Soviet or Nazi tanks rolling in, say), one is justified and may be morally obligated to take up arms. Taking up arms means “shot-up bodies, destroyed homes, civilian fatalities, lost dreams, shellshocked nightmarish realities for veterans, widows, orphans, and cities of blood.” Is it worth it? Those are not good things in their own right (as true militarists sometimes suggest). But they may be necessary to secure things that are worth securing. Did we have to invade Iraq to secure those things (say, life and liberty)? No, we didn’t. The war was unjustified. But some wars may be justified. And if they are, it means that the list of horrors that Anthony presents is worth risking or even guaranteeing. If one is a complete pacifist then one believes that those things are never justified, under any circumstances. For those of us who are not such strict pacifists, we have to ask when they are justified.
With that on the table, let’s return to the issue of the occupation of Iraq. The war was not justified as a defensive act and it certainly hasn’t turned out in accordance with the neoconservative fantasies. But would immediate withdrawal — say, starting today — be justified on the grounds that Anthony sets out? Maybe not. If such a withdrawal would lead to a smaller number of U.S. military deaths but a staggering number of Iraqi deaths, then, in Anthony’s terms, to support an immediate withdrawal would be to objectively support those deaths. If one American life is worth ten thousand Iraqi lives, then that might not be a problem. But I doubt that Anthony believes that. So, where does that leave him?
The arguments for immediate withdrawal are not merely a recapitulation of the arguments against going to war. The situation is different and one has to ask, “Given that there is a war, what now?” My own view is that we should vigorously support elections, support building up the Iraqi police and army, help to establish a government that is an improvement over what preceded it, and then begin a withdrawal process. Moreover, explain to people the lesson of this war and the dangers of military adventurism. And do that in a way that will appeal to the unconvinced, who won’t be convinced by clenched fists, burning American flags, calls for Americans soldiers to be killed, mocking jokes about Pat Tillman, or the like. That will only make it harder to convince them.
Tom,
While I have some sympathy to your argument that an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces would result in the deaths of many Iraqi “collaborators”, this is a result of our misadventure in that sad, brutalized country – simply another chapter in the continuing story of the unintended consequences of interventionism. If the U.S. government had simply stepped out of the Middle East at the end of World War II, sure, many people would have died at the hands of various tinpot dictators, yet those dictators may have yet met the same fate. Meanwhile, we would not have replaced a democratically elected Iranian leader with the Shah, we never would have supported a thug like Saddam, Israel would have had more motivation to deal realistically with its neighbors, and so on. Saying that a U.S. withdrawal would result in deaths is simply assuming a position that supports the continuation of official U.S. meddling in the affairs of other nations, and has the net effect of increasing the killing. It took me some time to come to this realization, but there it is. If we leave them alone, they will most likely leave us alone. If they don’t, we have every right to retaliate and punish them, but what did Saddam ever do to us?
Also, you said;”In a war to defend one’s country from a totalitarian invader (Soviet or Nazi tanks rolling in, say), one is justified and may be morally obligated to take up arms. Taking up arms means “shot-up bodies, destroyed homes, civilian fatalities, lost dreams, shellshocked nightmarish realities for veterans, widows, orphans, and cities of blood.” Except for the totalitarianism (which the neocons in D.C. are working on, feverishly), doesn’t it sound like you just described what is happening in Iraq? I mean, Saddam might have been a thug, but as many of these radicalized “terrorists” might now say “he’s OUR thug”.
Vince makes some good points that are worth thinking about. (By the way, the long above was from Anthony Goodman, who described very vividly what war entials. My point was that there may be some occasions when that would be justified.)
I doubt that you’d find many Iraqis who suffered under Saddam (rather than those who profited under him) who would embrace him.
Finally, I agree that a long history of interventionism has caused tremendous problems. But you can’t change the past. What do we do now? Withdraw, yes, but it is a moram imperative as well as good policy to support the elections and to try to ensure that a functioning government is established in Iraq. It won’t be perfect (what government is?), but it will be better than either what they had in the past or the other options that face them. I am a strong supporter of the elections, because they offer the best way to security, peace, and relatively liberty (no, not perfect liberty, but better than what they had) for the Iraqis and the best way for the U.S. to withdraw military forces.
In any case, I’m off to the airport and will be back January 4, so I’m shutting down comments until I’m back and can exercise very minimal supervision by taking off the various online gambling and porno ads, as well as the colorful suggestions of sexual acts that I get from some quarters. Until then, best wishes to all for a new year of liberty and peace.