[Dean's World] Dean: Wrappin Up My Response to Ali

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Dean:
Wrappin Up My Response to Ali
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1183328782.shtml


   Ali claims that I skip the question of whether we should have gone to
   Iraq in the first place. No I don't. [1]this wiki is proof positive of
   that. Indeed, I continue to think that [2]pretty much everything in
   the Authorization For Use of Military Force was valid at the time. I
   also take it as a given that it's entirely valid to try to knock out
   dictatorships--which is something the left used to fervently believe
   in, until America actually started doing it.

   Ali accuses me of myopia and suggests that if I think we should have
   taken out Saddam, I should also think we should take out every other
   brutal dictatorship in the world. But that's fallacious reasoning so
   far as I can see; it suggests that if I cannot stop all murders, I
   have no moral right to stop any murder.

   But, in point of fact, if Ali were reading this blog carefully for
   long enough, or just asked me, he'd already know: I have many times
   called for the forcible invasion and removal of countless
   dictatorships, including, specifically, Sudan, Iran, and Syria. I've
   suggested that we probably can't afford to invade North Korea, but
   assassinating Kim is probably a good idea. I've also, more than once,
   called for kicking the UN to the curb and forming an international
   body of democracies instead, and using that body to help reform the
   world's dwindling number of oppressive states.

   The one oppressive regime I have consistently and repeatedly said that
   we cannot afford to attack with military might is Saudi Arabia. I've
   been saying this exact same thing, repeatedly, for years on this blog:
   we can't afford to have a Western power invade Saudi Arabia. That
   really would be tantamount to declaring war on the Muslim world. Not
   that that's what we'd be doing, but that's how it would be seen. Not
   because the Muslim world likes the Saudi regime (most don't) but
   because that's holy ground to Muslims and the House of Saud only has
   any legitimacy in the Muslim world precisely because it holds that
   territory. So instead we have to treat them like a dangerous
   rattlesnake that we can't afford to kill. It's maddening, it's
   frustrating, but it's reality.

   Ali suggests that we can't possibly afford to take on every
   dictatorship in the world. While I do not agree that military spending
   reduces spending for public education (with all due respect to Ike,
   that's baloney), I in fact recognize that we can't afford to take out
   every dictatorship in the world. Which is why I'd like to see the
   world's democracies joining forces in a body like the UN but which
   excludes illegitimate regimes like those in Cuba, China, Syria, Iran,
   North Korea, etc. I further recognize (and again, I've been writing
   this for years, too bad your prejudices about me lead you to declare
   that I never say these things) that if we're going to embark upon a
   campaign to end tyrannical regimes, we are going to have to do it one
   step at a time.

   I came to the conclusion that Iraq was the right starting point back
   in the first few months after 9/11. Not because Chimpy McSmirk and
   Dick Cheneyburton bamboozled and brainwashed me, either. But because
   this was a good starting point. Here we had a clear monster who was an
   open sponsor of terrorism that was completely in violation of his
   surrender agreements and was a mass-murdering oppressor. Good start. I
   also advocated at the time continuing on through Baghdad to Tehran and
   Damascus. You may or may not like the fact that I advocated that, but
   I did. (I still do, actually.)

   Ali suggests that I should argue for more lenient immigration laws.
   Actually, I do. I hate the H1-B visa, which is basically just a step
   away from involuntary servitude, and I think we need to just go ahead
   and deal with the fact that it's not possible to jail, kill, or export
   most illegal mexicans and that trying to stop them will probably
   result in a police state that harasses employers overmuch. Again, Ali,
   I've written this many times. What would lead you to think otherwise
   except your own prejudices?

   It is suggested that I oppose third-world debt relief. Actually, I
   don't. On the other hand, I do oppose extending any more loans that
   will just be squandered by dictators who corruptly steal most of the
   money and leave their people in poverty. "No more loans to dictators"
   would be my war cry. But sure, we can write off those debts. Good
   idea.

   Ali suggests that I hypocritically do not speak out against farm
   subsidies in the US. Actually, I've been writing for years that I
   think we should end US farm subsidies.

   I don't feel compelled to go dig up links through five years of
   archives to prove that I've taken these positions. I do take them, I
   have taken them, and anyone who's been reading long enough can vouch
   for it.

   As for your status as someone from the third world, Ali: yeah, and my
   wife's family all hails from Poland, a second-world country which
   lived under the Communist boot for nearly a half-century and can tell
   you what the real truth is about America's so-called "imperialism." So
   far as I'm concerned, the very phrase "imperialism" is anti-American
   bigotry on its face. And I've been writing that for years too, by the
   way, since well before I ever met you.

   As I have written many times (again, you didn't check or even think to
   ask), I believe that third world countries, particularly Muslim
   nations, were ill-treated by the United States during the Cold War. I
   think the reasons that was so are explainable by many reasons that
   have nothing to do with our mythical "imperialism," but it's still
   true. Which is why after 9/11 I called for change, as did many others.

   I finally end on this note:

   In Iraq, the "imperialist" Americans could have done all sorts of
   things to prove their imperialism. They've failed to do most of them.
   No "imperialist" promises to establish democracy and independence and
   then proceeds to obviously try to do so. Here's the truth:

   The United States pledged to try to help the Iraqis establish a
   democracy, even if that democratic process resulted in things the
   United States did not agree with. The United States did so.

   The Iraqis held a national democratic election to establish a
   temporary body that would write a new Constitution of, by, and for the
   Iraqis. Every international election body ratified that election as
   legitimate.

   Then those legitimately-elected Iraqis wrote a Constitution that was,
   by American standards, imperfect. But it was by far the most liberal
   and progressive Constitution ever seen in the Arab world. True to
   their word, the Americans let them put that proposed Constitution
   before the Iraqi people. And the Iraqi people ratified it in a
   national referendum, which was also certified by all major
   international bodies as legitimate.

   Then, under that newly-ratified Constitution which the Americans did
   not entirely like, we helped them hold the first truly democratic and
   free elections under that new Constitution, and a new government was
   elected. And that newly-elected government, on stumbling, wobbly
   newborn feet, formed. And was recognized as legitimate not just by the
   U.S., not just by the U.N., but by all of Iraq's neighbors. Even by
   Iran, the sworn enemy of the United States.

   And, true to our word, the new Iraqi government has done a number of
   things that Americans might object to. But we committed to supporting
   them, and we have stayed consistent in that support.

   Now if you ask me, in the ideal world the Iraqis should hold new
   elections now, because the Sunni minority boycott has skewed things a
   bit. But the new Constitution doesn't allow that. That's a
   conversation that's worth having.

   But you know what "imperialism" would be in my view, Ali? Informing
   the Iraqis that we don't respect their self-chosen Constitution, and
   dictating terms to them.

   As for bigotry: it's entirely obvious to me that if you call this
   regime in Iraq an "American puppet," you're not only racist toward
   Iraqis, you're racist towards Americans.

   Furthermore, making excuses for the vile fascist Iraqi "resistance,"
   which murders Iraqis on a daily basis, is obscene. If those vile
   fascist "resisters" (i.e. murderers) put their arms down today,
   American forces would stand down tomorrow.

   Stop making excuses for fascists and murderers in Iraq, Ali.

   In closing: before you claim that I don't say X or Y or Z, you might
   want to try checking whether I've said X, Y, or Z. And if you aren't
   sure, you might try asking me before your anti-American prejudices
   lead you to believe you already know.

   And by the way, when I say "anti-American," I don't mean you aren't an
   American. Clearly you are an American, and I'm glad you are one. But
   just as there are self-hating Jews and self-hating blacks and
   self-hating white people, there are self-hating Americans.

   America is a good country, Ali. We are not imperialists. We do often
   make mistakes and f*ck up. But we're not a sinister Empire spreading
   its tentacles around the world to try to reform everybody in our
   image. We just aren't.

References

   1. http://www.truthaboutiraq.org/
   2. http://www.truthaboutiraq.org/index.php/Authorization_For_Use_of_Military_Force_%28AUMF%29