[Dean's World] Dave Price: Exceptionally Delusional
notify at powerblogs.com
notify at powerblogs.com
Wed Oct 3 14:21:19 EDT 2007
Posted by Dave Price:
Exceptionally Delusional
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1191435671.shtml
Apropos Dean's post below, Paul Campos is one antiwar voice who is
[1]most assuredly not accepting the moral case for the Iraq war, and
based on his reasoning perhaps not even WW II or the Cold War:
Fukuyama's main regret about the invasion is that the unpleasant
consequences of the occupation (such as the deaths of between 1 and
5 percent of Iraq's population and the transformation of a
significant minority of the rest into refugees) might deter
similarly "idealistic" efforts to use American military force to
advance democracy and human rights.
But this assertion about the consequences of the Iraq War does not
reflect reality. The choice was not between Iraq under occupation and
a peaceful Iraq free of violence; the latter never existed except in
the fantasies and children-flying-kites propaganda of those who
supported the continuation of Saddam's cruel reign. To assess the net
number of deaths resulting from the decision to invade Iraq, we must
also weigh the cost of inaction: the number of deaths the Hussein
regime would have perpetrated in our absence. A conservative estimate
is Saddam was responsible for some 2 million deaths during his
warmongering reign (two invasions of neighbors, two major civil wars,
two wars caused by the regime's intranisgence in the face of the
international community's demands) which works out to about 7,000 per
month â far below the reported death toll in any month of the war and
occupation.
Extrapolating from the regime's prior behavior, it would be more
accurate to say we have probably saved a number of people equivalent
to 1 to 5 percent of the Iraq population â and granted the rest some
semblance of free press, free expression, freedom to own things like
cars, generators, and cell phones, and (lest we forget the most sacred
right of men, without which none other can long be preserved) free
elections. And we would be remiss not to consider the end of the
crippling sanctions the UN claimed killed 500,000 Iraqis, imposed
because of the regime's behavior.
I have no doubt that both the neo-cons and their liberal hawk
enablers believe that their devotion to neo-imperialism is based
not on the crass considerations that have always driven
international politics, i.e., power and money, but on a virtuous
urge to use whatever means were necessary to bring what Mark Twain
referred to as The Person Sitting in Darkness into the light of
freedom, democracy, etc., etc.
That every imperial power since the dawn of time has claimed
exactly the same thing has not the slightest effect on this
touching faith in the purity of our own motives.
Risible. "Every?" Try "hardly any." The Romans (occasionally) and the
Communists (constantly) might have claimed altruism, but the former
was arguably often correct as it extended to new subjects the benefit
of Pax Romana as well as concepts like rule of law and individual
rights, and for the latter these propagandistic claims were part of
the mechanism for expansion and justification for the greatest mass
murders in mankind's history.
But from the Japanese to the Mongols to the Aztecs to the Persians to
the Nazis, rare has been the Empire that even pretended to itself that
its will to conquer was other than self-serving and self-aggrandizing,
and none granted autonomy, spurned tribute, and spent its own blood
and treasure to rebuild and rehabilitate those they conquered as we
have. There was no Marshall Plan for Carthage, Baghdad 1258, or
Nanking, no regard for the human rights of prisoners at Tenochtitlan
or Auschwitz.
One might even go so far as to call the efforts of the American
empire... exceptional.
References
1. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_5712141,00.html
More information about the Deanesmay
mailing list