Silver Lining on a Dark Cloud
Tomorrow, the Iraqi people will head to the polls for their legislative elections. It is a momentous occasion in the history of that country, and we all hope that nobody is victimized in exercising their newly found democratic right. I don't expect there to be too many incidents of violence, and turnout should be pretty high. Let's face it, for people who have never had a choice before, this kind of election is pretty exciting stuff. I could go on and nitpick about the kind of choices they have, and how their constitution is rigged in favour of outside business interests and real world concerns like that. I have sincere doubts about whether the Iraqi system can hold together without an outside presence - and those of us on the Left believe it is being crafted that way by design, to ensure a permanent presence there. But I'll let that slide for now, because it's a time to celebrate democracy. We have plenty of shortfalls in our own democratic models.
This all brings us back to the question of whether the invasion of Iraq was a good thing. As we hail the new democracy in Iraq, we must remind ourselves that the war was deemed necessary because of WMD. Bush is now finally taking responsibility for the "intelligence failures", but at a time when he can show the world a positive by-product of his actions. The successes should make people forget about the transgressions, and any questions about the legalities of the invasion. So do the ends justify the means? I made a comment on another blog that I am happy that the war has led to Iraqis experiencing democracy, but that I also ride on the rails that were laid down by slaves. I think most people will agree that slavery in the U.S. was a terrible thing, but those same people still reap the benefits of slavery every day. The United States could not have become the economic and military superpower it is now in such a relatively short period of time if not for the great wealth generated on the backs of slaves for hundreds of years. Consequently, they wouldn't have the power to go overthrow rogue dictators and create democracies. So does that mean that slavery should now be considered a good thing? Doesn't history show that it resulted in a greater good? Wouldn't we all be speaking Russian or German if not for slavery in America? Ponder that for a little while.
It may not be a perfect analogy, but it begs a philosophical question about whether actions should be judged by their ethics or by their results. I hope the Iraqi people find peace and stability, whether Bush really has their welfare in mind or not. Whatever happens, it doesn't take him off the hook.
This all brings us back to the question of whether the invasion of Iraq was a good thing. As we hail the new democracy in Iraq, we must remind ourselves that the war was deemed necessary because of WMD. Bush is now finally taking responsibility for the "intelligence failures", but at a time when he can show the world a positive by-product of his actions. The successes should make people forget about the transgressions, and any questions about the legalities of the invasion. So do the ends justify the means? I made a comment on another blog that I am happy that the war has led to Iraqis experiencing democracy, but that I also ride on the rails that were laid down by slaves. I think most people will agree that slavery in the U.S. was a terrible thing, but those same people still reap the benefits of slavery every day. The United States could not have become the economic and military superpower it is now in such a relatively short period of time if not for the great wealth generated on the backs of slaves for hundreds of years. Consequently, they wouldn't have the power to go overthrow rogue dictators and create democracies. So does that mean that slavery should now be considered a good thing? Doesn't history show that it resulted in a greater good? Wouldn't we all be speaking Russian or German if not for slavery in America? Ponder that for a little while.
It may not be a perfect analogy, but it begs a philosophical question about whether actions should be judged by their ethics or by their results. I hope the Iraqi people find peace and stability, whether Bush really has their welfare in mind or not. Whatever happens, it doesn't take him off the hook.
posted by Jaymeister at 12/14/2005 10:36:00 p.m.
6 Comments:
good article Jay.
the only problem I have with the analogy is that you are saying that Bush's intention all along was to topple a dictatorship and install democracy in a terrible part of the world...in that I wholeheartedly agree. However, comparing the liberation of a people with the enslavement of another is problematic.
Your arguement that all ends justify all means is a falsehood, and that is logical and morally bang on. But your extreme analogy, although sounding a lot like the gibbership I come up with (rarely...) dips its foot a little too far into the hyperbolic pool. If your arguement was that Bush invaded for personal gain, or for Haliburton or for revenge for the attempt on his father's life, etc...then I would buy in.
As it stands, the two ends you describe are both morally fit. Mr. Bush's intention (although a lot of the far left nutters will disagree) was not to enslave the Iraqi people, rather, the opposite.
Bush wished to liberate Iraqi's....no wonder the left is all over him...which brings me to a diatribe....it's okay to help the homeless who have choices, but not the Iraqi's who have none.
for shame...
I'm afraid I wasn't clear enough in my analogy.
The comparison to slavery wasn't in the act of liberating the Iraqi people, but in launching an invasion that I would argue was illegal and unnecessary, and for which support was garnered in a dishonest way. That would be the means.
As far as the ends go, I'm saying that if Iraq turns into a viable democracy, then that is a happy by-product of an unhappy episode. My argument is that it would happen in spite of Bush's intentions. I still don't believe that this was the top item of importance in the rationale for the invasion - I've argued that the adopted constitution and the necessity of a prolonged U.S. presence is to benefit Western interests (yes, including Haliburton and the Carlyle Group). Call me a far left nutter if you like, but that was the gist of my blog entry. It's not so farfetched to believe that. The U.S. once helped overthrow a democratically elected leader at the behest of the United Fruit Company.
Hi Jay. I too have a problem with your comparison. It's like saying the Holocaust paved the way for democracy in Germany. I don't think so.
Plus, you forget about the aboriginals who were not merely enslaved... but wiped out to pave the way for our system.
And before we run off and hail "democracy" in Iraq,let's remember... voting doesn't necessarily mean democracy. The Soviets and Cubans both allowed or allow voting... and we know how far from democracy they are.
Iraq is an artificial creation; it was cobbled together out of several different and distinct peoples and held together by force. For nearly a century. So I doubt that a simple vote will bring about change.
The country has been devastated by this war... lacking basic food, water, electricity, medicine, security, etc. etc.
So, before we allow ourselves to be hoodwinked into thinking Iraq is "democractic" ... we first need to see a basic infrastructure in place.
(BTW, Afghanistan's "democracy" is also a mirage...)
I think Mustard Man and NBT have both missed my point. I am NOT saying that slavery was a good thing - I'm saying quite the contrary. I am arguing that whatever the outcome in Iraq, it does not justify the actions taken to instigate that war. I was merely using slavery as an analogy to illustrate the point that you cannot use the net result as a justification for a wrong. As a society, we shouldn't react to historical events as if we were attending a basball game, judging actions only by their results.
Ok! It's clearer now. And I agree.
I think the 35,000 dead Iraqi civilians would agree. US style "democracy" now doesn't do them a lot of good, does it?
Of course, the Americans would say that you've got to crack some eggs to make an omlette, right?
(Actually, omlettes are FRENCH, so the Americans probably wouldn't say that...) ;)
35000 died in Dresden, I'm sure they didn't approve of British democracy.
We cannot minimalize the carnage that has happened. Since becoming a father I envision every dead child I hear about with my own and break down.
However, I find it sick and repulsive to leave the burdan of freeing one's selves to untrained, unarmed, inexperienced citizens. If you wish to see these sorts of liberations went over history and the calamity they caused and the horrors that ensued (if the coup was successful) is enough to make one's skin crawl.
I agree that Bush's ultimate goal was the liberation of Iraq and not WMD....what saddens me is that he didn't have enough faith in the American people to share that ideal, and the fact that he was right to think this way.
Post a Comment
<< Home