Paul Berman offers a different view on Iraq and leftism

[lord of the mark]

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menut...i04/berman.htm

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I'll pull a quote from that-

The old-fashioned left used to be universalist-used to think that everyone, all over the world, would some day want to live according to the same fundamental values, and ought to be helped to do so. They thought this was especially true for people in reasonably modern societies with universities, industries, and a sophisticated bureaucracy-societies like the one in Iraq. But no more! Today, people say, out of a spirit of egalitarian tolerance: Social democracy for Swedes! Tyranny for Arabs! And this is supposed to be a left-wing attitude? By the way, you don't hear much from the left about the non-Arabs in countries like Iraq, do you? The left, the real left, used to be the champion of minority populations-of people like the Kurds. No more! The left, my friend, has abandoned the values of the left-except for a few of us, of course."

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Next topic.

When exactly was it that the left became emasculated? Would the International Brigade have gone to Spain in today's climate?

[GePap]

Are these critiques new? no.

Are they valid? Partly.

The problem with the war in Iraq is not that it happened, but HOW it happened, when it happened.

Today we have an occupation regime in Iraq itching to get out, unsure how to go about, now at this point, about 8 months late calling for UN help, and a situation in the ground which has a good chance of devolving into civil war due to the rush job of this war.

That has always and shall always be MY critique of this war..sadly, no one here has ever engaged that specific critique.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Next topic.

When exactly was it that the left became emasculated? Would the International Brigade have gone to Spain in today's climate?

You need to read Paul Berman's book "Liberalism and Terror" for a fuller picture.

[East Street Trader]

I'd put it around 20 years back. Maybe a little longer.

It is a very sad thing.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Next topic.

When exactly was it that the left became emasculated? Would the International Brigade have gone to Spain in today's climate?

Well, you can ask why an INternational brigade existed only for the Spanish war and not the invasion of Ethiopia the year before, or the Japanese attacks on China that begun even earlier...

Or one can answer that the international brigade was a draw for ideliatic young men like the Greek war of independence was, but in general an aberration in the real world.

[Lord Merciless]

In principle, the Iraq war should be fought long time ago.

In practice, you don't go to war with bogus excuses and loack of planning.

[Lord Merciless]

One problem the leftists have is their fixation on capitalism and ignorance of political/economic systems far worse than that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Are these critiques new? no.

Are they valid? Partly.

The problem with the war in Iraq is not that it happened, but HOW it happened, when it happened.

Today we have an occupation regime in Iraq itching to get out, unsure how to go about, now at this point, about 8 months late calling for UN help, and a situation in the ground which has a good chance of devolving into civil war due to the rush job of this war.

That has always and shall always be MY critique of this war..sadly, no one here has ever engaged that specific critique.

There was a great deal of debate during the run up about "why now" which ran the gamut of timing issues, from "imminent nukes" to "is containment sustainable" to "we need to drain the swamp now" to "we need to show how tough we are now" to " Jerusalem via Baghdad" to "will the French change their minds if we wait 2 years?" Its hard to do a retrospective cost benefit for several reasons 1. As a John Kerry would say, " I didnt now how theyd play it" - some of the cost and benefits of going, including going WHEN and HOW we did are impacted by policy choices of the Bush admin and of others - eg - IF we had gone with more US troops, and planned better for the occupation, THEN going without UN sanction would have been far less costly. 2. The games not up yet - we still dont know how things will play out in Iraq, militarily and politically, how things will play out in the "dominoes", or even what the long term implications for international relations and international law - can the US NOW reconcile with the UN, et al, and at what cost, if any, to the drain the swamp goals.

[Theben]

I agree that a lot of leftists tend to dismiss things b/c Bush did it/supports it. But that's true on both sides of the line. Leftists also tend to be against current U.S. foreign policy because the history of said policy tends towards self-serving w/o regard to the other nations involved.

The nature of the Baathist party is what caused me to eventually support the war. Unfortunately, as Gepap mentions, it's the haphazard methods used in Iraq that I do NOT support.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Well, you can ask why an INternational brigade existed only for the Spanish war and not the invasion of Ethiopia the year before, or the Japanese attacks on China that begun even earlier...

Or one can answer that the international brigade was a draw for ideliatic young men like the Greek war of independence was, but in general an aberration in the real world.

What Berman asks about that period, is how and why did the French Socialists split into two factions with completly different positions regarding the resistance to fascism.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Next topic.

When exactly was it that the left became emasculated?

The 1980s. The rise of political correctness and post-modernism has largely destroyed what the fall of the USSR didn't demoralize. You might be able to trace even further to the 1950s & 1960s, when the left ceased to be a largely working-class and became a middle-class student movement.

Would the International Brigade have gone to Spain in today's climate?

I was going to say no, but then I remembered the people going to Chiapas. Then I remember the people in Gaza and the West Bank, who are bodily putting themselves in the way of Israeli tanks and bullets. Not only would it happen, it is happening.

[Ramo]

I agree that the left broadly speaking hasn't been very consistent on Iraq (but the right is even worse). I would've supported the invasion had our leadership not been inept, evil, and secretive regarding the plans. Many leftist I know had similar views, and I know a number of us I paraded them on Poly (though I admit that I underestimated the ineptitude by a large degree and somewhat overestimated the evilness). But it's good that Berman is calling us on it, because there was, sad to say, no significant opposition in the left to the inane "no blood for oil" campaign.

[chequita guevara]

I'm not a big supporter of Berman's position. I thinhk wishy-washy lefties like Berman are too easily swayed by emotions and not by facts.

From the conclusion of an essay at Human Rights Watch:

http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm#_Toc58744952

the invasion of Iraq failed to meet the test for a humanitarian intervention. Most important, the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention. In addition, intervention was not the last reasonable option to stop Iraqi atrocities. Intervention was not motivated primarily by humanitarian concerns. It was not conducted in a way that maximized compliance with international humanitarian law. It was not approved by the Security Council. And while at the time it was launched it was reasonable to believe that the Iraqi people would be better off, it was not designed or carried out with the needs of Iraqis foremost in mind.

In opening this essay, we noted that the controversial invasion of Iraq stood in contrast to the three African interventions. In making that point, we do not suggest that the African interventions were without problems. All suffered to one degree or another from a mixture of motives, inadequate staffing, insufficient efforts to disarm and demobilize abusive forces, and little attention to securing justice and the rule of law. All of the African interventions, however, ultimately confronted ongoing slaughter, were motivated in significant part by humanitarian concerns, were conducted with apparent respect for international humanitarian law, arguably left the country somewhat better off, and received the approval of the U.N. Security Council. Significantly, all were welcomed by the relevant government, meaning that the standards for assessing them are more permissive than for a nonconsensual intervention.

However, even in light of the problems of the African interventions, the extraordinarily high profile of the Iraq war gives it far more potential to affect the public view of future interventions. If its defenders continue to try to justify it as humanitarian when it was not, they risk undermining an institution that, despite all odds, has managed to maintain its viability in this new century as a tool for rescuing people from slaughter.

The Iraq war highlights the need for a better understanding of when military intervention can be justified in humanitarian terms. The above-noted International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty was one important effort to define these parameters. Human Rights Watch has periodically contributed to this debate as well, including with this essay, and various academic writers have offered their own views. But no intergovernmental body has put forth criteria for humanitarian intervention.

This official reticence is not surprising, since governments do not like to contemplate uninvited intrusions in their country. But humanitarian intervention appears to be here to stay—an important and appropriate response to people facing mass slaughter. In the absence of international consensus on the conditions for such intervention, governments inevitably are going to abuse the concept, as the United States has done in its after-the-fact efforts to justify the Iraq war. Human Rights Watch calls on intergovernmental organizations, particularly the political bodies of the United Nations, to end the taboo on discussing the conditions for humanitarian intervention. Some consensus on these conditions, in addition to promoting appropriate use of humanitarian intervention, would help deter abuse of the concept and thus assist in preserving a tool that some of the world’s most vulnerable victims need.