Say Anything Blog

Perhaps you’re right Mark.  “Debunked” is the wrong wording.  I’m going to edit the post to reflect that.

I do, however, feel the rest of the post stands true.  These would be hateful people regardless of what America has done in Iraq.  Certainly we’ve stirred them up a bit, but just as a parent must suffer through the temper tantrum that follows a child’s disciplining so must America and the rest of the world suffer through the murderous rage that follows the destruction-in-progress of these groups.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

’One of the most often used arguments against the war in Iraq from the left is that it has caused Iraqis and Arabs in general to hate America even more than they did before the war. That argument has now been thoroughly debunked.’

I don’t think so.

Certainly, I can agree with your claim that some Arabs and fundamentalists will hate America whatever it does, as long as it holds to western liberal, democratic values. This explains why France has been a target, despite its opposition to the war (as for the Nepalis, I think that points to the total irrationality of these people).

But you seem to be implying that the war in Iraq has had no effect whatsoever in creating (more) Arab hatred of America. That is totally implausible.

Granted, that hatred may be irrational, misguided, or without foundation - but to assert that the war simply hasn’t created any more hatred than already existed? Please…

Rob - thanks for the correction.

I think the dispute between ‘right’ and ‘left’ (if these terms hold) on the issue of how to deal with fundamentalism doesn’t centre around the character of these individuals. They are impossible to reason with; I think even the most bleeding-heart liberal would have to acknowledge that, and equally would acknowledge that these people, if they have committed crimes (or plan to commit them) should be pursued (or detained) and brought to justice.

Rather, I think the dispute centres on how fundamentalism should be dealt with more generally. Certainly, violence and force is necessary with the murderous individuals we’re talking about here. But what some liberals object to when they talk about the war creating hatred is the fact that it is much easier for clueless, misguided young Arabs to subscribe to fundamentalist ideology when civilians around them are being killed (albeit unintentionally) by Americans. It is easy for these situations to be misrepresented and slanted.

Of course, it’s not right that this misrepresentation takes place, and equally it doesn’t mean that the war was wrong. But nevertheless, the war has created conditions for recruitment to fundamentalism, conditions which would not have existed had America stayed out of Iraq completely (regardless of whether this course of action would have been the right one).

I think the left is wrong to suggest that this a reason for the war not taking place. But I think they are right when they argue that America, and foreign troops more generally, should show a little more sensitivity and be a little more careful (to give an example - last year I heard a BBC report from a roadblock outside Baghdad, where a family of civilians had been killed by American troops - the reporter discovered the soldiers did not even know the Arabic for ‘stop’.

The situation in Iraq isn’t one of civilians and fundamentalists, as distinct, monolithic groups. I think the boundary between the two is very blurred, and America has to work hard to keep those on the boundary from straying the wrong way. No-one is born a fundamentalist.

Mark, you make some excellent points.  I would only add that I believe that America was justified in going to war in Iraq and that, in the end, the world will be safer when Iraq is a free nation under the rule of its own citizens.  That may take a long time to happen but as long as coalition forces keep applying positive pressure to the region it will happen.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs: