The New Republic

The entire "moral" argument is bogus. It's bogus to say "morality" forces us to go in, to prevent "atrocities" that might (or might not) happen if we didn't, and it's a "moral" failure not to prevent those hypothetical atrocities. Now, "preventing atrocities" seems to be the most compelling reason called out by Obama and Clinton. "Preventing atrocities" is nice, but I despise connecting doing that or NOT doing that to a "moral failure". Because as has widely been pointed out, if "morality" is your litmus test, we've failed it way more than we've succeeded. And if that's your litmus test, you can justify LOTS of actions that are extremely bad ideas. And if that's your litmus test, how will you have a leg to stand on to RESIST those extremely bad ideas. And if "morality" is your litmus test, how on earth can you justify attacking a soverign nation just because you disagree with their internal security? You're going to kill people, destroy tanks and missles and anti-aircraft sites, because that's MORE "Moral" than a hypothetical blood-bath that may or may not happen if you don't? That's not a "moral" choice, that's pure sophistry. Now, there's lots of good (and bad) reasons to go to war. "Preventing atrocities" is an okay reason, IF you can do it in such a way that the cure is no worse than the disease. But layering "moral" arguments on top of that simply muddies the water.

- AllanL5

March 22, 2011 at 3:29pm

Andrew's posts on Libya at The Daily Dish have been pretty bad in general and his reasoning on who has credibility and who doesn't when it comes to US intervention in Libya is just horrible. I think Andrew is still doing penance for his support of the torture regime of George W. Bush from 2001 through about 2003. Andrew got religion now, so he is holier than thou. It is hilarious when he accuses Leon Wieseltier of getting on his high horse concerning the Libyan action. After all, whose horse could be higher than Andrew's?

- liberalref

March 22, 2011 at 3:38pm

Where is Wolfowitz now, back to teaching? I know the World Bank thing didn't work out so well...anybody? I had the... well I don't know what the word is, certainly not "pleasure" or "honor", but I knew both him and Rumsfeld. I can confirm that both men are exactly what they appear to be. If ever there were candidates for tarring and feathering, it's these men. Anyway.... Jon, you make a good point, and like others I'm guilty of "this man though x about Iraq, therefore he has no right to voice a similar stance on country y" I would respond by saying that it wasn't simply a case of beating the drum for war, a war that turned out very badly; it was beating the drum for a war that was based almost entirely on lies and exaggeration, an adventure tilting at ginats that turned out in the end to really just be windmills. Windmills that cost several thousand lives, to say nothing of those lives that continue on with shattered bodies, shattered dreams, shattered marriages and minds. Your implication that a person who advocated for war against Iraq can still have intelligent input on why we should go to war against, say, Libya. But surely you recognize the deep animosity with which they may br greeted, depending on precidely HOW they made their original argument for war in Iraq. Remember Jon, for many pundits this was not simply a matter of "let me share with you why I beleive this is the right things to do, despite what may be a very costly burden". This was often impassioned diatribes long on superficial patriotism but short on experience and wisdom, where we saw scrappy chickenhawk pundits not only willing to volunteer any and all strangers they'd never met who might be needed, but who criticised with vitriol any spineless, unpatriotic, cowardly liberals who thought perhaps waiting for (to use a somewhat antiquated diplomated term) a "reason" to go to war might be kind of a good idea. So yes, there is still a great deal of animosity towards those who were all too eager to see the children of others march to war, who have yet to come forward with even a token McNamara mea culpa... on the contrary, they continue to beat the very same drum, this time pointing towards Tripoli instead of Baghdad, but with equal lack of understanding about the people, about the mission, about what in the world we'll do once qadaffi is out if the next man in line to take power turns out to be less George Washington and more Mohammad Farrah Aidid.

- Tristan

March 22, 2011 at 3:41pm

Your posts are just the most amusing things, Allan. If I ever teach an informal logic class, make I have permission to liberally quote you as I teach students how not to reason?

- liberalref

March 22, 2011 at 3:42pm

Chait and other supporters of the intervention make a good humanitarian case. While I may believe US military power must be used only in more limited (and better defined) circumstances, if for no other reason than "humanitarian" changes with the actors and circumstances, nevertheless I respect the humanitarian case. As for AS, one of the regular commenters has suggested that his blog be renamed the Daily Pivot. Bill Scher and Matt Lewis, in a bloggingshead.tv dialogue, attributed AS's penchant for changing positions on issues to the first rule of business: know thy customer. I thought that a bit harsh. My explanation is that AS simply lacks judgment, and his first position on any new and important issue is more or less a guess.

- rayward

March 22, 2011 at 3:46pm

These are not, in general, ad hominem attacks. Pointing out that you lend your voice to guns much more than you do so for butter is not to call you bloodthirsty. It's to make people question a philosophy that theoretically supports both approaches but practically only supports the former. Liberal interventionism is well and good, but when it can only practically be realized by bombs (because that is how nations interact, and politically use of force is more palatable than aid), "where's the butter?" is a fair question to put to its proponents when determining how important a specific intervention is. Further, declaring any historical reference out of bounds when discussing intervention in Libya is a ridiculous limitation of the debate. Andrew isn't claiming that TNR has no standing to comment on Libya. Andrew is claiming that failing to see the similarity between TNR making claims about intervention being a nearly unmixed blessing for both the US and Libya and the calls for intervention in Iraq is to put blinders on. From the TNR editorial statement on Libya, "...Without Western intervention—that is, without Obama’s decision to finally do the right thing—there is little doubt that the situation would have been worse." To make this kind of proclamation about 'the situation', at this point in the game, is so premature as to be irresponsible. We don't know what is going to happen. Andrew's point is that that irresponsibility is inexcusable. To paraphrase Chait, there are plenty of substantive arguments to be made for war -- it provides us leverage with which to cajole other regimes that are brutalizing their populace, a 'good' war where we have no other compelling interest will raise the US's moral legitimacy, Gaddafi is an unpredictable maniac who must be stopped. But not allowing for critics to engage in, well, criticism without crying 'ad hominem' is a bit touchy

- modelj

March 22, 2011 at 4:03pm

Couldn't agree more JC.

- WandreyCer

March 22, 2011 at 4:06pm

Libref: forgive me, but I fail to see how Allan's statement was so illogical as to require the rejoinder you posted. On the contrary, making the point that this is the offensive military operation version of selective prosecution is an eminently fair argument, in my opinion. As for arguing that "moral" reasons should be the last consideration in deciding to commit military forces, again he has a good point. A clear cut case of genocide may be an unassailable argument for doing the "moral" thing in attacking a sovereign nation (in the absence of a clear and present danger to our own security, that is), but that is certainly not what we're seeing in Libya, and Allan is correct when he asserts that we've seen pogroms on a scale that dwarf what Qadaffi has initiated, and yet done nothing. For which I am not chastizing this or any past administration. Trite though it may sound, we really cannot be the world's policeman. Our men and women's lives should be put on the line, their bodies and souls shattered only for the most dire circumstances. If Allan's point was that using an argument about the mnorality of the Libyan situation, in the almost complete absence of any other vital US interest, is a bit of square-pen-into-a-round-hole, than its a point I happen to agree with.

- Tristan

March 22, 2011 at 4:31pm

I have thought that TNR has gone over-the-top on Libya to some substantial degree, model. But I notice you say nothing about Andrew's egregious posts. He has sarcastically asked why we haven't intervened in, say, the Ivory Coast. Just sophomoric stuff. And then there is his own gung-ho support for the Iraq invasion initially. Now he is on the side of the angels. Eight years ago, he would have - and did - rip into people like his current self. But not a word from you about this, of course.

- liberalref

March 22, 2011 at 4:32pm

Another consideration to factor in about the difference between Iraq and Libya: it is well known that the Bush administration second-guessed competence (Shinseki) and deferred to incompetence (Bremer and the CPA) in Iraq and that there is no reason to expect the Obama administration to do so.

- sighthnd

March 22, 2011 at 4:34pm

I think that, in a way, both of you are correct. Andrew does have a valid point concerning the failure of those who rabidly supported the Iraq War to at least awknowledge fallibility on the issue. I myself feel this frustration everytime I see Bill Kristol scream about bombing yet another middle east country like a man who was not so fantastically wrong just eight years ago. On an unrelated note, Andrew's writing on Libya has been cringingly apoplectic and moralistic.

- jnordlander

March 22, 2011 at 4:36pm

Thank you, Tristan. Sure, 'liberalref', you may use my arguments. Perhaps some of your students will be able to clarify things for you.

- AllanL5

March 22, 2011 at 4:41pm

You're forgiven. Well, start with Allan's opening gambit, Tris., "The entire 'moral' argument is bogus." You will note the quotation marks around "moral." This implies that a moral case cannot even be made for intervention in Libya. In fact, such a case most certainly can be made. It undergirds my position. I am one of those few people (I have found) who is for human rights across the board. The left has a long history of ignoring or downplaying human right abuses on the left, and the same goes for the right, i.e., they have turned blind eyes towards hr abuses by right-wing dictators. I am against them all. So Allan, tries to cut out the moral high ground from his opponents from the get-go, and he fails miserably; his anti-maxim is refuted by the very existence of many of us. So I stand by what I wrote.

- liberalref

March 22, 2011 at 4:43pm

Overall, I think there are good intentions on both sides of the debate and that this is a difficult issue. I've seen ridiculous attacks though from both sides though. If you are against the intervention then you're a cold, tyranny-loving hypocrite that cares more about beuarocacy than the welfare of people and if you're for the intervention then you're a warmongerer who blindly goes wherever the government leads. I certainly hope we move away from this and towards an understanding that there is a lot of grey area here and that intelligent, thoughtful people can exist on both sides of this debate. So on this point, I think its fair of JC to call out people who continue to do this with the understanding that this isn't just coming from those against the intervention.

- tgatz85

March 22, 2011 at 4:44pm

Jon, I think the continued ad-hominem attacks may stem from the fact that some of those who advocate intervention in Libya also did so on Iraq, without explaining how the latter conflict affected their thinking. So much of the foreign policy commentariat got Iraq wrong, but continues to write on foreign policy, so there will naturally be a fair amount of skepticism. (This is not to say that every writer who got Iraq wrong should forever be prohibited from writing on foreign policy again.) Ordinarily, the fact that a criticism is ad hominem is a reason to disregard it. Read against the background of the Iraq error, however, the burden should be on Iraq-supporting-interventionists to show how their views have changed when advocating similar interventions. So, two questions. How has Iraq changed your thinking, if at all? How have you applied the lessons you drew when considering the intervention in Libya?

- wev22

March 22, 2011 at 4:46pm

I am not in need of such clarification. There are already a myriad of unformed minds out there that think as you do; I do not require instruction from them. Incidentally, that was a pathetic attempt at a rejoinder. Surely you can do better than that.

- liberalref

March 22, 2011 at 4:47pm

Also, I am generally pro-intervention though I feel some reluctance since this isn't purely a humanitarian effort (there are too many other countries that could have used our help where we not only didn't help but propped up their dictators). However, there is a good point to be made that whatever the motivation, removing Qadaffi is necessary. I am VERY concerned that this will turn into another endless conflict where we wander around aimlessly with no plan, but part of me is just happy that we're coming in on the right side for once even it isn't with the purest intentions. So while I will support a brief intervention I will do so with no delusions about it being some humanitarian effort. Much like JC, I can see very strong arguments on the other side and also do not believe it fair to disqualify the voice of those that supported the Iraq war. Just because America botches up these operations doesn't mean that they weren't needed.

- tgatz85

March 22, 2011 at 4:54pm

"I am one of those few people (I have found) who is for human rights across the board. The left has a long history of ignoring or downplaying human right abuses on the left, and the same goes for the right, i.e., they have turned blind eyes towards hr abuses by right-wing dictators. I am against them all." A laudable position to take, no question about it. There's certainly nothing wrong with taking an active stand against any and all violent oppressors of their own people, and if you engage in any activity that makes the lives of people living in these circumstances even marginally better, I applaud you Libref. But..... Do you really think (as it seems you're implying) that the US military should be used ever time we see a case of human rights violations? Your point about each end of the political spectrum turning a blind eye towards abuses from leaders on the same "wing" is absolutely correct, Icouldn't agree more. But what to do? Surely you see we do not have the capability to act in every such circumstance. What should be the criteria? Should we only undertake combat where we know we'll "win"? I would argue we fought Japan and Germany being assured in no such way, albeit after they attacked us first, and that was certainly the most egregious example of national leadership needing to be put down, not only in our strategic interest but over moral necessity (and let's forget, for the purposes of discussion, that in no way did we take part in war with either over moral reasons). Should a criteria be logistical simplicity? Libya is easy in this respect, with not only carrier-based assets but an alliance with a well developed military on their eastern border and forward operating bases at Aviano et al; and the Libyan terrain is similar to that at the Nartional Training Center, ground zero for trainign our mechanized and armored forces. Convenient, to say the least. The Congo, on the other hand, would be a logistical nightmare by comparison. Clearly defined objectives, a political situation that lends itself to resolution post-dictator, likelihood of support by the populace rather than seeing the populace band together, despite their differences, around the idea of shellacking the Americans... after all, I don't think anybody wants to see another Mogodishu any time soon, no matter how many people are starving thanks to the warlord du jour. Anyway, you get the idea... what is the US to do with our military in the face of an endless list of need?

- Tristan

March 22, 2011 at 5:03pm

Lib ref: "Your posts are just the most amusing things, Allan. If I ever teach an informal logic class, make I have permission to liberally quote you as I teach students how not to reason?" Why not just say what you have to say in rejoinder, lib ref, without having to prove that you're a pompous ass to boot?

- ironyroad

March 22, 2011 at 5:22pm

irony, that's like asking Kim Kardashian to stop wearing low-cut tops. Both she and libref are going to work what they've got, be it large breasts or insufferable pomposity.

- W_Bombay

March 22, 2011 at 7:22pm

Enough with the attacks on people libref, please already.

- WandreyCer

March 22, 2011 at 8:04pm

Jonathan: We went to war without Congressional authorization. We don't know whether the war is about regime change or just protecting civilians. We don't know how you do either of these things with air power alone. We have waited in vain for some sign that the President gets it. Meanwhile, yellow journalists have been banging the drum for this war. Sorry for the ad hominem attacks, but you're the ones with the cruise missiles so maybe you should be less sensitive to mere words? If you go to war without the American people, you deserve to reap their anger and the criticism that comes with it. Neil

- purcellneil

March 22, 2011 at 8:09pm

Sullivan's post isn't an ad hominem attack. If he just blindly accused JC of beinga a liar or a stooge that would be ad hominem. Instead, he's saying the position that JC holds, and the position that TNR loudly proclaims, hasn't worked in the past and won't work in the future. It's not you - it's your position (though I do agree with your position).

- NR851651

March 22, 2011 at 8:14pm

No, 'libref', I put "moral" in quotes because I was talking about "moral", the concept, not morality or true moral action. I'm trying to draw a distinction there, between the concept being talked about and the real thing, because I keep reading what people talk about, and to me it doesn't match the real thing. Thus the quotes. It would be nice if what people talked about DID match the real thing -- but I don't know any other way besides quotes to separate the two concepts to explore the mis-match, if any. Now, you say: "I am someone who is for human rights across the board." Were this true, I would approve. However, if you advocate attacking Libya because of some perceived human rights catastrophe that MIGHT occur, you may be CREATING a human rights catastrophe by your actions. Yet your advocacy remains entirely ignorant of the possibility, or you couldn't be so absolute about your position. Thus, by using a moral argument to influence policy, to implement what could be an immoral act, you yourself are guilty of immorality. To me, it's a MUCH better approach to NOT appeal to morality, NOT accuse others of immorality, NOT be so certain that you have 100% of the truth, but instead appeal to the facts and possibilities of the case. As I said, appeals to morality just muddy the water, and make working out reasonable responses much more difficult.

- AllanL5

March 22, 2011 at 9:26pm

Wow. The New Yawk social worker, who set on me three years ago for absolutely no good reason at all is now counseling me to ceases personal attacks. Life is grand, innit? And further: There is a certain person who has sworn at people for years out here, and who calls people morons, but does Ms. NY ever call him down? If so, I certainly haven't seen it. I poke gentle fun often, I don't rant and rave and rage. So the outrage is highly selective. I suspect that the genesis of this gem today is my comment on her remarks about a certain preschool over on another thread here at TNR.

- liberalref

March 22, 2011 at 9:29pm

So that really clears it up. There is the concept "moral" and then there is true morality. You are quite the sub-basement Platonist, A. And "true morality" as defined by whom, yourself? But of course. Next off, I am not in any way absolute about my position on the Libyan intervention. I have written here at TNR more than once that I was initially against the no-fly zone and then I evolved into taking a position cautiously in support of it. Can you not even read? And the fruitsies here want me to make nice with such dipstickery. Please. Tell it to Henry Louis Mencken. Lastly and yet again, what are you isolationist hordes doing prancing around at a Wilsonian idealistic publication? Because there are no fora for you to sound off at The Nation and Mother Jones, perhaps?

- liberalref

March 22, 2011 at 9:40pm

"I have written here at TNR more than once that I was initially against the no-fly zone and then I evolved into taking a position cautiously in support of it. Can you not even read?" A very fair point, lib ref. So was I, and so did I, almost exactly as you did. But somehow, despite that, you woke up one morning and decided without reason to attack me. Why? Perhaps if you could control your own odd urges, people might read you more closely. Is that a reasonable option?

- ironyroad

March 23, 2011 at 12:37am

Odd urges? Really? Satire, lampooning, the like. I have never once sworn at anyone or used the term "moron," which has been flying around here with some frequency lately. I have never once seen you condemn such posters. So pardon my suspicion that you are in any way consistent or sincere. And you blame me for an inferior reader's misreading. Typical.

- liberalref

March 23, 2011 at 3:14am

W Bombay - once again you prove there's a reason we consider you the site comedian. Thanks, as always, for the laugh. As for the rest, how about we ALL try a little harder to cease the personal attacks, ok?

- Tristan

March 23, 2011 at 8:35am

To all of those who are in favor of more intervention in countries like Libya, I have a question: you "support" intervention there, but do you really in the truest sense? Do you have "skin" in the game, such as your own ass on the line to fight or your own children or a spouse in the service? My guess is a thundering "no". Listening to this debate is rather humorous in a way; several supposed intellectuals here, who don't have a thing to lose, can easily argue whether to put someone else's child in danger. If you're so for more military intervention abroad, I suggest you volunteer yourself and really make a difference beyond posting in a low-circulation opinion journal blog. My father, who wasn't formally educated past the 12th grade but a hell of a lot wiser than many of the supposedly learned posters here, told me years ago the dumbest thing the US did was suspend the draft (he was drafted himself in the 50s). He said having rich and poor alike in the military would prevent idiotic adventures abroad since the rich boys now would get their asses shot off with the poor kids.

- tmmats

March 23, 2011 at 9:04am

You mean the "side of" not the "side if", I believe.

- caseykap

March 23, 2011 at 9:28am

tmmats, I think you have a good point and that would end the discussion on going to war since not many people actually participate in the wars they are for or against and, honestly, I don't know if that's a bad thing. After reading your comment, I really thought about it, and a military intervention is not what I am actually for. I would just like to see us helping the Libyan people to gain their freedom but I should know better because our corporately controlled government can no longer handle a task that involves genuine humanitarian support. However, I wouldn't assume that there aren't people that would fight for the Libyan people and to assume that all those in favor of intervention wouldn't go or be proud of their kids for going might be too much of a blanket assumption. While I think (hard to say since I'm pretty far removed from it) that I would be willing to fight for the Libyan people, I don't think I would be willing to do it with our government in the lead so I stand corrected for expecting someone else to do it. Thanks for the much needed admonishment on what war really means to those that are in it.

- tgatz85

March 23, 2011 at 9:36am

There has to be some kind of accountability for people whose judgements not only proved to be spectacularly wrong but contributed to many unnecessary deaths, maimed combatants, and/or a weakening of our country. I am not suggesting a gag order or any threat to First Amendment rights. If I am considering buying a stock recommended by an "expert", I'd like to know that person's track record for picking stocks. Thus, for example, when I read that Paul Wolfowitz is recommending a US military response leading to regime change in Libya, it would be fair to point out that most of his judgements in Iraq led to disastrous results. Is this ad hominem? Of course, but I believe one's reputation for sagacity, myopia, or mendacity is fair game, not for verbal abuse but surely for scrutiny.

- JackR

March 23, 2011 at 10:08am

@ tnmats: "He said having rich and poor alike in the military would prevent idiotic adventures abroad since the rich boys now would get their asses shot off with the poor kids." Your father is indeed wise beyond what you shared about his formal education. Just imagine what the American public would demand - DEMAND - from our leaders if we maintained a draft.... a compelling reason why country X respresents a clear and present danger to the security of the united states. Clearly defined goals that present unambiguous, objective, measurable results-based strategy and a realistic strategy for achieving those goals. A plan for post-confict reorganization. An exit strategy. You can't provide all these tings, you don't get to go fight. Woudn;'t that be a nice change?

- Tristan

March 23, 2011 at 11:20am

It is a curious thing, Tris, that the subject of personal attacks comes up when I appear, but I have never sworn at anyone and I have never used the term "moron", which surfaced yet again repeatedly this last weekend from someone who probably is the most abusive poster here. I have never seen you take that person down. Are you afraid of him, or is it just because your politics are closer to his? I love the one-sidedness of so many out here; it is just like in real life. Tn, your comment about skin and Libya is so sophomoric as to be beyond belief. Franklin Roosevelt had three sons and they all saw action in WWII, but what if he had had only daughters, or no children at all? Would that have been a good reason for why we all might be speaking German now?

- liberalref

March 23, 2011 at 11:21am

lib: I don't think tmmats is saying that we can't go to war, just that there are a lot of pro-war types that shout about getting into a particular war but wouldn't participate themselves. If someone believes enough in a war to be ok with either going themselves or sending their children then that really does add a lot of weight to that belief and its something we should all consider before jumping on the pro-war bandwagon.

- tgatz85

March 23, 2011 at 12:04pm

Lib ref, I am not condoning anyone calling anyone else a moron. There are, however, other ways in which a poster can reveal his or her less edifying sides.

- ironyroad

March 23, 2011 at 4:07pm