Explaining Our Frustration
Posted by
tgirsch
Publius does an excellent job. Here are some excerpts:
One reason for the anger is that this war, from the very beginning, has been based on mistaken premises. It’s one thing to have substantive disagreements about agreed-upon facts (e.g., whether tax redistribution rates are too high/low). It’s quite another to disagree about basic facts, and then base policy on that set of mistaken facts. But that’s what we have. (For now, I’m not talking about the wisdom of war — a debate which involves subjective preferences. I’m talking about basic facts. Facts that can be checked, proven, and verified.)
This administration — and many supporters — have from the beginning used facts that are simply wrong. More than wrong — demonstrably inaccurate. Maybe these people were honestly mistaken. Maybe they flat-out lied. (Some of both, I’d say). But regardless, the factual premises underlying the war — and the occupation — have proven mistaken time and time again. Many war supporters, however, simply ignore these inaccuracies. What’s more, these people continue to base their current arguments (including vitriolic nationalist ones like “defeatist”) on the basis of open and obvious factual inaccuracies. (To their credit though, many former supporters have not ignored it and have changed their views — see, e.g., Andrew Sullivan).
…snip…
This is maddening, but it’s one part of the long history of factual inaccuracies that have provided the foundation of both the war and current war supporters’ arguments. These inaccuracies are what makes “us” so angry — we feel we have been dealing for almost five years with arguments that are (at best) factually inaccurate or (at worst) consciously dishonest.
…snip…
[Y]ou simply can’t — in a democracy — have a meaningful debate or make an informed decision if you’re using the wrong facts. Same deal with our policymakers. It’s a sad day when we must hope Bush and McCain are lying because otherwise they are implementing war plans on the basis of gross factual errors (or fantasies).
Read the whole thing.
I don’t disagree. But the other side disregards facts just as readily.
Comment 7/18/2007
I don’t disagree
That has to qualify for some kind of “passive voice” award.
But the other side disregards facts just as readily.
Thank you, Mr. Broder. But seriously: Not on this issue, they don’t. This isn’t to say that no prominent war opponent has ever ignored some salient fact; just that the war supporters, every step of the way, have been orders of magnitude worse. (cf., my previous analogy about speeding and murder both being technically “crimes”)
Comment 7/18/2007
Yes, on this issue. Your average war supporter says ‘it’s about the larger war on terror.’ that’s kinda true but mostly not.
You average anti-war person says ‘it’s not about the war on terror at all.’ Which is also kinda true but mostly not.
Comment 7/19/2007
Uncle:
Even granting your two statements (which I don’t), they cannot be simultaneously true. If the first statement is “kinda true than mostly not,” then its converse must be “mostly true but kinda not.” Which again leaves us with a large difference of degree.
Getting to the statements themselves, Iraq had almost nothing to do with international terrorism, and absolutely nothing to do with anti-US terrorism, until after we deposed Saddam Hussein. So unless you broaded the definition of “the terror war” to include absolutely every Middle Eastern nation, plus several in the South Pacific and Northern Ireland, Iraq is not and has never been “part of the larger terror war.” It puzzles me that you still haven’t figured this out after all these years.
The idea that attacking Iraq would have any adverse impact on our principal terror enemy, al Qaeda, is demonstrably false, and was as much so in 2002 as it is today. This is not a simple difference of opinion, but cold hard fact.
Comment 7/19/2007
My statements are not converse. try again.
“Iraq had almost nothing to do with international terrorism”
See? That is false. Hussein was sending funds to palestinian bombers and paying off their families. Which is kinda where most terrorism happened at the time.
“The idea that attacking Iraq would have any adverse impact on our principal terror enemy, al Qaeda, is demonstrably false,”
That is hogwash. If you had said, say, ’significant’ as opposed to ‘any’ you have a valid point.
Comment 7/19/2007
ETA: I should clarify that what I meant to say above: Your average war supporter would say ‘it’s entirely about the larger war on terror’.
Because I went back and read what I wrote as opposed to what I meant and they weren’t the same thing. Damn fingers are faster than brain.
Comment 7/19/2007
While I concede that your two statements are not exactly the converse of each other, I stand by my assessment of their relative truth or falsity.
Regarding Hussein’s support of Palestinian bombers, in what way does that make him any different than, say, the House of Saud, or Pakistan, or any number of other Middle-Eastern Countries? See, that’s why I had that “unless you broaden the definition” clause in there. And in any case, citing that is totally disingenuous, because at the time this war was sold, that’s clearly not the type of terrorism that anyone here cared about (and, for the most part, it still isn’t). Seriously, tell the world that we’re going to war to protect Israel from international terror, and see how well that goes over. Attacks against the US and Western Europe bother us. Attacks in Israel, for better or for worse, we as a nation are used to.
And on Iraq and al-Qaeda, dude, seriously. You’ve got the blinders on so bad on this one, I have no idea where to begin. In exactly what way has our invasion of Iraq tangibly weakened al-Qaeda, even a little bit. Seriously, how so? And if you try to feed me that tired old flypaper bullshit, I swear I’m going to send you to bed without your supper!
It’s clear to anyone who looks with an objective eye that our actions in Iraq have helped al-Qaeda a lot more than they’ve hurt ‘em.
Comment 7/19/2007
“the House of Saud, or Pakistan, or any number of other Middle-Eastern Countries?”
I’m waving to the goal posts. They just walked by.
“In exactly what way has our invasion of Iraq tangibly weakened al-Qaeda, even a little bit”
First, they were substantially weakened when we hit Afghanistan. Second, they were weakened when we started taking their money. So, al q really had no ‘tangibles’ to begin with. They are currently being weakened in Iraq because they keep going there and they keep losing. The alleged flypaper theory is more of a flypaper afterthought, imo.
Al Q was always a loose nit organization and always, well, weak.
And it depends on how you define weak. It has, I think, weakened their ability to hit targets outside of the middle east and obtain support/materials/funds. It has, however, strengthened them some because I think their recruitment is up.
Comment 7/19/2007
First, they were substantially weakened when we hit Afghanistan. Second, they were weakened when we started taking their money.
You gripe about moving goal posts, and then you come up with that crap? Sheesh!
They are currently being weakened in Iraq because they keep going there and they keep losing.
I suggest you go back and re-read the original post I linked, and remind yourself of the original point about parroting bullshit that’s demonstrably false. To this day, the vast majority of the fighting that goes on in Iraq is done among various factions of Iraqis, including a domestic group that calls itself “al-Qaeda in Iraq” but is not, in fact, al Qaeda.
It has, I think, weakened their ability to hit targets outside of the middle east and obtain support/materials/funds.
Here, at least, we’re working with a simply difference of opinion rather than a difference in foundational facts. I’m not aware of any evidence that anything we’ve done in Iraq has reduced al Qaeda’s ability to do anything at all. Some of the actions we’ve taken may have done this, but they’re of the sort you pointed out above — freezing of assets, attacking camps in Afghanistan, etc.
Our actions in Iraq have indeed helped al Qaeda recruit, and this is a big part of why I argue that even if we have managed to accidentally do some harm to them by attacking Iraq, we’ve helped them far more than we’ve hurt them.
Comment 7/19/2007
“You gripe about moving goal posts, and then you come up with that crap? Sheesh!”
that was part of the larger point i was getting at.
Comment 7/19/2007
I haven’t seen any documentation that Saddam sent money to Palestinian bombers…to their families after the fact, yes.
“In exactly what way has our invasion of Iraq tangibly weakened al-Qaeda, even a little bit”
Uncle’s Reply - First, they were substantially weakened when we hit Afghanistan. Second, they were weakened when we started taking their money. So, al q really had no ‘tangibles’ to begin with. They are currently being weakened in Iraq because they keep going there and they keep losing.
Nice of you to include something at the end that had anything to do with Iraq…weak, but something. Have the nation’s sacrifices there been worthwhile? I don’t see how you can argue they have.
Comment 7/20/2007
Just out of curiosity, is there demonstrable evidence that Al Qaeda is getting stronger? Granted there are alot of fighters moving into Iraq, but if Iraq is mostly non-al Qaeda, then I do not see how this has helped them.
Based on field reports, Al Qaeda is getting smacked around pretty good in Afghanistan and just recently the head of the group was on Al Jazeera TV begging for donations as they are running low on money.
Please provide evidence to prove al Qaeda is growing stronger as an organization.
Comment 7/20/2007
Big U:
Please provide evidence to prove al Qaeda is growing stronger as an organization.
It’s not difficult. Start here. Then continue here. These were two of the top ten links from a Google news search on “al Qaeda.” The others were mostly other versions of these same two stories.
And mind you, these stories aren’t about talking heads offering opinions — they’re about intelligence professionals and the US’ own National Intelligence Estimate, the latter of which is of questionable objectivity. (Based on this administration’s history, they’re likely to downplay the failures and play up the successes. In other words, it’s likely to be overly optimistic.)
Comment 7/20/2007