Why is it so hard to discuss the substance of this war debate?
E.J. Dionne has a column in today's Washington Post that reflects everything that is wrong with this Iraq war debate, right now, and what is wrong with too much democratic politics.
See you in September
E.J., in so many of his columns, these days, does not seem interested, at all, in the merits of the Iraq war debate. What good it's done or not. Whether the surge has been effective or not. What we must do to better guarantee a more peaceful, democratic future for Iraq or not.
E.J. has decided. Decided based on what line of reasoning other than the war was a mistake and is lost I have not seen. And for neither of these positions has he offered a thorough, empirical argument, nevertheless a slam-dunk that would warrant abandoning an imperfect but still largely noble cause of liberating the Iraqi people and helping with the security situation substantially enough so that a democratic government can take over both governing and security.
Frederick Kagan has offered a thorough empirical argument. He has a sound justification for the surge - a material and psychological boost for both American and Iraqi soldiers to demonstrate good faith in the American commitment to secure Baghdad and as much of Iraq, as possible, while Iraqi political representatives hash out details of a political resolution/negotiation and while Iraqi soldiers prepare, until they are thoroughly prepared, to take over security operations for their country. Though it is not a popular idea, right now, Kagan's is the most thorough empirical argument I have yet to read about the war, our next steps, and why we should continue. I say this as someone who opposed the war, up front, and who has had serious problems with how the war has been engaged, throughout. And I am an independent who grew up as a liberal, and a peace activist, at that. So I have no axes to gore, here. Kagan just happened to make the best case. And it's not something that any of the President's critics have been able to touch, yet, that I've seen.
E.J., on the other hand, is counting on the popular winds to buttress his argument. Those are the same popular winds that he decries as unintelligible when they do not support his thoughts, as all politicians and political thinkers do, of course. And all serious political thinkers, E.J. included, know what a weak, unsubstantial, and unsustainable position that is to argue, "The majority of people agree with me, so I must be right." That is the same majority, by the way, that were heavily in favor - so much so that it was very difficult to dissent - of this war, at the outset.
What bothers me about E.J.'s argument is not that I disagree with him. I'm not a big fan of any argument, whether I agree or not, which lacks more substance to it.
What bothers me about E.J.'s argument and his column today and for quite a while, now, is how skittish E.J. seems to be about engaging the substantial debate about what to do to best secure Iraq while political negotiations are being hashed out and how sure E.J. always is that he is right and that people who disagree with him are wrong without a serious engagement of the debate.
E.J. is convinced that the war was a mistake and that it is lost. It's not a terribly involved line of thought. It also happens to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we are convinced that the war is lost or a fundamentally unamenable mistake, then we abandon it and it clearly is lost and was a mistake. But if the war was mistakenly engaged - without nearly enough debate and discussion about how it might be done and engagement with Iraqis who needed to be consulted if not have a leadership role; something that E.J. and I would probably find a lot of agreement about - but is still noble and winnable, then E.J.'s got more a case to make than I've read from him, thusfar. I read him fairly regularly, so if I'm missing a more thorough argument he's made, then I'm willing to read whatever argument that I might have missed.
E.J. happens to be wrong on the substance, I think. The war is not lost. There is still much that Americans can and which the Maliki government has still indicated that they want us to do. There is a very legitimate debate about respecting the wishes of a parliamentary vote to have Americans withdraw troops. But that is still a debate that needs engagement since the Prime Minister and the ruling party has made clear that they do not want the Americans to leave until they are ready.
But E.J. being wrong, in my view, is not what is bothering me. What is bothering me is how having the popular winds at your back seems to make people intellectually lazy thinking they don't still have a case to make or a debate to engage. At what point ever in the history of democracy has the popularity of a position made it the right thing to do? Never, is the truth. Either a popular position lines up with the right or better call or it doesn't. In this case, it doesn't, I don't think. At least not until the Iraqi people - who did not ask for this war and who are trying to handle the security nightmare it has created in the meantime - say that it does. I will listen to the Iraqis independent of the merits of whether American help might still be needed or not because it is, much more fundamentally, their country and not mine.
But E.J. is an American. He can say that he doesn't want to help anymore, which is a fine opinion but not more relevant than doing the right or better thing, here. But unless he has a substantial case for why the war is lost or our presence is counterproductive or the security threat is handled or would be better handled by the Iraqis without an American presence or support or something along those lines, he just has an opinion. It's not an argument.
And that's what's bugging me about this Iraq war debate. How so many partisans have become so polarized and self-righteous, conservative, liberal, independent, and otherwise, that they don't seem to think that they need to engage the debate or the serious discussion, anymore, except to horserace or to count votes or power rather than have the more serious policy discussion on its merits.
I understand that a lot of people carry a lot of cynicism about our capacity to have such discussions and to get some substantial resolution in those discussions.
And that is what is fucking up American and democratic politics more than any other factor today.
That is why everyone is turning to force and politics, these days. Because they hope that it will fill the vacuum that their willingness to reason has abandoned. Except that it will not fill that vacuum. Nothing will fill that vacuum. Force and politics are no substitute for reason, which is why so many issues and problems go on unresolved in politics and life for so long. Because what they require is more reason and thought and brainstorming and engagement and discussion and debate and open-minded and open-hearted mature, responsible discussion, with lots of forgiveness when we fuck up so that we can move onto new and better options more readily rather than remaining lost in our senseless and unconstructive bitterness and recrimination.
We want better policies? We are going to have to debate and discuss them on their merits. And then when ideas don't work out the way we'd like them to, we're going to need lots of forgiveness and forward vision both so we can brainstorm and discuss and debate new and better ideas to move us forward and so that we don't have a lot of folks walking around saying, "I know I was right. I'm sure I was right," even when all the signs and the empirical discussion leads us to the conclusion are that they were likely wrong.
I've got much more to say about this but I've got pasta, corn, and mushrooms cooking and Melissa needs to get on the computer.
Love,
Ben
