Until ABC News repudiates what they so smugly wrote in "The Note" back in February, I'll be taking their claims of impartiality when it comes to the war in Iraq with a whole shaker of salt. Then again, at least ABC had the dignity to be up-front about it ...

In this story, Harnden encountered a woman who was more concerned about being proven right than she was about the lives of others.

I assure you, she isn't alone. There are plenty of men and women out there who are just as offensive in their desire to be right. Think back on all the arguments you've ever had with a person who refuses to be proven wrong - I'm sure you can remember quite a few.

I'm surprised Harnden had to go all the way to Iraq to meet somebody like that. In my experience, there are snide, mean-spirited people who demand to be proven right in every office in the world.

As for what it means that he met a snide, mean-spirited person, well... I don't know if you can draw any conclusion other than just "there are plenty of 'em out there." The idea that liberal reporters are the only mean-spirited people is pretty silly.

I agree. The problem is that all of those other people don't squeal like pigs at the mere question that this type of worldview might influence their news coverage.

Dan: I guess the question is, what do you want us to "squeal" about? Do you want us to condemn her for her spoken words, or for her written words?

If the former, I'm afraid there's not much we can do about it. We still don't know her name.

If the latter, well, she probably hasn't expressed herself in that manner in her writing. More likely, she's simply writing that the occupation is going badly. I can't condemn articles that point out the occupation is going badly - I believe such articles to be factually correct.

And I believe such articles to be incorrect.

Careful with the spin velocity, Josh. We don't want you hurling all over the new furniture.

This goes a bit beyond being "more concerned about being proven right," just as it goes beyond her self-descibed stance as "a little bit of an isolationist."

Both characterizaions are simply insuling to the intelligence of the listener.

As a reporter, this woman - and the editors and staff she describes back home - have professional responsibilities. Not to mention civic responsibilities. By attempting to remove these from discussion, you have the effect of removing the issue of bias in the media from the table.

I assume this was and is your deliberate intention. I don't expect our readers to buy it.

This is not 'normal' behaviour (common, perhaps, but not 'normal') and it is not excusable, any more than abusing prisoners is 'normal' or excusable. The main difference between a thoughtful commentator and a partisan hack is their acknowledgement of this truth.

The mindset of many on the liberal left, who seem to see foreign policy as interesting only to the extent that failure abroad might help them win an election at home, is an issue. I intend to keep raising it here, as incidents come in.

I predicted the current fiasco and am sick about it and fear for my country. Attacking those who may or may not be glad at an American strategic mistake does not change the analysis of the mistake. If my analysis holds things are going to get much worse for a long time.

> This is not 'normal' behaviour (common, perhaps, but not 'normal')

My argument depends on it being common, not normal.

You presented an anecdote: a man who met a liberal journalist with racist tendencies and a mean-spirited attitude. From this, you are clearly drawing some conclusions about liberal journalists in general.

Some people would say that reasoning from anecdotal data is always wrong. I would disagree: there is one case where anecdotal evidence can be useful.

Suppose that there are two sets of people which are very small: for instance, "nobel prize winning physicists," and "ukranian midgets." The populations are both so small that you wouldn't expect much accidental overlap. So if you were to run into a nobel-prize winning ukranian midget physicist, and then another, and then a third, you might start to posit the existence of a causal relationship - maybe a university in the Ukraine with a really good midget professor who's inspiring all his midget students. This is the case where anecdotal evidence is useful: when the populations are too small to expect coincidental overlap.

By contrast, anecdotal evidence doesn't hold water if the populations are large. Consider two large groups: "women," and "liberals." If you met a female liberal, and then a second, and then a third, you wouldn't really be able to posit the existence of a causal relationship.

However, in your anecdote, you noticed a single overlap between two populations: "credentialed liberal journalists", and "mean-spirited racist bastards." From this, you concluded the existence of a meaningful relationship between the two. However, anecdotal evidence is only statistically relevant when the populations are small. The set of highly-credentialed liberal journalists is, indeed, quite small. However, the set of mean-spirited people who value American lives over Iraqi is absolutely huge. If you find a point of overlap, or even three, it proves little.

Dan Darling's point was different: he wasn't arguing that a single anecdote proves something about a class. He was saying that we should condemn that one individual, and our failure to do so proves that we, too, are racists. His argument is closer to valid.

Josh:

My reference was to the media, not liberals in general. Many liberals I know, on and off-line, are very nice and reasonable people. If only I could say the same about many of the journalists I knew when I was briefly working at the Kansas City Star.

So Iraqi deaths are acceptable and American deaths are not.

What ever happened to liberal anti-racism? No doubt this liberal reporter hates the American empire's "racism" and ethnocentrism.

I need to ask a question: what's the purpose of this blog? Is it to serve as an amplifier for conservative points of view, or is it supposed to be a forum for discussing alternate points of view?

I would suggest that starting a discussion thread by calling any opposition "disloyal", and by backing it up with one anecdote, is pretty insulting. If your goal is to drive away anybody who has a different viewpoint, this is probably pretty effective.

There are a million ways to start a conversation about the role of media in making or breaking the case for war, and about whether or not journalists should be arguing for or against war. Starting with an insult doesn't serve to elevate the tone of the discussion.

I would suggest that the other hosts of this blog should step up to the plate and address whether or not this is what you wanted when you created this forum.

Josh;

I'm going with answer (a) Amp.

Given the vast array of opinions held by the WoC team, particularly with regard to domestic policies, I think you'd have a hard time boxing the lot of us into a single political ideology.

Or do you seriously believe that there is little or any difference of opinion among the various team members outside the conservative box?

Is it Barbara Ehrenreich?

Hey, I met someone on the street who said all liberals should die.

I think this says a lot about the right.

[see how this works?]

ASDF... if the person you met was a journalist who covered national political campaigns, and shared her opinion that her editors all felt the same way - then yeah, I think we'd have a problem here. For better symmetry still, imagine that the reporter in question then went on to talk about the fact that it would be different if the liberals were white instead of black.

Josh...

I would suggest that starting a discussion thread by calling any opposition "disloyal", and by backing it up with one anecdote, is pretty insulting.

I would suggest that your ongoing attempt to downplay this and spin it away is more insulting still.

What's very clear from this anecdote is that at least some members of the opposition, in roles of public trust, do indeed fit the "disloyal" definition. The fact that we have seen similar patterns among, say, Howard Dean's Democratic base, and that one of the #1 complaints of soldiers in Iraq is media coverage that doesn't reflect the reality they know first hand, and that leftists and veteran reporters like Hitchens are also sounding the alarm on this indicates that we may have a real problem.

A problem for America, for journalism - and for liberals, too.

The fact that you want to pretend none of this matters is your problem, not ours. Indeed, the approach taken by Josh, VT, and ASDF is instructive all by itself.

It isn't "that's beyond appalling, it's an abuse of public trust and there's no excuse, I hope they fire her and anyone like her. We deserve better from our media, and journalists should be held to account. I do still think the war was a bad idea, and while this indicates a real and serious problem it doesn't change my larger views."

Many people who favoured the war took a similar approach with, for example, the Abu Ghraib abuses. That's a completely legit approach.

But no. What we get here in response to this story is whining that raising this issue by bringing the story forward and highlighting it as a potential problem is unfair. That it's really not such a big deal, just people doing what people do. That raising this issue through a concrete example that in and of itself extends beyond one person in a position of public trust is "insulting"

In short, minimize, spin, evade, deny. You want insulting? THAT'S insulting.

I'll tell you something else, too. If having to deal with stories like this from reputable media sources makes you not want to come here - the exit door is thataway. These issues are too damn important.

Here's the thing. We have a story writting by a reporter in a conservative newspaper, alleging that an anonymous liberal journalist is hoping we lose in Iraq so that Bush gets booted. Apparently, all her editors feel this way, too. What magazine is it? The Nation? The Weekly World News? The Daily Worker? Who knows? Not anyone who reads the Daily Telegraph.

It seems that the Bush administration is quite adept and managing the media when it comes to critical national security issues like whether or not John Kerry threw away his medals or ribbons thirty years ago. If there's a great message that isn't getting out, why are they failing?

The answer is that a lot of the great things our troops are doing -- painting schools and so forth -- are not as important, frankly, as getting the security situation right. And when the head of the governing council is assassinated on his way to work, that indicates there's a security problem. When a marginal and radical Shi'ite cleric can take over four cities, that indicates a security problem. When the United States is forced to raise troop levels, send tanks back to the theater, and relocate troops from South Korea, that indicates a security problem. We know that 5 of 18 of Iraq's districts are deemed too unsafe to hold elections. That indicates a security problem.

So let's get our priorities right and our message tailored accordingly, and then we can slam the media if they are getting it wrong.

It's not so much that the basis exists that bothers me. It's more that the reporter likely claims to be objective. Full disclosure please.

Did Judith Miller's NY Times pieces channeling Ahmad Chalabi's mendacious WMD claims (e.g., the mime show with the fake scientist pointing to where he had once worked on WMD) ever mention that she is a personal friend of Chalabi's? That she was especially enthusiastic about his promise of a pro-Israel Iraq? Just checking.

The Straw Man is one of the oldest tricks in the commentator's book. You decide you want to present an argument but, inconveniently, no example in reality can immediately be found. So you invent a straw man (or in this case, a straw woman) to make your point. It's a fancy way to dress up a lie, really.

Why didn't Tony Harnden have the guts to name this alleged prominent magazine journalist? It would've made his point a hundred times stronger and garnered the article reams of publicity; good for him and his publication all around. Or did he just make it up?

I suspect probably the latter. In the meantime, his straw man sure kicked up a lot of wind around here.

As an aside, I understand how painful it must be to come to grips with the fact that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld botched this Iraq debacle from the start, and have continued to pile blunder upon blunder ever since. America is our country; we want her to represent good and right. But tying the blinders down tight and denouncing those pointing out the facts is not especially patriotic and not at all good for America. It's one of the warning signs of denial.

I would venture to guess those of you taking potshots at Mr. Yelon are under 40 years of age, maybe under 30. Otherwise you'd remember what transpired in Vietnam. Yes, yes, you can dredge up innumerable differences between that forray and this one, but the big picture is frighteningly similar: We really dislike a particular government, to the point we decide to "save" its people and/or its neighbors from the obvious threat the government poses. So we go to war for peace and democracy and wind up disenfranchising the people we're supposedly out to save. More than 50,000 Americans died in Vietnam before Nixon & Kissinger finally swallowed their pride and ended the "Peace with Honor" crap. But how many Vietnamese died during those years? Funny, we didn't count the bodies of the population we were there to save.

Most of us who read up regularly know American deaths from the Iraqi mess are close to 800, but few know or seem to care that we've managed to kill off in the neighborhood of 10,000 Iraqis.

America is a great country, but America's leaders are not infallible. And the biggest mistake this country can make right now is to pretend they've been on the right track all along and encourage them to stay the course and somehow plow through the darkness to the end of the tunnel.

There is no light at the end of this tunnel. There is no peace with honor here. It's not going to wind up pretty and democratic. As with Vietnam, we're going to end up running for the boats and planes and looking like fools to the rest of the world (which is to say, not much different than we look right now). I'm not being a disloyal citizen; I'm a patriotic American. I base my observations on what I see and read each day, filtered through history. It is not disloyal to call an obvious quagmire a quagmire when you recognize it. It is not patriotic to see a quagmire, toss rose pedals on top, and call it solid ground.

The only question left is, how many more American soldiers and Iraqi civilians must die before Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld (or John Kerry and his people) concede that Peace with Honor is illusory and turn their attention to making the most pragmatic exit possible?

Cats and dogs together! Andrew J. Lazarus (2:23pm) steps forward to support Joe Katzman's position (4:06am). AJL, perhaps I'm being facetious, but I do take your comment as being in the same spirit as JK's.

Fatuousness and mendaciousness aren't a monopoly of 'one side;' we all know that in principal, and when you (or Jack Schafer of Slate.com) calls an errant reporter out, with links and supporting evidence--that's a good thing.

That hardly negates JK's perception that the attitudes that Harnden describes are a widespread feature of 'mainstream' reporting from the Mideast, Iraq in particular. Wretchard recently wrote another essay on this general phenomenon.

And you may be familiar with blogger Patterico's discussion of L.A. Times Editor John Carroll's speech on Pseudo-Journalism. Iraq isn't specifically covered there, but the content is germane to the points that Josh Yelon has raised in this thread.

UncleBob,

Do you intend to back up any of your assertions with an argument, or is that too much to ask? Should we just take your word for it that Iraq is "not going to end up pretty and democratic"?

Would you mind, terribly, outlining your credentials so we know that you are the expert you claim to be? I want to be able to say to my friends "Well, UncleBob said we've failed in Iraq, so it must be the case. I mean, UncleBob doesn't have to explain his position, because he's [the King of Spain or head of the Socialist Workers' Party or a Harvard Professor or whatever]".

I've seen this time and again: this arrogant refusal to offer arguments for a position is sadly far too common on the left. I blame leftist academics; they have chosen to propagandize rather than teach critical thinking skills to their students. The result is a group of ostensibly eduacated individuals who are unable to put together a smiple argument and who are unfamiliar with basic logic. We end up with ad hominems, logical fallacy, irrelevant statements, bare assertions, insults. It's boring, and it's one of the reasons that the left is losing the culture wars.

It's boring, and it's one of the reasons that the left is losing the culture wars.

Interesting. Seen the Boston Globe lately?

I'm on your side Mark, but as a former academic, it's hard for me to believe that the left is losing the culture war. Gays and lesbians are getting married in the People's Republic of Mass. Conservatives still have absolutely no shot at jobs in academia. We have the example of this post about the leftie media. "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance may be declared unconstitutional. I wish you were right about the left and the culture war. Then again, I'm a depressive pessimist by nature. Maybe you're right. I hope so.

I'm 52 years old and a former longtime newspaper reporter and editor. I grew up in Kent, Ohio. I'm a patriotic American. I don't claim to be an expert. I base my observations on what I see and read each day, filtered through history. If you choose to discount my opinion, you're certainly entitled.

I would love, however, to hear your arguments for the position that we are succeeding in Iraq. I'm sure they'll be enlightening.

Thank you for providing your credentials, UncleBob. I'm glad we agree that you are no expert. For the record, I don't think you need to be an "expert" to offer credible views on Iraq; it's not a field that requires expert opinion.

"If you choose to discount my opinion, you're certainly entitled." You didn't provide much of an opinion, UncleBob, you simply made a series of assertions. Telling us they're based in what you see & read, filtered through history adds nothing. What sort of opinion would not be based on experience and history? Kantian a priorism? Platonic ideals? Divine revelation?

"I would love, however, to hear your arguments for the position that we are succeeding in Iraq. I'm sure they'll be enlightening."

Another standard tactic: when asked by an opponent to argue for an assertion that you may not be able to substantiate, try to get your opponent to do your work for you by goading him to argue in the negative.

Do your own homework, UncleBob. Argue your point or retract your assertions.

asdf,

"The answer is that a lot of the great things our troops are doing -- painting schools and so forth -- are not as important, frankly, as getting the security situation right."

Is this really the case?

If democratization and human rights were two important justifications for the war, wouldn't the rebuilding of Iraq (rebuilt power stations, schools, hospitals, universities, etc), elections, town council meetings, trade union formations, growth of a free press, and the exercise of freedom of speech/religion/expression/thought, be as important as the security situation? Surely the creation & nuturing of freedoms and civil society in Iraq go towards proving Iraqi success as much as insecurity goes against it; surely this, too, is part of the larger narrative of post-war Iraq.

Preferring security to basic freedoms is not an arbitrary selection; it is ideological choice. It may be a justified choice, but it is still a choice made in view of certain intellectual commitments.

The selective press coverage by the old left media betrays not only a cultural (probably human) fixation with violence and chaos (for which they really can't be blamed), but also an ideological bias manifested by the anonymous reporter.

The best solution for this that I've heard (I forget where; was it here?) is to assign a number of reporters to cover the "rebuilding" beat; have them visit secondary cities to cover town council meetings, speak to the water engineers, electricians, shopkeepers, teachers, univiersity profs, etc. Do I expect this to happen? No.

Gee, Mark, it's big of you to allow us non-experts to express opinions. I guess I forgot you're the rule-maker around these parts. I guess that means you must have a bagful of credentials yourself. Um, you wouldn't want to share those, would you?

So I have to present points of argument that U.S. policy and strategy is failing in Iraq or "withdraw my assertions," huh? That's one way to turn a 9-paragraph blog comment into a full-blown foot-noted treatise. But, well, OK, I mean, it's your blog, right?

Where to begin, where to begin. Perhaps with the assertions that began the war? Weapons of Mass Destruction? I could assert that we haven't found any based on the fact that the administration hasn't been able to produce any to date. Would that constitute enough of an argument to suit you? I base my WMD opinion on a belief that men with better credentials than you or I, such as Robin Cook, are correct when they say no weapons of mass destruction have been or are likely to be found.

Well reasoned and well-supported arguments, not ad hominems, please. Good points on all sides, so plenty to focus on.

UncleBob, you've missed my point entirely. You began by making disputed claims ("we have failed in Iraq"). Then I mocked you for presumably claiming to have some expert status that allowed you to make assertions without bothering to make arguments (which I think is silly, given that you don't need to be an expert on Iraq to hold a credible opinion). I did this so that you would set fingers to keyboard and make an argument, with which I, or anyone else, could possibly engage.

This is not my blog. I enjoy coming here because, for the most part, posters are interesting and intelligent and - this is crucial - they make arguments when they post. That way, if I disagree, I can counter-argue, and things move forward that way. It can be quite fun; you should try it.

You're free to express any opinion you like (something Iraqis also now enjoy for the first time in memory, thanks to the sacrifice of many people, I might add). But if you make a bunch of highly contentious assertions and then refuse to justify them in an argument, expect to get called on it.

I don't accept that the argument "we haven't or won't find any WMDs because Robin Cook said so" is valid. It's another argument by appeal to authority. The Pope, Nelson Mandella, every actor in Hollywood, and France were against the war, and I didn't agree with them, so what makes you think I'll accept Robin Cook's authority? I don't give a rat's *ss about the identity of the person making an argument; I don't care about credentials or titles or pedigree; I am concerned only with the argument itself. See how that works?

In any case, what do WMDs have to do with the "failure" to rebuild Iraq?

(Sorry for the duplication; I'm taking care of my infant daughter while trying to write, and accidentally pushed "post" instead of "preview." The post in its entirety is below.)

Gee, Mark, it's big of you to allow us non-experts to express opinions. I guess I forgot you're the rule-maker around these parts. I guess that means you must have a bagful of credentials yourself. Um, you wouldn't want to share those, would you?

So I have to present points of argument that U.S. policy and strategy is failing in Iraq or "withdraw my assertions," huh? That's one way to turn a 9-paragraph blog comment into a full-blown foot-noted treatise. But, well, OK, I mean, it's your blog, right?

Where to begin, where to begin. Perhaps with the assertions that began the war? Weapons of Mass Destruction? I could assert that we haven't found any based on the fact that the administration hasn't been able to produce any to date. Would that constitute enough of an argument to suit you?

I base my WMD opinion in part on a belief that men with better credentials than you or I, such as Robin Cook, are correct when they say no weapons of mass destruction have been or are likely to be found. I also suspect that Joseph C. Wilson IV was correct and Bush & Co. was incorrect insofar as African uranium was concerned, never mind the investigation of the Wilson aftermath.

Another facet of the assertion that Bush & Co. has failed in Iraq has to do with the concept of a pre-emptive war. If a country has not attacked us or our citizens or our allies, how is it morally defensible to go to war against them? Do I need to cite Jesus Christ or international law, Mark, in order for this assertion to be able to make the transition to full-blown argument?

As for the reason to start the war, now that WMD has pretty well been ruled out, war supporters have become more fond of arguing that Saddam Hussein's brutality had to be stopped. This is not supported by international law, not to mention that at least equally brutal regimes have been left to fester by the U.S. unmolested, in Africa and Southeast Asia, for instance.

As for the war itself, if the administration's strategy to secure the country with 135,000 troops was successful, why has the death toll remained consistent a year after Bush declared "Mission accomplished"? Why are we now preparing to move 4,000 troops from South Korea? I assert it's because Rumsfeld either had a change of heart or was ordered to find more manpower. And how much more suitable politically to move troops from Korea than start up the draft before the elections?

Mark, I could provide a hundred or more links to bombings in Iraq, including the one a couple of days ago that took the life of the head of the governing council, all of which I would assemble as an argument that the U.S. military has little or no control over the streets of Iraq. Do you find it necessary that I dredge up those actual links or will you concede that such bombings have occurred?

There are quotes from the Iraqis themselves, which I use to bolster the argument that Iraqis have little or no faith in our efforts to better their situation:

"There's no question: A small band of people can paralyze the country," said Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish member of the council. "They are armed and organized and this is the difficulty. The people who did this have no respect for anything of value. It's a real danger to Iraq, the Iraqis and to an agenda to achieve any kind of democracy."

"..."Just look around," said Bakran Ohan, who sells baby clothes. "Do you see any police? Any soldiers? There is a complete lack of security. It won't change from day to night on June 30."

Or

"They let out around 300+ prisoners today while that sadistic fiend Rumsfeld was in town. Apparently, setting 300 prisoners free of the thousands currently detained is supposed to mollify Iraqis- quite like Bush's lame half-apology to King Abdallah of Jordan. What is King Abdallah to us? What does it matter if Bush gets down and begs him for forgiveness? What in God's name does he represent to the Iraqi people?"

Then, of course, there's the matter of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse. I argue that it is a sign of our moral failing in Iraq and I cite Seymour Hersh's latest report to bolster the argument:

"The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq," reports Hersh for The New Yorker. "Rumsfeld’s decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America’s prospects in the war on terror."

There are so many failure points, and only so much time in a day. Let me summarize, Mark. I argue that a pre-emptive war is morally indefensible to begin with.

I argue that the ostensible reason we began this morally indefensible war was the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction, which turned out not to exist.

I argue that the Bush administration's pre-war hype reached such proportions that it amounted to lying to Congress and the public.

I argue that our incursion into Iraq has allowed a more threatening regime in North Korea to grow stronger and more dangerous.

I argue that our military strategists planned exceedingly poorly for the aftermath of the initial phase of the incursion. Our numbers were (and remain) far to small to secure the country or even its major cities. Oil exports that were supposed to pay much of the cost of our war have failed to materialize.

I argue that there was no legal basis for the creation of the provisional authority Paul Bremer now represents, and it is unclear who or what has control over that authority.

I argue that our military and political strategists have planned exceedingly poorly for the turnover of government to the Iraqis. President Bush was unable the other day at his TV press conference to name or define what body we are turning the keys of Iraq over to.

I argue that events of the past couple of days illustrate a continuing inability to provide sufficient security for an Iraqi-led government to function, let alone one set up by the United States more in name than anything, as authority for most serious matters still will lie in Bremer's hands.

I argue that what has transpired thus far, and what I assert is likely to happen over the course of the next six months, is not worth even one of the 780 or so American deaths or the 9,000 to 11,000 Iraqi deaths that have occurred as a result of our pre-emptive strike against WMD that didn't exist.

I assert that the above arguments strongly support my opinion that the Bush administration has failed in Iraq.

Mark, (fyi and not meant to be overly critical) your statement "You're free to express any opinion you like (something Iraqis also now enjoy for the first time in memory, thanks to the sacrifice of many people, I might add)." is a disputed assertion.

Fact: "BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The U.S.-led coalition on Sunday shut down a weekly newspaper run by followers of a hardline Shiite Muslim cleric, saying its articles were increasing the threat of violence against occupation forces." This, which happened in March, isn't the first paper Bremer has had shut down.

Iraqis are free to express any opinion they choose, as long as it doesn't offend the coalition.

Also, Mark, and not to belabor the point, but I really was not trying to pull some slick debate tactic in asking to hear your arguments to support an assertion that the U.S. is succeeding in Iraq.

It just seems to me to be so blatantly obvious we've failed miserably on all counts in Iraq that I never imagined saying so amounted to a disputed assertion.

And I have great difficulty imagining how anything we're now doing in Iraq could be considered a success. I am genuinely curious how one could draw that conclusion.

Anyhow, I do enjoy the give and take of debate. Please forgive me if I'm somewhat rusty at it.

UncleBob,

There is a difference between opinions that offend the coalition (allowed) and inflamatory remarks that incite violence (not allowed). Even in America, free speech is not absolute, yelling fire in theatres, slander, and suchlike.

As for WMD, your assertion that they haven't been and won't be found is premature, especially considering the sarin and mustard gas IEDs that were discovered in the last couple of days.

As for preemption, Saddam probably did have WMDs, but even if he didn't in 03, he certainly would have as soon as sanctions against Iraq were lifted, which the French and Russians were diligently working toward. He may not have had any direct connection with 911, but there is convincing evidence (see many of Dan Darling's posts and links) that he did have contact with Al Quaeda. Even if he had no direct links to Al Quaeda, he absolutely undeniably supported terrorism. Given his desire and, in the absence of sanctions, ability to develop WMD if he didn't already have them and his support for terrorism, the pre-war justification for invasion makes big sense to me.

There's also another thing to consider. Osama bin Laden didn't attack us because he hated us. He did, but that's not why he attacked us. He attacked us because he wasn't afraid of us. And he wasn't afraid of us because we didn't turn Tehran into a parking lot in 79; we let Hezbollah chase us out of Lebanon in 83; we didn't take the Achille Lauro highjackers away from the Italians and kill them in 85; we got one guy for the 93 WTC bombing and we didn't even kill him; we let a bunch of thugs chase us out of Somalia in 93; after the African embassy bombings in 98, as our president put it, "we shot a $3 million missile into a $10 tent and hit a camel in the butt," and we didn't even do that much after the Cole bombing in 2000. People in that part of the world respect strength even if that strength is used to brutally oppress them. And they despise weakness even if that weakness stems from the noble intentions of Western liberals. That's why not cutting and running in Iraq is so vital. If we do that, the Arabs will be more convinced than ever that we are weak. And if that happens, we are going to long for the days when 911 was the worst that happened.

Fred,

We essentially cut and run in Afghanistan, leaving bin Laden, who attacked us, to chase Saddam in Iraq. Afghanistan is again mostly run by warlords. Where is the democracy and the citizens' rights we promsied the women there? Do you think the Arab world hasn't noticed that? And with our track record in Afghanistan, what makes you think we could do any better in Iraq?

UncleBob,

"I argue that what has transpired thus far, and what I assert is likely to happen over the course of the next six months, is not worth even one of the 780 or so American deaths or the 9,000 to 11,000 Iraqi deaths that have occurred as a result of our pre-emptive strike against WMD that didn't exist."

This is the source of our disagreement. Human freedom and dignity is worth fighting for; when one can fight for it, one should. If people before us felt otherwise, you and I would not enjoy the freedom to disagree on this forum.

Arguments for the justification of the Iraq war have been done to death on other threads here, and they, in my view, refute many of your arguments.

These threads can be found in the April comments Archives, under Autarky I and II, also under Guest Blog: Andrew Lazarus, part I and II, Apr. 7 Oil for Food or thereabouts. Reposting here would just take up space.

Re: failure in Iraq.

Various threads have also reviewed the "insecurity = failure" argument. See April comments Archives "A Question for the Doves".

The biggest problem for the "failure" crowd is to properly value the basic freedoms now enjoyed by Iraqis: freedom of speech, worship, thought, expression, conscience, the press. In addition, there is the increasing democratization (Iraqi municipal elections), growth of civil society (formation of unions, establishment of political parties), the rebuilding of school, hospitals, universities, power generators, water purification plants, oil facilities, etc.

Against all of this, you, of course, have to set the insecurity: bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, criminal violence. The prison scandal, weapon smuggling, terrorist violence.

Iraqi polls show that Iraqis may want sovereignty asap, but they also do not want the Coalition to leave until security is established. Also, polls show that the majority of Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone and are hopeful for the future. (I could source this or you could just google "Iraq poll"). Iraqi opinion is on the "war was worth it" side here.

I could counter your Riverbend quotes with quotes from iraqthemodel.com, roadofanation.com or healingiraq.com, but you can check with them for yourself: Iraqi weblog opinion is mostly consistent with majority Iraq opinion that the war was necessary to get rid of a genocidal monster and that the future looks brighter by comparison.

Pleae do not retort that I am arguing Iraq is going great. It's not. I am fully aware of the setbacks. I just don't believe we've "failed".

Uncle Bob,

Bush & Co have no more botched Iraq than Truman & Co. botched Europe. Both had problems. Both solved them.

You have been spending too much time watching Al Jazeera. Try reading some Iraqi bloggers.

Hell read the Zaquari memo. The thing the opposition fears most is a self governming Iraq. 30 June despite all the travails has not moved forward or back by even one day.

The "popular" uprising did not occur. Sadr in fact has had to deal with a minor popular revolt killing his own men. Fallujah is on hold for a political solution if one can be reached. If not......

I'd say they gave it their best shot. And lost. Like Tet we can only lose this one by losing our nerve. I was there in 1968 but only learned the real story in the 1980s. That is to say I was fooled. Two million died for my foolishness. Never again.

Which is exactly the point of this posting. We are being fooled by people whose agenda is the loss of the war by America. This is not the first time.

Bush in a landslide.

"I really was not trying to pull some slick debate tactic in asking to hear your arguments to support an assertion that the U.S. is succeeding in Iraq ...Anyhow, I do enjoy the give and take of debate. Please forgive me if I'm somewhat rusty at it."

No worries, UncleBob. I apologize for being a bit testy earlier.

I think Fred adequately addressed your "no free speech" claim.

Well said, M. Simon.

Mark, I now understand and appreciate where our disagreement lies. Thanks.

I believe you're absolutely right that "Human freedom and dignity is worth fighting for; when one can fight for it, one should."

The question is, what divine authority leaves it to the United States to determine which group of humans deserves (or is saddled with) or "help" in fighting for it?

Why were Afghanis' freedom and dignity not worth our continued support, especially with our real avowed enemy still skulking in the countryside? What was the rationale for us abandoning their quest for democracy in favor of Iraq?

And, why is Iraqi freedom and dignity worth fighting for, but not for Sudan, North Korea or any of at least a dozen other non-free countries?

By the way, M. Simon, I very much wish for a successful transition June 30. If we can help put some Iraqis into the saddle so they can ride their own horse, I reckon we'll be able to bring our soldiers home that much sooner. I wish for it very much; I just happen to think, given past performance, it's not likely.

UncleBob,

I don't agree that we've "cut and run" in Afghanistan. We've still got troops there, and they're still killing bad guys. I'll concede that Afghanistan isn't as stable as we'd like it, but what is your alternative? Massive numbers of troops in Afghanistan didn't help the British or Soviets much. All things considered, Afghanistan is probably going as well as can be expected.

Iraq is different. It has a much larger population, is at the heart of the Arab world, and is a major oil producer. A Talibanesque government there would have far more resources and be able to inflict far more damage than was the case in Afghanistan. It would, as one article I've read put it, be "Afghanistan on steroids."

UncleBob,

A couple of questions:
Are you saying that we must free everyone or no one at all?

Are we allowed to consider American interests with respect to who to free? And when?

Did you complain similarly about our interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo sans UN approval?

Lurker,

I'm asking, why did we stop short in Afghanistan, allow the warlords to come back and give up the hunt for bin Laden in favor of Saddam Hussein and Iraq?

And I'm asking, what are the proper moral and legal grounds for determining which groups of people on the globe deserve our help in achieving democracy?

And now, the LA Times is lying about the chemical round found in Iraq.

They write that BG Kimmit dated the round to the 1980s when he never said any such thing.

Blaster, would it be too much to ask how you know Gen. Kimmitt did not date the round to the 1980s? Were you at his news conference?

UncleBob,
As far as I know we are still engaged in Afghanistan, supporting more Democracy where we can and pursuing Bin Laden where we can. It sounds like you disagree with the implementation of this policy and NOT the policy itself. Is your concern here really about Afghanistan or is it more about Iraq?

Now your nest question....

Obviously, we are not all powerful. We can't help everyone every time. There are many grounds, both moral and legal, over which we could argue for or against a particular intervention. Fortunately, we won't have to.

You overlook a key point. Helping one group to freedom before another is an absolute good, in that at least some can live better lives. It is also an absolute necessity since we do not have the power to help everyone at once.

Your "why Iraq and not whoever" argument is not very helpful. It's logical conclusion when considering our finite power, is to help no one. Ever.

Is this really what you are trying to say?

UncleBob,

I think we might be getting somewhere.

"The question is, what divine authority leaves it to the United States to determine which group of humans deserves (or is saddled with) or "help" in fighting for it?"

I note that your question assumes that we must have authority, "divine authority" even, in order to make decisions about the freedom and dignity of other people. The argument you're suggesting is that: Authority is a necessary condition for making these political-moral decisions. The US does not have such authority. Therefore it should not make these decisions.

The assumption that one needs "divine" authority or absolute, complete certainty for moral conduct is an incorrect assumption. In my view, we're never going to have a philosophical or divine base from which to act. This shouldn't be the prerequisite for moral debate.

The problem with the original question, fundamentally, lies with an obscure view held by the academic left, and transmitted to students and to the broader culture. It concerns the academic left's misunderstanding of philosophical post-modernism. Most academics think that phil p.m. says "(1) There are no objective facts. Thus, (2) there are no objective moral facts. So (3) we cannot criticize other cultures/moral views/racial groups based on our own narrow ethics. Hence, (4) we should tolerate other cultures; we must tolerate intolerance." Such a view prevails in most left arts & humanities departments across North America. It is responsible for the intellectual cover given to arguments of alleged equivalency between Western conduct and terrorist conduct, and to the conflation of "terrorist" with "resistance member".

Except that the view is horribly flawed.

Phil p.m. does not claim (1). It simply destroys the traditonal metaphysical and epistemological system that makes it possible to claim that: (1a) there are such things as foundational, non-contingent facts. But this is crucial: phil p.m doesn't then set up another epistemological system to take its place. It is essentially anti-epistemological. (It's like invalidating the theory of gravity and not replacing it with anything.) So, because there is no new epistemology necessitated by a claim like "there are no facts", claim (1) is subject to the same destructive criticisms as claim (1a). The entire chain of reasoning from (1) to (4) contains this corrupt interpretation: notice that (3) and (4) make moral claims: it is morally wrong to judge other cultures; it is wrong to make global moral determinations. Such claims require a view of moral knowledge (which is specifically denied by phil. p.m.). But, of course, claim (1) and (2) have said that there can be no such thing as (moral) knowledge. Such contradictions arise because of the original misunderstanding.

So what the hell does this have to do with Iraq?

The anti-war left - or much of the academic anti-war left - will typically profer this view, or something like it, in an attempt to argue that the US has no business telling other cultures how to live, or to choose who to rescue and who not to. Who are we to tell them this and do these things? There are no facts, therefore there are no moral facts that establish our authority to decide. And, thus, the US is wrong to engage in this particular project of human freedom and dignity. We should tolerate intolerance, etc. This line of reasoning contains the same contradictions as claims (1)-(4) above because it has, at its root, the same misunderstanding of phil.p.m.

I encourage you to test this theory. Find an anti-war academic and get them to agree that they are in general agreement with phil. p.m. views (they invariably will). Then ask if they consider the invasion of Iraq to be morally wrong (they will say yes). Then ask them what epistemological view they are using to attribute moral wrongness to the invasion. Most likely, they'll be stuck.

Incidentally, phil. p.m. doesn't cripple moral thinking; it just takes away some of the intellectual or philosophial rhetoric usually employed during it. I don't get excited when Bush speaks of the divine origin of freedom and dignity, or if he says that they are universal values. Why? Because we are stuck with the same basic human problems using the same fallible human faculties we've always had, regardless of the vocabulary: help people where we can or abandon them to slavery and genocide. If you require authoritative approval from priests, philosophers, French intellectuals or Western academics, and won't decide unless it's forthcoming, you have simply made another kind of decision.

So, to answer your original question: the West does have the authority - as authority is understood in the limited, contingent manner suggested by a properly understood view of phil.p.m. - to make these decisions. Such authority derives from the same fallible, messy, contingent human faculty of reason and empathy that has animated men and women to do good things throughout history; from freeing slaves in the US South, rescuing Europe from fascism and marxism, to stopping genocide in Kosovo and Bosnia.

Hope that didn't bore you to death ; )

Mark, to be clear, democracy-building is certainly important. But security has to come first. And if journalists are afraid to travel around to watch the reconstruction -- the money for which has been bottled up, it seems -- they won't be able to cover it.

Mark, I didn't find your discursus on "phil p.m." helpful in explaining why we are in Iraq and not Burma and Zimbabwe. For that matter, why we have set the reconstruction bar so low in Afghanistan. (Don't you suppose the USSR built schools in Afghanistan? I'm sure it would have been covered by their left-wing media.)

I can think of geopolitical reasons why we chose Iraq. Some, like assumptions about Saddam and Al Qaeda, I continue to find very dubious. Others, like the status-of-forces agreement giving us permanent bases to remake the Middle East (that is, your basic neocon fantasy) seem fanciful. But let's not pretend that liberation is the only reason and we picked Iraq instead of Burma by lot.

(I can also think of some very discreditable reasons why we are in this war, and I think of them every time I see a picture of Captain Prancing Cowboy in front of the Mission Accomplished sign.)

Incidentally, I'm co-author of a refereed published article against relativism, and I agree that it falls to the most naive tu quoque.

Andrew J. Lazarus -

Because we have the transcript of the press conference.

That's how I know.

asdf,

Iraq isn't going to be completely secure - or as secure as we in the West are - for a long time. So if we wait for complete security to do anything, we won't accomplish much. I think, rather, that security and democratization are interdependant, and must go forward together.

As for you claim that journalists cannot cover rebuilding issues because they can't travel to them, I find this unconvincing. There are plenty of cities, towns and villages in Iraq that aren't under constant attack. Journalists are trained to get difficult stories; they managed to cover firefights in Palestinian areas, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo, so they can do it in Iraq.

This is the same excuse given by CNN for its inability to report actual news instead of Ba'athist propaganda: it's too dangerous. Of course, CNN or the other big old media didn't even say it was dangerous at the time. They simply continued to report false news without qualification. (For criticism of this, see also NYT's John Burns.)

At a minimum, how about acknowledging the danger, conceding that your reports aren't representative of anything beyond the Palestine Hotel Bar, and/or trying harder to get outside to see the rebuilt Iraq. If old left media journos keep giving us news that skews one way, we have a right to be suspicious that they aren't doing their job properly.

Evidently I broke that link Try here

Andrew,

You're correct: I really didn't address why invade Iraq and not, say, Burma.

As for they "why Iraq" question: I think this is partly because Iraq was central to the Arab world such that democratization might hopefully spread throughout, there was a strong human rights case for Iraq, Iraq might serve as a deterrent to other Arab states thinking about WMDs, and (let's be honest) there was a concern about ensuring the future security of oil markets. I'd like to rescue North Koreans from their marxist nightmare too, but that's not possible at the moment.

In any case, the moral good in liberating one country does not depend on liberating all countries (or any other single country). (Just because you can't arrest all murderers, doesn't mean you shouldn't arrest the one you can.) At best, this argument against the war demonstrates the hypocrisy or inconsistency of the actors, but not the immoral nature of the war.

I'm not sure Afghanistan is going too terribly. As far as I know, Canadians and other NATO forces are still working to rebuild it. (And why, exactly, can't Europe devote more of its resources to the project?) It's a long, slow task. Would it have been morally better to have waited a year or two getting Afghanistan perfect while Iraqis continued to die under Saddam or to act as we did? Difficult to say.

"I'm co-author of a refereed published article against relativism, and I agree that it falls to the most naive tu quoque."

Cool. Would you mind giving me the cite? I'd like to check it out. Misunderstood and garbled phil. p.m. is almost as annoying as undergrads who say "Everything is relative".

Andrew,

I'd really like that cite myself.

Mark,

While I was in Academia, I had some fun reading and listening to Marxists and Feminists who somehow thought postmodern nihilism supported their positions. The contortions they go through are an intellectual version of slapstick. But I think you probably take pomo more seriously than I do. For example, if you distill Derrida's arguments from his obscurantism, a bright high school kid could spot the fallacies a mile away. The same is true of Foucault. And if you really want a laugh, read Kristeva's "mathematical" poetics or Lacan's gibberish.

Oh, and Lyotard's misuse of quantum physics is a hoot too.

Rabbinic methods of inference and the Rationality Debate, Journal of Religion, Vol. 72:4, pp. 491–511 (1992) [with Naomi Janowitz].

----

You might also check out these books by Alan Sokal, if you haven't already. Link 2

Sokal of the hoax fame is, BTW, a Marxist.

Mark, Iraq was recently named the most dangerous place in the world for jounalists.

And the World Bank can't do its thing because the security isn't there.

Now, the insurgents/terrorists are deliberately targetings journalists and foreign aid workers, it seems. How can we keep them safe?

Andrew,

Thanks for the cite. I was aware of Sokal's Marxism. Oh well, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Andrew,

Thanks for the cite.

Fred,

Yes, most academic marxists and feminists don't understand that phil. p.m. is quite fatal for their beliefs. Some do understand their peril though; Cornel West (Harvard marxist prof, also was in the Matrix II or III) actually has a good grasp of phil. p.m. Some philosophy profs understand it, but only because they understand the traditional epistemological system that phil. p.m. attacks. It seems that the farther away from philosophy departments you go, the less likely you are to find professors who understand phil. p.m. And yes, english literature po-mo is among the silliest. Phil. p.m. is like plutonium; when handled by non-specialists, it just ends up doing alot of damage.

asdf,

Yes, it is extremely dangerous to work as a journalist in Iraq. Still, a french crew managed to film a terrorist attack, so it is possible to move about. I saw a CBC documentary recently where Canadian reporters managed to interview families in the Sunni triangle. Journalists could also arrange to accompany Coalition soldiers or officials on their liason/rebuilding duties. They could use Iraqi intermediaries (stringers?) to conduct interviews with important Iraqi civilians involved in the reconstruction. So, while not easy and comfortable, it is possible.

But let's assume you are correct - let's say journalist are unable to move outside the green zone and cannot film anything but explosions and chaos. Couldn't they acknowledge this once in a while? Shouldn't they admit the limited nature of their reporting?

I am trying to figure out what you mean by "loyalty" here, Joe.

Care to elaborate, or will you just ignore my question as you do when they become inconvenient?

Joe;

Thanks for updating the post. Prof. Reynolds is really an open-minded, neutral source, and his opinions really do bolster your argument.

So since you raised theh issue once again, I will ask you to define what you mean by "disloyal".

Are you simply saying it is "disloyal" to question the Bush administration, or any President?

Or are you saying it is "disloyal" to knowingly propogate a falsehood in a time of "war"?

Inquiring minds want to know, Joe. Don't be afraid to answer.

But let's assume you are correct - let's say journalist are unable to move outside the green zone and cannot film anything but explosions and chaos. Couldn't they acknowledge this once in a while? Shouldn't they admit the limited nature of their reporting?

There are reporters reporting from outside the green zone. They are reporting about instability in some cases, and every once in a while, they report a positive story about the reconstruction. Maybe they should work harder to tell the story about the soccer fields and so forth. But I don't they are mischaracterizing the overall tenor of the war or our popularity, given this.

I'd like to know a bit more about this Jaffari character - why he's managed to stay popular, what his prospects for leadership are, whether he is a good guy, etc.

I got to read a seven-month old Newsweek at the dentist's office yesterday. It was from another world, one which I suspect Messrs. Instapundit and Katzman preferred for more reasons than one. Various WMD claims now seen as false were assumed as gospel truth. Bush was described as an overwhelming favorite for re-election.

It's possible that the media are biased, or perhaps lazy, but the idea that they're biased consistently against the Administration on Iraq is absurd.

Why do I have a feeling that "disloyal" is a euphemism for being off the reservation on things like covering up our torture scandal? Sometimes truth hurts, guys.

VT, Andrew:

"Disloyal": wishing your country to lose a war because you believe it will offer temporary domestic political advantage. Which is the literal meaning of this reporter's quoted words.

Gee, that was easy.

And the fact that this has to be carefully explained to you both illustrates the depth of the problem.

"But I don't they are mischaracterizing the overall tenor of the war or our popularity, given this."

How would they know about the overall tenor of the war? How would you know that they aren't mischaracterizing it? What sources are you using to compare their report from the "real" Iraq? What criteria are you and they using?

The attempt to put Iraq into a single narrative is extremely difficult, and usually produces the most transparently biased reporting.

"Maybe they should work harder to tell the story about the soccer fields and so forth."

I was thinking of stories about municipal elections, town hall meetings, rebuilt power plants, school lessons & university lectures without political interference, trade union formations, mass grave documenting, renewed court systems, legal training, etc. You know, things that show Iraq is better off now than it was under a genocidal dictator; things that show improvement rather than failure.

Surely this is also part of the story.

It is disloyal to question the Bush administration, or any administration, that is fighting a war against terror. One false word could endanger our truth, er, troops.

It may take quite a while to eliminate terror, including possible side trips into horror and mayhem, but as soon as that mission is accomplished, we'll be sure to return you to your regularly scheduled Constitution.

There sure are a lot of unsubstantiated (dare I say blinkered) assumptions in your reply, Joe. I fear you are trapped within your own viewpoint and are incapable of understanding that people might be against the reasons for initiating the war and against Bush but still not against America "losing" the war in Iraq.

First of all, Bush & Co. do not need any help frrom liberals or the media to "lose" the war, they are doing a bang-up job of this all on their own.

Second, to suggest that I or other Liberals actually hope we lose the war in Iraq is purely confrontational bullcrap. No one hopes for a more dangerous world. I have children. Do you? I want a more safe and secure world for them. Do not insult me or other Liberals and Democrats by dismissing every difficult argument as being purely political. You want to argue issues, fine, but making wildy inaccurate assumptions about the basis for my beliefs is highly presumptuous (and BTW this is a heavily softened representation of how I really feel about this. Don't ever claim that I don't respect the tone of this blog).

If you want to re-think what you said and take another stab at answering my question, let's have it. But if that's all you have to say, I'm disappointed, to say the least.

VT

You might try reading the actual blog post above as an interesting exercise. It fully supports my characterization. Some of the people involved in this debate ARE disloyal, and stand condemned by their own words.

I have not referred to you as disloyal - though I do find your persistent unwillingness to look at the material above and see it for what it is deeply disturbing.

I'm not hoping we lose Iraq for some temporary political advantage. I want to put a permanent end to neocon fantasies of controlling the world, a permanent end to the Bush doctrine of "pre-emptive" war in the absence of imminent threat, and a permanent end to attempts to abrogate the Constitution and other laws of the land (e.g., the Geneva Conventions and the International Convention Against Torture) in the name of a "War on Terror".

As we live in a republic and not a monarchy, I owe no personal fealty to King George, and a good thing too.

Andrew,

So you expect that losing Iraq would teach our political system a salutory lesson (i.e. neocon fantasies are bad, preemptive wars w/o imminent threat are bad, etc.)? And given the importance of this lesson, you hope that it is properly demonstrated?

"I owe no personal fealty to King George"

No one owes fealty to any official.

Some may argue a fealty to an office. Though I'm not sure even that is necessary to be considered loyal.

Dismissing loyalty to a man, or loyalty to an office, the least that an America should do is give serious considerations to what failure in Iraq would mean to our country in the future. (this topic could be a good post here, WoCers).

That the disloyal opposition doesn't consider these possible futures is enough to label them disloyal. A further disgrace to them is that they don't seem concerned for the negative effects such a failure would have to world at large or even the individuals who live in the region.

CBK

Hello, my name is sweet women. Good site. my regards. im not sex. sweet women Thank you very much.