Yes, I'm glad Saddam is gone and his evil reign is finished, but since then Iraq has not been Candy Land. The human cost of ousting Saddam includes some 800,000 to 1.3 million dead Iraqis, millions of Iraqi refugees (including the best and brightest professionals and academics from the moderate middle class), rampant mental illness, unemployment, child starvation, privation, lack of education and basic services, more than 50,000 Iraqis imprisoned without charge, and on and on. (These facts don't get much media "air time" either.)
By comparison, it is estimated that in his 24 years in power, Saddam executed some 290,000 to 600,000 Iraqis, and sent another 500,000 Iraqis to die in the needless war with Iran. So which way do the scales tip? Far be it from me to say. Nor should you think that you can so blithely perform the moral and physical calculus required to declare that Iraqis are indeed better off thanks to G.W. Bush's invasion and occupation. To the Iraqis who were killed or forced to flee, Iraq is certainly not better off.
By comparison, it is estimated that in his 24 years in power, Saddam executed some 290,000 to 600,000 Iraqis, and sent another 500,000 Iraqis to die in the needless war with Iran. So which way do the scales tip? Far be it from me to say. Nor should you think that you can so blithely perform the moral and physical calculus required to declare that Iraqis are indeed better off thanks to G.W. Bush's invasion and occupation. To the Iraqis who were killed or forced to flee, Iraq is certainly not better off.
"Tell me, if you went into surgery to correct a knee problem and the surgeon amputated your entire leg, what would you think if someone then asked you: Are you glad that you no longer have a knee problem? The people of Iraq no longer have a Saddam problem."
In any case, it so callous and unfair to ask or answer the question as posed by Christopher Hitchens and his ilk to justify the illegal Iraq invasion: "Yes or no, is the world better off without Saddam in power?" To start asking questions like that, and then, based on whatever answer you receive, attempt to justify whatever it is you did or intend to do, implies that the asker believes he is above the law.
Moreover, it implies that "the world's" needs trumped the sovereignty of Iraq. (Aren't U.S. conservatives principally opposed to the UN or any kind of "world government" that would limit America's sovereignty? And yet they would disregard other countries' sovereignty whenever they choose, just because they can, since might makes right.) And anyway, a majority of the world has always opposed the Iraq invasion and occupation; so it is the height of arrogance and deception for the U.S. and its allies to decree they know not only what is best for Iraq, but also what is best for the world.
Moreover, it implies that "the world's" needs trumped the sovereignty of Iraq. (Aren't U.S. conservatives principally opposed to the UN or any kind of "world government" that would limit America's sovereignty? And yet they would disregard other countries' sovereignty whenever they choose, just because they can, since might makes right.) And anyway, a majority of the world has always opposed the Iraq invasion and occupation; so it is the height of arrogance and deception for the U.S. and its allies to decree they know not only what is best for Iraq, but also what is best for the world.
For additional perspective, suppose if some foreigner had managed to assassinate G.W. Bush in office and then tried to justify his crime by asking me, an American, "Yes or no, is the world better off without Dubya?" my answer and the question itself would have been completely beside the point from any moral or legal standpoint, despite my strong political antipathy toward Bush. In other words, a colossal wrong can't make a right.
Disturbingly, in the ethically murky days since 9/11, more and more often America's leaders have asked us to accept that wrongs -- like illegal invasion, illegal torture, illegal domestic wiretapping, illegal rendition, detention and denial of habeus corpus, etc. -- do make rights. It implies that we Americans think our laws and moral values aren't cut out for the "real world," as some put it; that our beliefs are quaint niceties made for a more gentle and civilized world; and therefore, paradoxically, that to survive in this world we must disregard our most basic beliefs in order to preserve them.
Disturbingly, in the ethically murky days since 9/11, more and more often America's leaders have asked us to accept that wrongs -- like illegal invasion, illegal torture, illegal domestic wiretapping, illegal rendition, detention and denial of habeus corpus, etc. -- do make rights. It implies that we Americans think our laws and moral values aren't cut out for the "real world," as some put it; that our beliefs are quaint niceties made for a more gentle and civilized world; and therefore, paradoxically, that to survive in this world we must disregard our most basic beliefs in order to preserve them.
This trend of thought at home worries me more than any cruel dictators or bearded loonies abroad.
And to start -- but not end -- another discussion, or just to give food for thought, consider this: We robbed Iraqis of the chance to free themselves. Surely the consequences of this can be seen in the ensuing political chaos and the breakdown in national pride, increase in sectarianism, and loss of what it means to be Iraqi.
By contrast, 200+ years ago Americans took the huge risk to free themselves [with a little help from the French] and it paid off; and those brave, heroic days have provided the unifying ideological and mythological foundations of our country to the present. Iraq will never have the same chance again, because we took it from them. We did the hard work for them. Indeed, isn't it a conservative belief that one can never truly appreciate what one hasn't earned with one's own hard work, sweat, blood, and tears? From now on, we should leave the hard work of national liberation to those nations who would be liberated. We are not gods on Earth to decide what's best for everybody.
By contrast, 200+ years ago Americans took the huge risk to free themselves [with a little help from the French] and it paid off; and those brave, heroic days have provided the unifying ideological and mythological foundations of our country to the present. Iraq will never have the same chance again, because we took it from them. We did the hard work for them. Indeed, isn't it a conservative belief that one can never truly appreciate what one hasn't earned with one's own hard work, sweat, blood, and tears? From now on, we should leave the hard work of national liberation to those nations who would be liberated. We are not gods on Earth to decide what's best for everybody.
No comments:
Post a Comment