looking at iraq
As the surge continues and the deadline for General Petraeus’ report on progress in Iraq draws closer, it is worth looking back at arguments that were made during the lead up to the U.S. invasion, and their relevance for the continuing debate today. Amid calls for early withdrawal (withdrawal, I might add, based not on the stability of Iraq, but on a timetable that is by any and all accounts, arbitrary) and a fierce fight over Iraq’s position in the larger struggle against Islamic extremism, the context of the debate has shifted, and the all-too often selective memory of the press has left the argument in tatters– not one, national debate on policy, but rather, a series of rhetorical skirmishes centered around issues as diverse as the war’s cost to its effect on foreign relations.
At its core, however, the debate over the Iraq war is not one of practical, real-world disagreements, but rather a set of philosophical assumptions about the nature and meaning of American power– specifically, military power. The United States represents the largest as most formidable military power on the earth today, enjoying a tactical supremacy that is, if not unrivaled, then certainly anomalous. The questions of what to do with such power are complex and far too numerous to delve into in such a limited format, however, all have their roots in a single question: what, if any, moral imperative is imposed on a nation with such unquestionable dominance on the military battlefield?
The notion that the isolationist tendencies of the American republic are to be the guiding principle in the modern world are founded in a series of assumptions about the responsibility of the United States to the rest of the world.. Likewise, the assumption that the United States has no right to act unilaterally to protect itself and its allies is based in the notion that national identity and national ethics should be subservient to international identity– i.e., membership in the United Nations. Both arguments form the basis of most anti-war positions.
Consider the idea that the United States has committed some vast national sin by acting without the approval of the United Nations. This idea, which assumes that the United Nations has moral authority greater than that of its member nations, grows, I think, out of a reaction against nationalism and, in sense, patriotism. In a way, it is a reaction against one of American’s founding values: individualism, placing the value of the collective (in this case, the United Nations) about the value of the individual member nations. A mandate must be granted by the international community before a nation can act in its own self interest.
But doesn’t this assume a moral equivalence among the member nations? Is the opinion or needs of the United States of greater value than, for instance, Iran, or does shared imperfection overrule any traditional “moral authority”? Obviously, the founding of the United Nations was based on the notion of international cooperation against the sort of lone imperialism of Nazi Germany, and in that sense, it was founded on the basis that no single nation should place its own desires above the well-being of others: an idea that most Americans would heartily support. But by failing to provide a structure in which to judge the actions of member nations, the United Nations hamstrings itself by equivocating dictatorship with democracy and fascist with freedom, if in practical application only.
In that sense, those who have decried (and continue to decry) the Iraq war as a violation of the will of the international community are in precisely the same position. National identity is trumped by membership in the international community– a notion that erases, if only philosophically, the world’s borders altogether. If Iraq under Saddam cannot be judged as worse than America under Bush, why recognize the identity of either nation at all?
Such a notion is inherently antidemocratic, and in that sense, when conservatives question the patriotism of those who believe the will of the United Nations should have greater intrinsic value than that of the United States, they are not engaging in the despicable mud-slinging they seem to. It is, to put it frankly, intrinsically unpatriotic precisely because it refuses to recognize that American government is different than the government of a dictatorship. The very values upon which America separated from Britain are erased in the name of “cooperation”.
But what does this have to do with Iraq? Firstly, it means that those who oppose the war on the basis that the United States has no right of self-defense absent the blessing of the United Nations have redefined patriotism– certainly they would not call themselves unpatriotic. Secondly, it means that war supporters must make the case that Iraq was necessary for the defense of the United States and Americans, which I believe most do satisfactorily. Thirdly, there must be a discussion about what responsibility the United States has in securing world order via military intervention, as the opinions that one has on this subject are at the heart of every other facet of the debate, and will influence whether agreement is even possible.
Discussion on Iraq is vital in America today, as it stands as one of the single most important issues facing the American leadership. Much more is on the line than simply the fate of a war-torn nation, the credibility of the United States, and the meaning of democracy. The founding principles of the United States stand at the very heart of the discussion, and what it means to be an American influences how one thinks about Iraq. Opposition to the war and support of it are often based in very different ideas and assumptions about the role of America in the world– Iraq serves as a proxy for many of those discussions. Failing to realize this means that the petty bickering and squabbling that has characterized much of the discussion on this issue will only continue, and the mutual respect that honest debate requires will not be present.
