Changing Public Opinion on the Iraq War
Michael Barone wrote this thoughtful post almost a week ago. Excerpt:
Now, there's additional evidence for the progress of the surge in this Associated Press report and of a turn in opinion from the Gallup/USA Today poll. Respondents were asked whether the increased number of troops was "making the situation better" or "not making much difference."
Last month the balance of opinion was decidedly negative, 22 to 51 percent. Now it is significantly less negative, 31 to 41 percent. (The number saying it was making the situation worse was a statistically identical 24 and 25 percent in the two polls. Yes, I know that that's still a negative score. But remember, as I pointed out in my column, that the median state and median congressional district as measured by 2004 voting was more Republican than the nation as a whole. That's because George W. Bush carried 31 of the 50 states and 255 of the 435 congressional districts. A couple of polls don't establish definitively that opinion on the surge is moving in a positive direction. But it's evidence that it may be. We need to keep watching.)
A few days later, he notes that several Democrats, including Dick Durbin who's fairly partisan, are making sure to acknowledge progress in Iraq even though they usually criticize things like President Bush, the Iraqi parliament, President Bush and other well-chosen targets including President Bush.
Here's my take on all of this posturing: if you want to be against the Iraq war, be against it regardless of how the "surge" is going. In a sense, someone who's against it should either not care how the war turns out OR they should hope the bad guys lose so we can come home sooner. People who predict defeat for America and, indeed, who really hope for defeat to achieve a "see, I told you so" moment have shot their credibility on speaking to the morality or immorality of the war. If they have some good explanation of why it was wrong to go into Iraq, that has been totally eclipsed by their "well, we're losing now anyway" mantra.
I'll say it straight out, I'm for the war and I hope we win. I respect you if you're against the war, but not if you hope we lose. Sorry.
Well, it certainly would be bad to hope we lose... Does that description fit any real live person?
ReplyDeletePart of the Just War argument is reasonable possibility of victory. Thus, a legitimate form of argument against the invasion or continued involvement is citing evidence against the reasonable possibility of success. Doing so does not betray a desire that we lose but a willingness to confront reality.
And if one believes the war is immoral, might one not want the US to draw the wrong lessons from it? If the invasion is perceived in the short term as a success, wouldn't that lead to more invasions? And, from the perspective of one who opposes the invasion, wouldn't that be a bad thing?
To apply to another context, I am skpetical of any reports of great scientific advances from embryo-destroying research.* My first reaction to such news is not joy or celebration, but suspicion that it's all hype. And I must confess I am not sorry to see news that the "promise" of this research is overblown.
Now, does that make me wish that people suffering from Parkinson's or other diseases will never be cured? Do I want to doom Michael J. Fox to an early grave? I suppose that's one way of looking at it. But I think that would be an unfair summary of my position.
--
*Please insert here whatever disclaimer is necessary to prevent you from pointing out to me that the decision to go to war was a prudential decision on which Catholic's consciences were not bound, whereas embryo-destroying research is a matter of doctrine on which ours are bound. I am aware of that. My point is that being skeptical about good news coming from means we oppose does not make us hopefule for bad outcomes.
Well, it certainly would be bad to hope we lose... Does that description fit any real live person?
ReplyDeleteSadly, it fits all too many real people. Check out some of the scribblings of the far left, particularly the academic community. You don't think, for example, that Ward Churchill actively wants America to lose? And lest he be dismissed as a fringe loon, check out blogs like Daily Kos and tell me there aren't people pulling for American defeat.
John, you write, "a legitimate form of argument against the invasion or continued involvement is citing evidence against the reasonable possibility of success. Doing so does not betray a desire that we lose but a willingness to confront reality."
ReplyDeleteWhat if the evidence against the reasonable possibility of success isn't all that good, or what if there is decent evidence to the contrary? It appears that some of the most strident opponents to our continued presence in Iraq are actually unwilling to confront one possible reality: that we are making progress or at least in a position to make progress.
Whether we are winning or not, our casualty rate has been ridiculously low compared to the precedents established by the history of warfare, so those who indulge in the most excessive rhetoric about our being in a bloodbath are not interested in facing reality. Those who want to believe the increasingly unreliable story of Private Beauchamp, and who want to assert that Abu Ghraib is the rule commanded from Washington rather than an exception that has been prosecuted by Washington, all while our enemies commit the most barbaric acts imaginable, are not interested in facing reality. And those who rightly say we cannot just march into a nuclear Pakistan to clean house while simultaneously indulging paranoid fantasies about Bush starting a war with Iran all while a belligerant Iran is absolutely clear on its intent to acquire nuclear weapons are not interested in facing a reality in which our enemies have the will and are quickly gaining the means to kill us by the millions.
I don't think the war in Iraq has been unjust, but let's move to a more general topic for a moment and discuss unjust means in the abstract. I can certainly understand the desire to see that unjust means aren't effective, but it must be clear that unjust means aren't always ineffective, or else there would be less of a temptation to use them. It's not always a choice between "good and prudent" and "evil and imprudent": taking out the eternal ramifications, an evil act is sometimes a prudent act, if not a singularly prudent or the most prudent act. Sometimes a person can acquire actionable intelligence from what can only be rightly described torture.
Again, I can certainly understand the desire to see that unjust means aren't effective: we should hope that evil means are as ineffective as possible, but we should not try to delude ourselves or others into think them more ineffective than they are. I guaran-damn-tee you that human vivisection is more effective than testing new medicines on rats, pigs, and rabbits. I argue that human vivisection is morally impermissible despite that obvious fact, but it would be foolish of me to pretend that the fact isn't true just because it isn't convenient.
If it were credibly established that embryo-destroying research produced results, it would not be moral (and it would arguably be ineffective) to engage in outright propaganda to discredit that research.
I think that's exactly what's happening in Iraq: the big lie, told over and over again, all in the pretense of speaking truth to power, so that we lose at home even if we are winning on the ground.
And there's a big difference between the West's war with jihad and Michael J. Fox's battle with Parkinson's: there is no isolated laboratory in which to try solutions before implementing them. It is as if we are already treating Parkinson's patients, with a regimen that might make things much worse if it doesn't make things better. In this case, it wouldn't be unfair to summarize a position against this particular treatment as at least a tacit willingness to see the patient's health deteriorate. We cannot lose the war in Iraq without VERY serious consequences, consequences that are obvious to anyone with eyes to see. I genuinely believe that there are Americans who actually want to see us defeated, as they see us as (at best) a society not worth defending and at worst the primary source of evil in the modern world.
But for those who don't desire our defeat but should still be smart enough to see that what they desire could lead to our defeat, it's a small consolation that they want to see us defeat jihad while they support precisely that which will make such a victory dramatically less likely.
And, Paul Zummo's right that there are people who actively wish our defeat: those who don't yet still oppose the war undermine their own credibility when they serve as apologists for those who want to see us defeated and when they even deny their existence. To maintain their credibilty and thus actually do some good in accomplishing our goal of victory against the jihadists -- a goal they share with us who support Iraq but not with those who desire our defeat -- they need to acknowledge these treacherous bastards, distance themselves from them, and offer opposition to our current foreign policy from the hawkish right rather than the appeasing left.
While good outcomes do not justify unjust means, it does not mean they do not have rhetorical value in public debate.
ReplyDeleteIf it could be proven that embryo-destroying research would produce a cure for some terrible disease within five years, this would still not make it morally permissible, but it would probably increase its support. So it is still worthwhile for those opposed to confront this hype.
Unfortunately, we have often done this with equally fantastic claims about the potential of adult and unbillical cord research, which has hurt our credibility. I suppose this is what you think is happening here.
----
It seems to me that if, "the surge is working!" is a legitimate argument for the prudence of the war, then , "No, it's not" is a legitimate argument against it. Both arguments should be evaluated on the basis of the evidence brought to bear to support them, rather than what advancing such and argument reveals about that person's sympathies.
John, the "hand-tip" to me came when Dreher and some others (Sullivan? maybe) were yakking like "Oh, we *know* that the report in September will be glowing about the progress....". Well, so what if that is true? If you're against on moral grounds, you're against it. If you're against it on "prudential" or "good policy" grounds, that's fine too. Then you can move all over as far as your support goes, supporting it when we're winning, supporting it when it's politically expedient, etc. But you can't claim the moral high ground which seems to me to be what these people would like to do.
ReplyDeleteJohn, I think you're an example of the exception, being one of those folks whose views I can respect.
John, I'm not sure your position is clear: do you support using less-than-honest tactics in opposing a policy you believe immoral? I'm not sure what you mean by referring to a hypothetical proof of the efficacy of embryo-destructive research as "hype".
ReplyDeleteBoth arguments should be evaluated on the basis of the evidence brought to bear to support them, rather than what advancing such and argument reveals about that person's sympathies.
I agree that evidence should be evaluated. Today Lopez at NRO quotes an apparent press release from Harry Reid that is instructive.
"Over the past six months, despite President Bush’s unfounded claims of success, 565 Americans have been killed in Iraq while taxpayers have spent $60 billion. After the Administration’s September 15 report, we hope the President and Congressional Republicans will finally work with us to provide a real, overdue change of course in Iraq."
565 American casualties in six months isn't nothing, but I don't see how this stat is proof that we're losing in Iraq: not when over 16,000 Americans were murdered in 2005; not when 29,000 American soldiers died at Normandy. Just over 3 casualties a day isn't a bloodbath.
And $60 billion in six months isn't nothing either, but the 2007 federal budget is $2.8 trillion in spending, out of a GDP of $13 trillion. But Reid apparently wants to argue that to spend TWO PERCENT of the federal budget and less than half of one percent of the GDP is proof enough that the surge has failed.
Never mind that these stats don't even attempt to paint the whole story. The state of war is determined not only by our losses but by our kill rate as well, not only the financial costs but what is being produced. Titanic's budget was over three times that of Battlefield Earth ($250 mil to 75 mil), but the former made $750 million in domestic receipts alone while the latter made less than $25.
Never mind all that, these stats are by themselves not all that bad: 3 casualties a day at a cost of 2% of the federal budget to keep the first consensual Arab government from collapsing in the face of terrorist attacks from our enemies. That's not all that terrible, to say the least.
But apparently Reid uses these stats as proof that the surge is failing? That's piss-poor evidence.
But what is this from you about not evaluating the motives of those who point to such evidence?
I believe that there are Americans who actually desire our defeat. To deny this -- or to acknowledge this but not dare suggest that certain behavior indicates that a person belongs in that group -- does not conform to a willingness to confront reality.
There almost certainly are Americans who want us to defeat Arab Muslims because of prejudice against Arabs or Muslims or both. Use of slurs and racial epithets in support of our presence in Iraq would indicate that that particular supporter is a bigot.
At the same time, there are those who want to see us defeated. If someone points to ridiculously LOW casualty rates as proof of defeat and assumes the absolute worst about our troops while ignoring the barbarism of our enemies, I think it is fair to question the individual's motives.
The thing that gets me about Sullivan/Dreher isn't so much the shift from pro-war to anti-war, but that they could reverse themselves so fully without humility.
ReplyDeleteFrom the recent exchange, it seems they're content to blame Bush. They trusted Bush; they shouldn't have. That's what they did wrong; they won't make that mistake again.
But what I remember from the run-up to the invasion wasn't Bush bringing reluctant pundits along to the idea of invading Iraq, but pundits urging Bush to war. Lots of watching for sings that he was going "wobbly," etc.
It seems that a lot of the invective being hurled at Bush now is motivvated somewhat by a desire to innoculate themselves from blame.
But in my opinion, their poisonous rhetoric played a big role in us not being rigourous enough in considering the prudence of the invasion. Those who disagreed with them weren't just wrong, they were traitors, unworthy of the smallest respect. Perhaps the war's critics should have not let this stop them, but the intent was to silence critics and it worked.
But apparently they don't think that was a problem. They just backed the wrong horse. That can be easily corrected.
So, I'm now a bit wary of arguments that lead me to think someone else is treasonous or unpatriotic.
John, you seem quick both to dismiss the idea that there really are Americans who want to see us defeated...
ReplyDeleteDoes that description fit any real live person?
...and to overstate the behavior of pundits who supported the war at the beginning, suggesting that they asserted this:
Those who disagreed with them weren't just wrong, they were traitors, unworthy of the smallest respect.
The thing is, there really are Americans who desire our defeat, and they continue to spew poisonous rhetoric of their own, portraying our President as a heartless liar and portraying our troops as either dupes or monsters. While Iran's seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, these damned fools are more concerned about Bush starting a war with Iran rather than Iran escalating the war it has already started with us.
Again I think honorable opponents to the current strategy in Iraq need to acknowledge that these guys exist and distance themselves from them. John, you seem committed to denying their existence and discrediting criticism of them.
Perhaps my initial post went overboard. But, as you point out, the existence of traitors in the antiwar camp is as irrelevant to the question of the right action as is the existence of racists in the pro-war camp.
ReplyDeleteOn a somewhat related topic, Rod Dreher is outraged that the administration will be writing the report on Iraq rather than General Petreaus himself.
ReplyDeleteOne might conclude that Rod would prefer that Petreaus issue the report on Iraq personally, but last month he highlighted Glenn Greenwald's rant that "Gen. Petraeus's record of analysis and prognistication on Iraq is lousy."
What source delivering good news about Iraq would Rod find trustworth? It apparently wouldn't be the NY Times, because he never did even acknowledge its high-profile op/ed that reported that we are making progress.
So why criticize the Bush Administration for writing the report when he wouldn't trust a positive report regardless of the authorship? He criticizes because he can: he'll grasp any tool within reach no matter whether doing so further reveals his inconsistencies.
Bubba:
ReplyDeleteYou are right. Nothing Gen. Petreaus could say would change Dreher's mind. It shows he is firmly in the "Cut and Run" Camp. A camp that would have Iran in control of the whole Persian Gulf. It also shows his objectivity on Iraq is on the level of Peter Arnett and that other CNN star Michael Ware. Ware is the one who first aired the sniper video shot by the Iraqi Insurgents of them shooting Americans. He will not admit his bias. That will happen when he criticizes the New Republic's Baghdad Diarist.