I don’t ever remember being as proud to be an American as I was while watching the Iraqis celebrate the capture of Saddam. Normally, “truth prevails” only at a glacial pace. It’s not too often that an oppressed people live to see their pleas answered by heaven and witness tyrannical oppressor brought to justice. Tragically, hundreds of thousands of the oppressed didn’t live to see this wonderful day.

No better thing has happened in the world in the past decade that rivals the good the courageous men, women and leaders of the US military have done in freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam’s rule.

I am so happy for the Iraqis. I cannot imagine the relief, and renewed confidence in eternal justice, such events much inspire.

If anyone is feeling happy today, please consider donating to the Iraqi children. Operation Give is collecting toys, school and art supplies, personal care products, and clothing for the Iraqi kids. All of your contribution goes directly to the kids — the project is run entirely by volunteers. The toys are distributed by LDS member Paul Holton, a reservist from Salt Lake stationed in Baghdad. In just 10 weeks we’ve received cash donations of $87,000 and in-kind contributions of over $200,000.

http://www.operationgive.org

I’m sympathetic to the neo-conservative aims with Iraq. That of setting up a working democracy to try and give hope in the middle east. In one sense it is the only real long term strategy I’ve seen that makes any sense. On the other hand I’m very critical of how this was sold to the public. Further, since the war I’ve done a little more reading on the theoretical basis for neo-Conservativism. While I’m certainly no political philosopher, what I’ve read of Leo Strauss and his use of the “double truth” is very distressing to me. I don’t know how much of that is at play with Iraq (or how much this is actually adopted by neo-cons) but it really makes me worry.

Concerning Saddam’s capture: taking the current situation as given, I don’t see how anyone can look at it as anything but wonderful news.

I don’t think the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction argument holds much water. On the other hand, I am fine if there is a bit of puffing in politics and diplomacy when your real argument is based on a bet. Indeed, I think one can go to war on a bet, i.e. there is some probability that we are wrong and there is no danger, but the danger, if it exists, would be really, really big. Perhaps that justifies the war here. I vacillate.

I think that the liberate an oppressed people from a vicious tyrannt argument is sufficient to justify the war in the abstract. The problem is that it justifies more wars than I feel comfortable fighting. This may simply be a failure of sympathy, on my part, with the plight of the oppressed.

I agree with Clark that the noe-con argument is the only long term strategy for the middle east that any recent American has offered that has any substance. On the other hand, I am extremely doubtful that it will work. Name me one Arabic speaking liberal democracy ever in the history of the planet. Of course, there is a first time for most things. (I am a Mormon, so I don’t say everything.) I don’t think we will know if the neo-cons were right or wrong for another ten years at least. I suspect that anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves into thinking that they know more than they actually do.

Finally, I don’t much like the Straussians either. (Some of Leo’s stuff is interesting, even when he is wrong, which is almost always.) On the otherhand, I can’t see any actual link between Leo Strauss and our middle east policy. It would be fun to talk about, though, if anyone can point it out to me…

In that I find some of the rhetorical strategies of the last two – three years remarkably like what I read of Strauss. I’m conservative, but I feel strongly that war must be *knowingly* approved by the populace. When it isn’t (like in Viet Nam) I find that eventually trouble will result. I’m willing to accept violence in international relations, but feel that the public must bear the ultimate responsibility for those acts and that this requires the possibility of a knowledgable judgment. Something that wasn’t present last fall.

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv2-04

I don’t know if I am easily classifiable as either pro or con. I wasn’t at any ANSWER marches, but I also disagree often with what seem like reflexively pro-war statements by the administration and pundits like Andrew Sullivan.

It can’t be denied that much actual good came from the removal of Saddam. I hope our troops do well, now that they are on the ground there, and that democracy is restored quickly.

On the other hand, the process was alarmingly unilateral, secretive and ad hoc. Whether that is the first step in a new foreign policy remains to be seen. In addition, the administration’s sell of the war as being directly related to 9/11 really disturbed me. I have not seen any solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden. Yet, due to artful phrasing of pro-war statements, most Americans believe there are direct links.

Anyway, that’s more than enough discussion for now — especially if we want to keep this blog (mostly) non-political.

1. I have to second Matt’s statement. If you can donate toys to Iraqi kids, please do so. It’s a cause that everyone can feel good about.

2. Nate writes:

“Name me one Arabic speaking liberal democracy ever in the history of the planet.”

Um, how about Iraq? Of course, the democracy was rapidly overthrown. And it had large numbers of problems. But post-colonial Iraq was a form of constitutional monarchy and democracy (I’m not sure exactly how the power balanced between monrach and legislature, but what I’ve read suggests that the monarch had some power, but the state also worked a lot like a democracy).

Also, Islamic societies have shown an ability to exist under tolerant, liberal principles at times when Christian societies couldn’t (think Middle Ages).

Medieval Islam: True, Islamic society was more liberal than was say 10th century Europe. Unfotunately, much of current Islamic society is LESS liberal than was 10th century Islamic society. I don’t want to be too pessimistic about this, but I am always a little frightened when people talk as though liberal democracy could can be easily established in the middle east if we could just get rid of the bad guys and have fair elections.

I am somewhat optimistic towards Iraq, although I do wish the Palestinian issue could have been handled better. But then I was always pessimistic about that…

you will note an interesting comment: “asking that Thou wilt forgive our arrogance, pass by our sins, be kind and gracious to us, and cause our hears to turn with love toward thee”

Seems this is not all out support for the war.

Now I certainly agree that American can be selfish. However I also think that many of us look at aid groups who seem to waste a lot of money and don’t necessarily produce results. America is very result oriented and if we are to sacrifice our own lives, we ought to have some expectation of success.

Does this fall into the problem of violating Benjamin’s comments in Mosiah? I think so – and quite frequently does. Yet at the same time I think that some cooperation is necessary.

Rwanda is a simpler situation as very little needed to be done by Clinton to prevent a huge tragedy. Yet, at the same time, there is realistically little the US can do in Africa if the nations themselves don’t want to put their own houses in order.

In a real way Africa is far worse than the mid-east. The mid-east has far more resources, has many regions of highly educated people, and I think many in the near-east respect American democracy even as they resent American supremacy. If we could get them to stop believing in some of the myths that have risen up the last 50 years, I think we truly could come to a workable middle ground of peace.

While I believe that the United States is justified in intervening unilaterally in cases of serious humanitarian emergencies (genocide is clearly one of these), international law and global cooperation are more important that any one dictator, even one as brutal as Saddam. Opposing dictatorships in places like Egypt, Saudi Arabi, Burma, China, and the Sudan by first of all not giving them weapons, and second by not calling them “partners in the war on terror” and by exposing their crimes, would be a good beginning to the effort to promote freedom and democracy, a beginning that is ethically justifiable. It also shows the world that we are willing to give up good relations with important potential allies in exchange for human rights.

I don’t think that President Hickley is firmly and clearly pro-war; indeed I think he tried to stake out a position that allowed for the pro-war position but also emphazised the general need for peaceful resolution of conflict.

I was disturbed, however, by the fact that he asked us to put faith in intelligence agencies when deciding when and if we go to war. This seems to assume that the decision to go to war is essentially a matter of facts, i.e. that the American government and more specifically the CIA have basically the same standards for justifiable war as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.