May 05, 2004
Fighting the New War
Rip asks an excellent question, which I quote here:
[C]an we as a nation ever set aside our institutionalized cynicism and place the kind of faith in our leadership that we had in 1941? Could our free press ever write a blank check like it did in 1941? Can we stop introspecting long enough to realize that there are millions of people out there who want us all dead?
Can we? Sure. What has been done in the past can be done again. Should we is the real question.
Blind faith in leadership turned out to be a great boon to the effort of WWII, precisely because the stakes were quite clear and the enemies obvious and the path forward not particularly controversial. (We’ll leave aside the question of whether we should have let the atomic genie out of his bottle for another time. FYI, I think we probably made the right choice.)
Blind faith in leadership also led us to the Spanish-American War, American at its most rapacious and imperial. Not our finest hour. Then there’s the institutionalized treatment of Native Americans in the Nineteenth Century. And I’m sure there are plenty of other examples to be mined from 200+ years of humans making decisions which are, unfortunately, often wrong.
Of course, complete cynicism isn’t the answer either. We can’t simple assume that our leaders are lying. That would simply bring the whole system to a crashing halt. Thankfully, we’re not there.
The question is really this: How much cynicism is required to keep the process honest, and how much faith is required to keep the process going?
We are fighting a new war. It’s a war unlike that which the world has ever seen. It’s precisely for this reason that blind faith is the wrong answer. It’s much, much easier to do something wrong than to do it right. Anyone who has ever written computer code, or built a house, or raised a child can attest to that. Why would we ever want our leaders to do something as profoundly difficult as to prosecute a new, unknown kind of war with carte blanche to make any and every mistake in the book with no accountability?
We’re in a situation that requires more cynicism, but not enough to bring things to a standstill. And it requires more transparency, but not enough to render security meaningless. Admittedly, that’s a very tough balancing act… but no one said this kind of thing was going to be easy.
Posted by Russell Lutz in Current Affairs & Politics at May 5, 2004 04:06 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://cuzwesaidso.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/440
Comments
Well I can heartily agree with all you've said here.
The question is really this: How much cynicism is required to keep the process honest, and how much faith is required to keep the process going?Fortunately, you are not questioning the need for the process.
So many, however, are.
Posted by: Rip Rowan at May 5, 2004 04:16 PM
Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/29/politics/29POLL.html?ex=1083816000&en=3d0abcaccbce78cc&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
Posted by: Rip Rowan at May 5, 2004 04:18 PM
Careful where you swipe that brush. I accept as an axiom that some process is required. I have not changed my mind -- unlike the 16% of the population that have in the past few months joined me -- that the decision to go to war was the wrong one.
On the other hand, I remain committed to the idea that, having made this error, we need to stay in Iraq long enough to fix things and return (yes, return) the area to stability.
That there will probably (yes, probably) be a more western-friendly government there when we're done is not enough of a reason to have done it.
(Whew! I was almost in agreement with you!)
Posted by: Russell Lutz at May 5, 2004 04:30 PM
Just a comment on the World War II analogy- while it is true, I think, that there was much more of a common sense of duty and purpose ehibited by people during the Second World War, I think it's a bit inaccurate to assume that everyone involved agreed on everything. The Roosevelt administration often felt tremendous pressure from Republicans in the Congress over the conduct of the War, and partisan politics and back-biting were as prevalent then as they are now.
Posted by: Phil Burnett at May 6, 2004 08:32 AM
return (yes, return) the area to stability.Why the emphasis on "yes, return"? Who has said that Iraq wasn't more stable under Saddam? The murder and rape of women and children was standard policy to keep husbands in line. A quarter million people were machine gunned and dumped in pits because their villages spoke out against Saddam. Of course it was stable. Dictatorships are often stable. We could have Iraq stable in a few months if we wanted to: pull out and hand the keys to the Islamists. They would come out of hiding, slaughter a million or so Shiites, wipe out the Kurds, and stability would be the order of the day!
What I am saying is that setting stability as the goal is craven, short-sighted, immoral, and misguided, and that both decency and self-interest require that we not delude ourselves into thinking it's a worthwhile end point.
Posted by: David Gaw at May 6, 2004 09:36 AM
At least this discussion hasn't devolved into name-calling... mostly.
Is stability THE goal? No. But it's A goal. It is not sufficient, but it is certainly necessary.
Posted by: Russell Lutz at May 6, 2004 10:06 AM
No name calling at all, actually... I offered an critique of a position, not a person. In fact, I think your position on the war is radically inconsistent with the person I believe you to be. That's why I continue to argue the war with you. Well, that and because I'm annoying.
Now, if I called you a Big Poopy Head--that would be name calling. But I haven't done that. Yet.
It is not sufficient, but it is certainly necessary.I had considered saying that stability was necessary but not sufficient in my earlier comment.
I was disuaded by the realization that actually, it's neither necessary nor sufficient. It's desirable, absolutely. Achieving it should be an imperative. But Israel has suffered through far worse than Iraq is experiencing for thirty years now, and while I don't think anybody would choose to live that way, no sane person is suggesting that a tyranical dictatorship would be an improvement. If free and unstable were the best we could do--I doubt it is, but if--it's still a vast improvement over unfree and stable.
Posted by: David Gaw at May 6, 2004 02:16 PM