Dean's World

US "humanitarianism" is a rhetorical trick that produces...dead people, nor is it exactly good for women.

Soon Dean or a Deaniac will accuse me of being racist against either "my own people" or "the less fortunate" or "the rest of the world."

I am claiming this space as the place where I will write my response.

Now I'm going to sleep.

When you blame the actions of the despicable "resistance" in Iraq or Afghanistan, who are murdering civilians intentionally on a daily basis, and murdering American troops who are only trying to keep order and support a democratically elected government that is far more progressive in every way toward women and minorities than what came before, based on the stinking presence of non-Arabs, you're a racist.

Call me a liar, Ali.

I await your response, my brother. This is a conversation that definitely needs to happen.

*Update*: Oh, and by the way, please explain to me how it's racist to intervene militarily when you see a horrible violent tragedy happening, but it's *not* racist to selfishly refuse to intervene because you're too pure as a pacifist to bother to help these darkies/infidels. Just curious.

Update 2:* Oh and by the way, Ali, when you spit on an Iraqi Constitution that gives more religious freedom, more minority rights, and more women's rights than anything found anywhere else in the Arab world, can you explain to me how you're a not anti-progressive reactionary?

Humanitarianism has two parts. DanielH raises them perceptively.

Dean, I think we need to differentiate between two separate arguments: 1) whether we should have gone in the first place and 2) given that we did and are where we are now, what should we do next. Now 2) is very important, because this pertains to what is actually happening in Iraq now. But 1) is far from a useless discussion.

Dean's World always skips prong 1. If they do not skip it, the justification they give to themselves for it are incredibly self-serving. I want to hammer point 1 because I am not willing to concede the point.

The most often invoked justification given by Deaniacs about point 1 is the following: if we didn't go in there, more and more people would have been killed/raped etc.

Kudos to everyone for being such moral and upright people that they want to save all the people in the world being killed by their tyrants. Problem is that your morality is a) myopic, and b) is impractical and undermines the United States' future.

a) Myopia. If removing Saddam satisfies your righteousness, why don't you also agitate to remove, with force, without recourse to international law: the Saudi Regime; the North Korean regime; the Iranian regime; a couple of the central Asian regimes; the Sudanese regime; the regimes in the Congo; and the Cuban regime. If dead people get you so worked up why haven't a single one of you agitated for MILITARY INTERVENTION in any of those countries? Is it because you think that those countries "aren't as bad" as Saddam was? If any of you were consistent, you'd move for an immediate military removal of the Saudi Regime, which has now produced OBL, and 16 of the 19 9/11 bombers, and spreads poisonous Wahhabism in the rest of the world (Bosnia, Chechnya, Kashmir, Philipines, Thailand); completely shattering the folksy hippie Islam that predominated in so many parts of the Muslim world until the Saudis came by. Yet none of you agitate for military intervention against Saudi Arabia. Instead, you celebrate President Buffoon despite his incestuous relationships with Saudi Arabia. Man up Deaniacs. Demand military intervention in Saudi Arabia. You don't think there are Rape rooms there? If a woman is raped in Saudi she gets deported. Shias, Christians, Jews can't barely establish centers of worship (in Iraq until the war there were thousands of relatively happy, free practicing Christians/Assyrians). There isn't a single one of you who can make a rational argument for why, given your stance on intervention in Iraq, why Saudi Arabia shouldn't also be invaded. Those who can make one such an irrational argument, unfortunately can only do so on the basis of ignoring point b.

b) Global humanitarianism is impractical and detrimental to the future of the United States. Someone please look up how much of our education funds we slashed in order to fund this war. Those of you who went to public schools, as I did, would be pissed. I think something like 2% of our GDP goes to education. What's the total we've spent on the war so far? A trillion? Let's say we go invade Saudi Arabia or Iran. Can we afford to spend another 2 to 5 trillion? I really doubt it. In the context of the fact that New York is fast losing (has already lost) its economic status in the world, such that 18 of the top 20 IPO's now occurred in London and Hong Kong; and that the US is no longer producing any scientists or engineers compared to India and China, how many trillions can we spend in war without starting to lag behind? I want the US to be the dominant international force (presence) for the rest of existence. This will not happen if we go exhausting ourselves in every Somalia, every Iraq, every Darfur, every Iran, every Pakistan, every Afghanistan. What the hell are we? The world's servants? Eventually the time will come when our all volunteer military would no longer be able to sustain this kind of exhaustive "humanitarianism." Then we'd have to initiate the draft, further taking our capable minds away from their jobs and research and throwing them around the world. I am not interested in the United States becoming the world's janitor just so a bunch of you can feel good about saving some people who are getting raped. I've seen people shot before my eyes in Philly and in Pakistan. People get shot. People live under tyrannies. In 1947 four of my great aunts were forced to jump into wells (where they died) to save themselves from rape. Women get raped. My dear friend's uncle spent three months orally and anally serving the Bangladeshi army so they would not kill him in 1971. Men end up slaves to survive.

You guys think I am being racist for suggesting that we watch our own back first. I say you are being racist for suggesting that the world's oppressed don't have it in themselves to overthrow their tyrants, and to be free. With respect to Iraq, had the Clinton sanctions regime not kicked in, who knows what might have happened. I have seen (and been) one of "those people" whom you are so hell-bent on saving. No thanks for your charity. It is an affront to the dignity of a man aspiring for freedom and opportunity to be so pitied. I am surprised that a bunch of you purported libertarians don't understand that.

If the oppressed third worlder wants to come to you for help, he will do so, and it certainly won't be in the form of an invitation to invade his country. It'll be in the form of request for debt relief (which Deaniacs hypocritically oppose); it'll be in the form of asking for more lenient immigration laws (which Deaniacs hypocritically oppose); it'll be in the form of asking for you to ask Bush to end the obscene subsidies that our farmers get which crush the world's farmers (which I'm sure Deaniacs would also oppose); it'll be in the form of him asking us to make it so that international loans do not come with the absurd attachment that US goods must be given preferential treatment (you get my point).

You guys support none of the *other* policies that indicate to me that you really give a rat's ass about the advancement of the rest of the world. You want America to be on top *and* you want everyone else not to suffer. Sorry. It doesn't work like that. The world is a jungle. Those that do not exhaust themselves win. If you want to start helping the rest of the world, realize that you are undermining America.

I've answered Ali in the comments to several articles. I'll try to put them all in one front page article soon.

Short answer: Ali, you really seem to be driven by a lot of prejudice about me.

More this weekend sometime. Right now I'm relaxing.

This is tongue-in-cheek of course, but it's for Ali:

A more serious answer forthcoming. And no, don't read anything deep into this clip. It's just funny, and from one of my all-time favorite movies.

The United States acquired the Phillipine Islands and Cuba from Spain at the end of the foolish Spanish-American War in 1898. The Americans immediately walked into a rebellion--native Filipino forces had been at war for independence from Spain, and simply switched to fighting Americans. Americans fought back, hard, and the result was the little-remembered Phillipine-American War, which ended for most practical purposes in 1902.

Occasionally you will read claims that the U.S. committed "genocide" during that war. This is pretty much recycled 20th Century Soviet propaganda that's still held onto by a dwindling fringe. There was no concerted campaign to wipe out the native population as a whole, which is what would be required for genocide to be the proper term. Nevertheless U.S. forces did commit a number of horrible atrocities for which General Otis and others should probably have been jailed for life or hung. There were also atrocities committed by the rebel forces, although most of those were probably greatly exaggerated for propaganda purposes by the U.S. forces over there.

In any case, as a result of the war and a cholera outbreak (which may not have happened if there hadn't been a war going on), about a million Filipinos are estimated to have died during that four year period. This possibly counts as democide as defined by political scientist Rudy Rummel (I should try asking him) but not formally as genocide. By 1902 all the violence had stopped (except in Moroland, where disorganized, scattered violence went on for about 10 more years). The island then accepted American rule, and later American governors were often popular. Eventually the islands rightly got their independence.

It is not clear what benefit, if any, the U.S. ever thought to gain there. We didn't get much for it.

Anyway, the end of the Philippine-American War in 1902 also marked the end of America's years of acting as an imperialist power. Nothing the U.S. has done militarily in the century since can reasonably be described as "imperialism" except by anti-American bigots (Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn, and Noam Chomsky being some prime examples).

More to come.

Ali claims that I skip the question of whether we should have gone to Iraq in the first place. No I don't. This wiki is proof positive of that. Indeed, I continue to think that pretty much everything in the Authorization For Use of Military Force was valid at the time. I also take it as a given that it's entirely valid to try to knock out dictatorships--which is something the left used to fervently believe in, until America actually started doing it.

Ali accuses me of myopia and suggests that if I think we should have taken out Saddam, I should also think we should take out every other brutal dictatorship in the world. But that's fallacious reasoning so far as I can see; it suggests that if I cannot stop all murders, I have no moral right to stop any murder.

But, in point of fact, if Ali were reading this blog carefully for long enough, or just asked me, he'd already know: I have many times called for the forcible invasion and removal of countless dictatorships, including, specifically, Sudan, Iran, and Syria. I've suggested that we probably can't afford to invade North Korea, but assassinating Kim is probably a good idea. I've also, more than once, called for kicking the UN to the curb and forming an international body of democracies instead, and using that body to help reform the world's dwindling number of oppressive states.

The one oppressive regime I have consistently and repeatedly said that we cannot afford to attack with military might is Saudi Arabia. I've been saying this exact same thing, repeatedly, for years on this blog: we can't afford to have a Western power invade Saudi Arabia. That really would be tantamount to declaring war on the Muslim world. Not that that's what we'd be doing, but that's how it would be seen. Not because the Muslim world likes the Saudi regime (most don't) but because that's holy ground to Muslims and the House of Saud only has any legitimacy in the Muslim world precisely because it holds that territory. So instead we have to treat them like a dangerous rattlesnake that we can't afford to kill. It's maddening, it's frustrating, but it's reality.

Ali suggests that we can't possibly afford to take on every dictatorship in the world. While I do not agree that military spending reduces spending for public education (with all due respect to Ike, that's baloney), I in fact recognize that we can't afford to take out every dictatorship in the world. Which is why I'd like to see the world's democracies joining forces in a body like the UN but which excludes illegitimate regimes like those in Cuba, China, Syria, Iran, North Korea, etc. I further recognize (and again, I've been writing this for years, too bad your prejudices about me lead you to declare that I never say these things) that if we're going to embark upon a campaign to end tyrannical regimes, we are going to have to do it one step at a time.

I came to the conclusion that Iraq was the right starting point back in the first few months after 9/11. Not because Chimpy McSmirk and Dick Cheneyburton bamboozled and brainwashed me, either. But because this was a good starting point. Here we had a clear monster who was an open sponsor of terrorism that was completely in violation of his surrender agreements and was a mass-murdering oppressor. Good start. I also advocated at the time continuing on through Baghdad to Tehran and Damascus. You may or may not like the fact that I advocated that, but I did. (I still do, actually.)

Ali suggests that I should argue for more lenient immigration laws. Actually, I do. I hate the H1-B visa, which is basically just a step away from involuntary servitude, and I think we need to just go ahead and deal with the fact that it's not possible to jail, kill, or export most illegal mexicans and that trying to stop them will probably result in a police state that harasses employers overmuch. Again, Ali, I've written this many times. What would lead you to think otherwise except your own prejudices?

It is suggested that I oppose third-world debt relief. Actually, I don't. On the other hand, I do oppose extending any more loans that will just be squandered by dictators who corruptly steal most of the money and leave their people in poverty. "No more loans to dictators" would be my war cry. But sure, we can write off those debts. Good idea.

Ali suggests that I hypocritically do not speak out against farm subsidies in the US. Actually, I've been writing for years that I think we should end US farm subsidies.

I don't feel compelled to go dig up links through five years of archives to prove that I've taken these positions. I do take them, I have taken them, and anyone who's been reading long enough can vouch for it.

As for your status as someone from the third world, Ali: yeah, and my wife's family all hails from Poland, a second-world country which lived under the Communist boot for nearly a half-century and can tell you what the real truth is about America's so-called "imperialism." So far as I'm concerned, the very phrase "imperialism" is anti-American bigotry on its face. And I've been writing that for years too, by the way, since well before I ever met you.

As I have written many times (again, you didn't check or even think to ask), I believe that third world countries, particularly Muslim nations, were ill-treated by the United States during the Cold War. I think the reasons that was so are explainable by many reasons that have nothing to do with our mythical "imperialism," but it's still true. Which is why after 9/11 I called for change, as did many others.

I finally end on this note:

In Iraq, the "imperialist" Americans could have done all sorts of things to prove their imperialism. They've failed to do most of them. No "imperialist" promises to establish democracy and independence and then proceeds to obviously try to do so. Here's the truth:

The United States pledged to try to help the Iraqis establish a democracy, even if that democratic process resulted in things the United States did not agree with. The United States did so.

The Iraqis held a national democratic election to establish a temporary body that would write a new Constitution of, by, and for the Iraqis. Every international election body ratified that election as legitimate.

Then those legitimately-elected Iraqis wrote a Constitution that was, by American standards, imperfect. But it was by far the most liberal and progressive Constitution ever seen in the Arab world. True to their word, the Americans let them put that proposed Constitution before the Iraqi people. And the Iraqi people ratified it in a national referendum, which was also certified by all major international bodies as legitimate.

Then, under that newly-ratified Constitution which the Americans did not entirely like, we helped them hold the first truly democratic and free elections under that new Constitution, and a new government was elected. And that newly-elected government, on stumbling, wobbly newborn feet, formed. And was recognized as legitimate not just by the U.S., not just by the U.N., but by all of Iraq's neighbors. Even by Iran, the sworn enemy of the United States.

And, true to our word, the new Iraqi government has done a number of things that Americans might object to. But we committed to supporting them, and we have stayed consistent in that support.

Now if you ask me, in the ideal world the Iraqis should hold new elections now, because the Sunni minority boycott has skewed things a bit. But the new Constitution doesn't allow that. That's a conversation that's worth having.

But you know what "imperialism" would be in my view, Ali? Informing the Iraqis that we don't respect their self-chosen Constitution, and dictating terms to them.

As for bigotry: it's entirely obvious to me that if you call this regime in Iraq an "American puppet," you're not only racist toward Iraqis, you're racist towards Americans.

Furthermore, making excuses for the vile fascist Iraqi "resistance," which murders Iraqis on a daily basis, is obscene. If those vile fascist "resisters" (i.e. murderers) put their arms down today, American forces would stand down tomorrow.

Stop making excuses for fascists and murderers in Iraq, Ali.

In closing: before you claim that I don't say X or Y or Z, you might want to try checking whether I've said X, Y, or Z. And if you aren't sure, you might try asking me before your anti-American prejudices lead you to believe you already know.

And by the way, when I say "anti-American," I don't mean you aren't an American. Clearly you are an American, and I'm glad you are one. But just as there are self-hating Jews and self-hating blacks and self-hating white people, there are self-hating Americans.

America is a good country, Ali. We are not imperialists. We do often make mistakes and f*ck up. But we're not a sinister Empire spreading its tentacles around the world to try to reform everybody in our image. We just aren't.

When did I say we were imperialists? I said that our humanitarianism in Iraq was an extension of historical colonialism. Then in a later comment I distinguished between imperialism and colonialism, concurring with you that we weren't imperialists. Now, perhaps you didn't read the comment, but assuming you did, and then to continue to insist that I said America is imperialist, is wrong.

Putting that aside, Dean, there is what you subjectively believe, and there is what is done under the name of what you subjectively believe. Just as there is an expectation of "speaking out" on the part of activist-Muslims with respect to terrorism, there is an expectation of "speaking out" on the part of activist-humanitarians. You don't speak about the excesses, failures, and complete usurpation of the humanitarian discourse by Cheney, Bush, and the entire neo-con crew. Instead, you only defend them, over and over. Even in this post.

My critique of humanitarian usurpation has nothing to do with you. Even my Huff Po, which started all this, refers to "politicians." Check it out.

I am smart enough (I think) to believe that it is not often the discourse, but the politicians and leaders who hijack them, that are the problem.

I want Americans to become smart enough to see that they will be duped when their leaders cry humanitarianism and go intervene, which is why I cannot support your idea that we get together and intervene in a humanitarian way in the rest of the world.

I want Americans to see that previously the humanitarian discourse has shown plenty of evidence, with Iraq just being the capstone, of being hijacked by corporate interests that do not benefit either Americans or the nation under question. I also do not want the Iraq model to become a model.

Invasions based on a country's human rights are not OK.

You think they are. I don't. That's where we disagree. It is because I am more cynical than you about how governments historically have justified invasion that I will never support your view.

Dean, be more cynical. Invaders are liars. They act invasively and then call it humanitarianism. They then rely on fathers with hearts amidst them and tell them: we didn't invade and call it humanitarianism, rather, we are humanitarians, therefore we invaded. Don't be duped Dean. Hannah Arendt once said that "jobholders and family men" were far more pliant and loyal to their leaders than "fanatics, adventurers, sex maniacs, and crackpots." Your loyalty has to be with your nation Dean, not with its leaders. Fact is, nations have evil leaders, lying leaders, and leaders completely sucking the phallus of corporate (Halliburton) and external (Saudi Arabia) interests. When that happens it is we who have to raise our proverbial arms and make sure that our liberties are not threatened (and we should also make sure that the liberties of other people are not threatened).

Humanitarianism has long been a pretext for invasion, and from everything I have seen since 2003 in my country, it hasn't changed. So it doesn't matter what you think about humanitarianism, because even though you *are* a humanitarian purist, and an authentic humanitarian, you do not call out the people who hijack your preferred global strategy.

You defend them. The few times you discount their errors (Abu Ghraib, I think), it is for strategic reasons, not by questioning your own adherence to humanitarianism, nor by calling for the proverbial head of the humanitarian's in charge.

Also, its not just you, there is a whole coterie of humanitarians on this site who hide behind your proverbial skirt, and also do not engage in any criticism of the humanitarian regime that has hijacked their discourse.

Ultimately, though, the question we can't see eye to eye on is this:

GENERALLY SPEAKING, invasions based on a country's human rights are not OK.

You think they are. I don't. That's where we disagree.

You want to try and convince me that I should think Iraq should be an exception to that rule. I don't think that. It is possible that I could think it in another context, but not Iraq, especially because I think that we have been the party who has been the most responsible for getting the Iraqi human rights in a gutter (arming SH for 8 years against Iran to fight a war; and then the sanctions regime that killed 500,000 according to Madeleine Albright).

Even if you were to say to me that we needed to go into Iraq to right the wrongs of Reagan and Clinton, that's not good enough, because other countries are not play-things for our amusement and for mollification of our guilt. They are other countries. They have sovereignty. You believe that since we violated their sovereignty twice (indirectly in Iran-Iraq war, and directly in sanctions regime), we might as well do it again.

No. We stop doing it. Once and for all.

The less you make a play-thing out of other countries' sovereignty, the more likely you will be able to get people to support your humanitarian intervention in egregious crises.

Ultimately though, you still will not get any support for your absurd idea of armed democracies doing humanitarian-invasion. Ultimately, that kind of military commitment requires the draft, and even if a few of you may be up for that, I would venture and say 80 percent of this country would balk at the idea.