ON FREEDOM

This paragraph from Tom's blog deserves a rebuttal.

Liberating the oppressed. Wow, that sure sounds like a great and noble idea. If you see injustice in the world, you fix it (or at least attempt to).

No, not always. We can't fix everything. You pick your battles.

It's such a simple and good concept, why is there any opposition to it at all? There isn't. Even Hitler saw injustice and tried to fix it. He saw imperfection, and tried to cleanse the world of it.

Sharp. But the problem with Hitler isn't that he did what he believed is right. It's that his beliefs about what is right were wrong, or rather, he gave up attempting to discern the right and pursued a dream of the German people's, and ultimately his own, glory and grandeur instead. And though much of his language is moral, this was merely Machiavellian mimicry of morality. Hitler never even pretended to the ecumenical and benevolent goals which fill Bush's speeches, except occasionally to trick the British and the French. His contempt and hatred for other nations diametrically contrasts with Bush's respect and affection for them. None of this is a pretension to probe their heart of hearts; the most superficial study of their utterances reveals it clearly. There is no analogy between the two.

I guarantee you that every terrorist who blows a bus-load of children and himself up believes that he is doing it for the right reasons, for justice.

Too generous, but point taken. Terrorism is nevertheless crime.

We invaded Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people from an evil dictator and to "pre-emptively defend" (whatever that means) ourselves and our allies. Isn't that justice? It sure is, in a superficial sort of way. The main problem with "liberating the oppressed" is that you can't force "liberty" on anyone; that kind of defeats the purpose.

What's wrong with this may be understood by thinking about a person tied up with ropes or chains. If I cut the ropes, or break the chains, I am giving that person freedom. Am I "forcing" freedom on them? If you like: but it by no means defeats the purpose of freedom. It is the same with a totalitarian regime.

The quest for liberty must be initiated by the person who is oppressed.

False, just as the person in chains does not have to cut the chains himself in order to be freed from the chains-- as a matter of logic.

If they do not initiate it, then they have accepted the status quo.

False, and offensive. A contract signed under duress is invalid. Typically, in totalitarian states, any resistance, or even the withholding of active participation, can result not only in one's own death but potentially in either the death of family members, or their coming under suspicion, requiring increased hypocrisy and moral compromise from them on pain both of death and of jeopardizing their loved ones. If Tom really believed what he has written, he could travel to a country where slavery was practiced, purchase a large number of slaves and guns, and exploit them in any fiendish ways his fancy might contrive, threatening to kill any who disobeyed. Provided his victims preferred slavery to death, he could do all this with a clean conscience, for they would have "accepted" it. Of course, Tom wouldn't act on this, nor does he believe it, he just hasn't thought it through.

Someone else can look at them and pity their plight, but to force "liberty" on them would seem like another form of oppression, maybe even a worse one (since the original state was accepted, and would thus seem better).

No, for the reasons above.

It's interesting that in a recent Gallup poll 42% of Iraqis said they wanted their old regime back. That's not a majority, but that's not insignificant either.

If Tom wants to believe this, he should provide a link. I strongly suspect that either 1) Tom's figure is merely a rumor, or 2) the question was really, "Were you better off under the old regime?" A yes to this is not the same as wanting the old regime back, since Iraqis might (if you credit them with any intelligence at all, as I do, they will) understand that the present is a transitional phase to something better. They might think that things are worse now than under the old regime but it's not the fault of the Americans, but of the scum-"insurgents." They might even think that even if they are worse off now, they would rather be worse off and free than better off but trapped in the moral squalor of totalitarianism (just as I might enjoy cheating on my wife, but still refuse to do it for moral reasons.) I have seen polls suggesting huge majorities of Iraqis want Saddam dead.

I would say that's enough dissent for a civil war, the beginnings of which, it can be argued, we are seeing right now.

Has any pollster asked Iraqis "Would it be worth fighting a civil war to secure democracy?" I doubt it, but Iraqi blogger Mesopotamian has already volunteered an answer in the affirmative:

Now that OPERATION IRAQ FREEDOM II has to be launched against essentially the same enemy regrouped and refinanced and thouroughly convinced that terrorism and "nihilism" is the way to confront civilization, The Mesopotamian is still around, unflinching and undying friend of liberation, freedom and enlightenment.

If that poll is accurate, a sizeable percentage of Iraqis may not accept the outcome of the elections in January (if the elections even happen).

There's a false inference here. Even if 42% of Iraqis would have preferred to stay under the old regime (which I don't believe) that doesn't mean they won't accept the new regime as legitimate. If those 42% passively accepted, rather than actively supported the old regime, some might passively accept the new regime in the same way. Even if some of them actively supported the old regime, they might decide to passively accept the new one, or even actively support it. Fortunately, we don't need to speculate about this: a July poll not only do the vast majority of Iraqis support democracy, Allawi also enjoys high levels of support, even though he's not even elected but appointed:

Some of this confidence may be a result of wide public support for the Iraqi Interim Government. Prime Minister Allawi holds an enviable approval rating, with 66% rating him as either "very effective" or "somewhat effective." Likewise, President al-Yawer enjoys the support of 60.6% of Iraqis polled who say that they "completely trust" or "somewhat trust" him.

In a stunning display of support for democracy and a strong rebuttal to critics of efforts to bring democratic reform to Iraq, 87% of Iraqis indicated that they plan to vote in January elections. Expanding on the theme, 77% said that "regular, fair elections" were the most important political right for the Iraqi people and 58% felt that Iraqi-style democracy was likely to succeed.

Public opinion might have shifted against democracy in the past three months. Or in favor.

As it stands right now, large portions of the country won't even be able to vote due to instability. That's a lot of disenfranchised voters.

Temporarily disenfranchised. Until securiy can be restored. My heck. Why should we assume Iraqis are so stupid they can't understand this?

America's revolution was caused by disenfranchisement. It can have pretty severe effects, even if it doesn't lead to war.

Disenfranchisement was policy under the British. We had no representation in parliament. The Sunnis are being offered representation in parliament. If there is an analogy to the American Revolution in Iraq, it goes the other way: Allawi is George Washington.

Legitimacy would be the biggest casualty (legitimacy already is the biggest casualty).

A preposterous double standard is at work here. Saddam's regime is (as far as I can tell) presumed to be legitimate merely because it held a monopoly of power through force and fear. The successor regime has no legitimacy unless perfect elections can be held throughout the entire country. The truth is somewhere in between: legitimacy evolves, it is a matter of degree, it may be increased by elections or tradition, it involves a good deal of more or less free consent but always some coercion as well. Yes, the insurgents must be defeated, preferably by Iraqis. If that is done, any regime that emerges will enjoy legitimacy superior to Saddam's. But legitimacy cannot possibly be a "casualty" of the war, since there was none to begin with.

On an interesting side note, Saddam Hussein will not have been tried in a court by the time the election happens. His lawyer claims that he is eligible to run for public office, since he has not been found guilty in a court of law. If he runs in the district of Tikrit, where he was born, he will most likely win a seat in parliament. Whether we allow that to happen or not is irrelevant. It will be an entirely symbolic gesture, further destroying legitimacy, assuming there's any left to be destroyed.

Saddam is guilty of crimes against humanity, and the vast majority of Iraqis hate him and want him dead. To forbid the election of such a person to public office does not compromise the legitimacy of the compromise. Suppose that a small and very racist town decided to elect a KKK leader who was on death row for leading a long series of lynchings. The courts could justly forbid him to take public office. But heck, let Saddam be elected. He can participate via video-conferencing from his prison cell after he is convicted of mass murder. After he goes to the chair, Tikrit can elect someone else.

In a way, I hope that Bush gets re-elected, so that when the shit hits the fan, it will hit it hard, and maybe the world will learn something from our mistakes.

There were no mistakes.