Questions of war and politics

By James Ruhland
web posted May 3, 2004

In a democracy, every citizen has the right to question the
government's policies. Those who raise questions are not
immune to criticism themselves. The fact that this needs to be
pointed out is a sign of how effective critics of our policies on the
war have been in delegitimizing any disagreement with their
critiques. Those who argue back and criticize the critics are
faced with the charge of not permitting questions to be raised
about the conduct of our policy.
 
This is a rhetorical device aimed at short-circuiting a substantive
analysis of the questions they raise, the critiques they make, and
the alternatives they offer. But just as it is legitimate for
opponents of a policy or party to raise pointed questions, so too
is it perfectly legitimate for us to come to conclusions based on
the type of questions raised and alternatives proposed. When the
questions the most vocal critics of the war are looked at
dispassionately, it readily becomes apparent that they are more
interested in winning partisan battles at home than improving the
conduct of the war abroad.

It's not that the conduct of the war is above reproach. Very
pointed questions can be raised about the handling of the war.
What, if anything, has been done to improve intelligence
gathering to prevent the failure throughout the Western – not just
American – intelligence community to determine not only the
extent of Saddam's weapons programs but those of North
Korea and Libya? Do we have a large enough military to achieve
our purposes? Questions of this sort show a seriousness of
purpose in winning the war and also knowledge of what the
realistic alternatives are.

But these are not the sort of questions raised by the most
prominent critics of the conduct of the war. Typically, the
critiques raised show less effort at improving our prospects in the
war, but are instead a war against the war. They are aimed at
destroying domestic opponents, not defeating our country's foes.
Accusations posed as questions about the extent to which the
President "manipulated" intelligence detract from looking at what
needs to be improved in its gathering. Criticism of a "go it alone
policy" of unilateralism dismisses the contributions of our actual
allies and ignores the limits of diplomacy. It is based on the
premise that other countries simply respond to the stimuli we give
them. Questions about why Bush slighted diplomacy and "getting
the allies on board" not only denies the efforts we made but
distracts from those countries' decisions based on their own
interests. Some countries were not going to change their minds
regardless of the overtures made to them, just as Ted Kennedy
isn't going to change his position on tax cuts no matter how often
Bush invites him to the White House for a pleasant evening of
movie watching.

Asking why there aren't more foreign troops and contributions in
Iraq ignores the limitations of other country's resources. One can
compare with Afghanistan, where the "international" model was
followed and there are barely 5,000 troops in the UN-led
security force there, huddled around Afghanistan. The main
burden of providing security and hunting down the enemy
remains the responsibility of America and its closest allies – the
same who are with us in Iraq. The criticism that we should give
the UN more of a role in Iraq dismisses the possibility that the
Iraqis may not welcome an institution they have come to suspect
was complicit in their oppression and would be manipulated by
UN members who do not have the interests of Iraqis at heart.

Indeed. Knowledgeable people can be forgiven for concluding
that those raising such questions and criticisms are either not
informed enough to be paid attention to on these matters, or are
putting their political interests ahead of the country's. We are also
allowed to ask questions of our own, such as which of these
possibilities would be worse.

That all this is done for purposes of political gain is all the more
odious. When one listens to the tenor of their comments, it is
clear that many in this country reserve a passionate intensity for
their domestic foes that they do not express towards the people
who seek to kill Americans. It is hardly out of line to take note of
that fact in a democracy. The simple fact is that it is not criticism
itself that makes many prominent Democrats unfit for office, but
the nature of those criticisms. Until they are at least as serious in
devising a strategy for winning the war as they are in devising
means to bring down their opponents at home, they should not
win the White House.

James Ruhland is the author of <a href="http:
//www.porphyrogenitus.net">Porphyrogenitus.net</a>.

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com