Current Music: Deerhoof "+81"
I've been trying not to indulge my perpetual irritation with the stupidity of the human species. I don't like the person I become when I really let the venom fly at people who annoy me by taking outrageously stupid positions on various issues, important and trivial, based on even more bone-headed beliefs. I don't want to wallow in that kind of negativity too much anymore.
That said...
One could say that the political conflict over the buildup to the Iraq War was a reflection of two radically incompatible political paradigms. It was kind of a perfect situation for reducing a whole slew of ideological conflicts, different perspectives on diplomacy and international relations, and understandings of the political and cultural issues of the Middle East and boiling them all down to a simple binary:
Do we invade Iraq? (Yes/No)
In the end, the yes side won out, and two broadly-defined schools of political thought and fundamental approaches to foreign policy were put to the ultimate field test.
Had the Iraqi people gratefully greeted the coalition troops as liberators in 2003, if Iraq were now a bustling and vibrant democracy flourishing in the Middle East, I think that any time the tree-hugging hippies like me who opposed the war opened our mouths in 2007, there would be a chorus of voices telling us to sit in the corner and STFU.
And, I think, justifiably so. By now, it would be clear to everyone that back in 2003, when we had screamed about how the war was an atrocity in the making, we had been wrong. We clearly had had no idea what we were talking about. The Cheneys and Rumsfelds and Wolfowitzes of the world had understood how the world worked better than we did then, and they had been vindicated when they put their plan into action. Clearly, the burden would now be on us to figure out why we had been so wrong, and that would most likely involve rethinking some of our core principles and most cherished beliefs, because those beliefs had led us to act like a bunch of dipshits screaming gibberish and standing in the way of people with a better idea.
Honestly, had such a thing happened, I can't possibly see how I would not have had a crisis of political faith. I mean, how blind would I have had to have been to call things that badly? Had the neocons been the ones who were perceiving the situation accurately, people would have been sitting there in their homes, cowering helplessly under the rule of a dictator and praying for the Americans to come and save them, and I would have been the one who hung banners and demonstrated against answering those prayers. My understanding of the world would have been so deeply flawed on so many levels that I would have felt compelled to go back and re-examine everything I believed from a new perspective.
To be totally honest, the thought occurred to me at the time. "What will I do if the Iraqis welcome them with open arms, and Iraq is liberated and becomes a beacon of hope to the rest of the region?", and to say some small part of me was terrified of the implications of that possibility would be something of an understatement.
Obviously, however, that's not what's happened.
How is it, then, that people who passionately advocated the invasion of Iraq in 2003 still have any credibility whatsoever with anyone, even themselves? If I were in their shoes, I don't think I'd be able to muster the balls to voice a public opinion about the fucking weather, much less policy issues of any consequence.
I can understand, to some degree, people who were on the fence, people who had reservations, people who felt that they didn't have enough information, people who hemmed and hawwed and maybe got swept up a little in the tide of public opinion. That's another issue, for the most part.
I'm talking, now, to the people who screamed and yelled and disparaged opponents of the war. I'm talking to the people who told us in the most condescending tones possible that we didn't understand how to deal with "those people over there," because, you know, they won't listen to reason and they hate us because they're jealous of our freedom. I'm talking to the people who spat on the French for daring to stand up to us and tell us that this was a really bad idea. I'm talking about the academics who twisted every legal text they could find and distorted every reasonable understanding of the fundamental nature of our society as well as theirs in their quest to rationalize and excuse this course of action. I'm talking to the people who were 110% certain that this war was right, necessary, and probably even overdue, the people who were just itching to push all of us nay-sayers out of the way so they could show us how real men handle foreign policy in the post-9/11 era.
Mostly, I'm talking to all those people who considered themselves "realists," because they were the only ones who understood that all our high-falutin' ideals of justice and diplomacy and all our fancy talk didn't solve problems in the "real world."
For those people, I am here to tell you that I am, in fact, a realist, and I believe in doing what works best most often for real people in the real world. You, on the other hand, essentially believe that most foreign policy problems have a simple, one-size-fits-all solution:
1) Figure out who the bad guys are.
2) Shoot them.
While you think that makes you hard-edged and realistic, it actually just makes you dreadfully naive. If the world's real problems were that easy to solve, I'd be honored to pull the trigger myself.
Oh, if only the world were as simple as your childlike brains make it seem in the idealistic fantasy world you've created! Unfortunately, most of the world's problems are a great deal more complicated than that, and solving them generally requires lots and lots of things you'd probably find really tedious: political negotiations, development of economic strategies and institutions, etc. Lots of paperwork and lots and lots of what would probably seem to you like endless, pointless talking. You know, all that boring old adult stuff you hate so much and are so eager to sidestep so you can get right to the slam-bang parts.
There might be some military action involved, but the bulk of it is likely to be that peacekeeping kind where you don't try to make the huge flashy explosions so much as you try to stop them from happening. I know, I know, I'm a killjoy.
I've saved the worst part for last: this usually requires consistent action of this kind over the course of years or even decades. Can you even imagine having to worry about what the consequences of your actions right now will be ten or even twenty years in the future?
Unfortunately, as much as we'd like to deny the cold, hard, truth of it, it's the only thing that works, and after Iraq we can no longer even pretend that your approach has any merit, or that you know the tiniest bit of anything worth knowing about the way the "real world" operates. You really need to re-examine the fundamental assumptions you have about the world which are informing your philosophy.
I'm hoping you will grow up someday, and realize that your entire belief system is stupid and misguided, and that you don't know shit about shit, but in the meantime, until you do, we're just going to have to ask you to sit in the corner and STFU. |
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
dizfactor's journal
sad
amused
distressed
busy
bored
cynical
impressed
ecstatic
![[info]](http://livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
curious
blank
awake
ditzy
hot