On appreciating military service, even in Iraq
In response to Joe Duarte’s rant against serving in Iraq in order to promote American freedom — “The idea that Iraq was ever a threat to Americans’ freedoms is both hilarious and revolting...” — I posted the following.
I don’t recall anyone arguing that Iraq was a threat, but [see correction below] I certainly remember some extremely articulate arguments to the effect that installing democracy in Iraq could, over the long-term, have a significant effect on reducing the growth of terrorism.
Not because Iraq itself was ever a hotbed of terrorism, but because installing democracy in a major country in the heart of Mesopotamia would inevitably cause the citizens in neighboring countries to begin campaigning for greater democratic freedoms themselves.
And unlike the petty theocratic dictatorships throughout most of the Middle East, democracies very rarely breed anything resembling terrorism.
In other words, Iraq was part of a long-term strategy, not a short-term fix or act of retaliation or self-defense.
For this reason, many Americans (including those who volunteer in the military) do believe their service in Iraq is in the cause of freedom.
You may disagree with them, and perhaps for very good reasons, but I don’t think you can fairly accuse them of latching onto false bromides — which seems to be the gist of your argument.
The fact that you see Iraq as a “stupid, stupid war” doesn’t mean that your perspective on the path to American freedom obviates their own perspective.
Note, please, that I’m not arguing here for or against the war in Iraq. I’m making a different point.
I’m saying: The fact you personally disagree with or disapprove of the war, does not mean those who are volunteering to fight it are not sincerely motivated by the honorable promotion of American freedoms.
I happen to appreciate their efforts and their motivations even though I often find myself having conflicted feelings about the war itself.
UPDATE: Actually, now I do recall the official arguments that Iraq posted a threat to world peace (weapons of mass destruction and all that) but I never personally saw those arguments as the more compelling ones in favor of the war, for the reasons Stephen den Beste illuminates very clearly.
Second update: (May 10) Joe felt my initial one-sentence summary of his position (”...Joe Duarte’s rant against joining the military and serving in Iraq to promote freedom...”) was a potential mischaracterization, depending on how the conjunction was read. He’s right. So I’ve updated it above with what I hope would be more clear.
I remain shocked to read this part even after reading several times over the past week or two, and even given your Update/Correction on the issue: “I don’t recall anyone arguing that Iraq was a threat...”
That’s ALL we heard about Iraq from the Administration leading up to the invasion — or more precisely, we heard that Iraq would or could ~become~ a threat. That was the whole (official) justification for the war going in.
This gets us to the core issue you raise — the motivations that military men and women might have for serving in Iraq. Several thoughts:
1) Your rendition of the more interesting arguments for the war strike me as arguments only accessible to people who inhabit a particular part of the blogosphere. No one knows who Stephen den Beste is — certainly the majority of soldiers don’t.
The elaborate, strategic argument for the war is not something I would expect most enlistees to be aware of, or motivated by.
2) Most soldiers don’t actually choose to serve in Iraq, with cuts away the issue of their motivation for doing so. That is, they don’t doubly choose to serve in the military and specifically to serve in Iraq. Some who have enlisted in the last couple of years might have had some designs on it, but those involved in the initial invasion wouldn’t have.
People who enlist in military mostly do so for all sorts of mundane reasons that have nothing to do with elaborate strategic arguments for installing democracy in the Middle East. Officers might be different, but we are talking about the regular soldier, I think.
3) Many of our justifications for doing something are biased and formulated after the fact. Sometimes people will rationalize whatever it is that they happen to be doing. For example, if you approached a soldier who is currently serving in Iraq and gave him the den Beste rationale for the war, he might very readily embrace it from then on and characterize it as his motivation for being there in the first place. No one wants to be part of a pointless or destructive enterprise, and people often embrace better rationales for their involvement.
4) A small minority of soldiers might have been motivated by the kind of argument for the war you have in mind, and consciously chose to serve in Iraq for that reason. In that case, I would respect their choice, but I would still see the underlying argument as incredibly weak and arrogant. I’m now sensitive to the fundamental strangeness of the idea of invading and occupying far away countries for reasons unrelated to immediate defense. A few years ago, I would have felt differently.
Joe,
I think you continue to underestimate people’s ability to understand the cause for which they are risking their own lives.
Steven Den Beste’s overview of the war on terror may be the most articulate defense of his position, but he’s far from unique in arguing that America stands to gain in the long term by promoting democracy in Iraq.
In fact, the idea that American interests are advanced by promoting democratic freedoms abroad has been around, and advocated by think tanks on the left as well as the right, for many decades. Ditto for the relationship between democracy and the recruitment efforts of Islamic terrorists.
Even the liberal Progressive Policy Institute (to whom the Clintons have long looked for foreign policy advice) has refrained from ever condemning the invasion of Iraq — because even they had recognized it would be an important aspect of fighting terrorism over the long term. (Instead, they criticize how the war has been conducted.)
The folks at the Pentagon are certainly familiar with the rationales explored in Den Beste’s article, and you can be sure they’re passing it down the ranks.
So these arguments are hardly “only accessible to people who inhabit a particular part of the blogosphere,” as you assert. In fact, the gist of it has been around since long before the internet existed. Den Beste just brought them together into one public document that was tightly organized and easy to read.
In any case, as long as the Pentagon clearly understands the dynamics that Den Beste articulates — and you may be certain they do — there is no contradiction whatsoever in saying that a soldier who risks his life in Iraq, does so in the service of American freedom.
Joshua
Early this morning I e-mailed independent journalist Michael Totten about this conversation.
Since he has embedded with, and interviewed, U.S. troops in Iraq on multiple occasions, he is in an excellent position to know what they think.
Regarding the soldiers’ own motivations in Iraq, he said I “nailed it” and:
“I would also add that an Iraq ruled by the likes of Al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army absolutely WOULD be a threat to the United States, as well as to itself and other countries in the Middle East.
“Abandoning Iraq right now would be akin to abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviet Union was pushed out — and we all know what that led to. These countries can become extremely dangerous if the most ruthless and extreme killers take over.”
Totten’s arguments are irrelevant to our thread, since we weren’t discussing the advisability of pulling out of Iraq now. All I referenced was the initial invasion of Iraq — an Iraq that had no Al Qaeda or Madhi Army at the time. The rise of those forces just nails home how incredibly reckless we were in invading in the first place.
Totten might be right in his present-day threat assessment, but again, that’s a completely different issue than what we were talking about, and I don’t have a strong opinion on the matter.
On motivation, it might help to talk to people you know who served in the Army or Marines recently, especially people like us (Objectivists, secularists, smart people) — they’ll tell you all about the typical infantry guy. It’s a much different personality and motivational profile than you might be envisioning — much different.
Again, on polling soldiers’ own motivations now that they are in the fight — well, that’s not a good way to find out actual motivations, at least not the original motivations. In any case, it’s not that pivotal of an issue.
Regarding the predominant sentiments of military personnel, we can all speculate, but here’s some objective evidence:
“Q4 FEC Reports: Ron Paul Receives More Military Donations Than All Other Republicans Combined. Total military donations nearly as much as the total of all other remaining candidates - Republican and Democrat.” (source: Ron Paul’s campaign website)
Considering that Paul is arguably the most anti-war of all the presidential candidates, I think this is telling.
Damian,
Interesting point! While it’s not a direct connection to what soldiers on the front line think (there’s much more to the “military” than the guys putting their life on the line each day, which is the group Joe and I are contemplating) but it’s still new data that’s worth thinking through carefully.
Joe,
As I understand it, Joe, you’re saying a couple things (paraphrasing, here):
1. “Iraq has never had much to do with American security.”
Well, Steven Den Beste’s article establishes in no uncertain terms the ways in which American security would be served by throwing Saddam out of power and replacing him with a democratically elected government.
And Michael Totten’s comment neatly summarizes why American security would be hurt by withdrawing from Iraq today, under the present circumstances.
While there’s room for disagreeing with either of these gentlemen, you can’t dismiss them as irrelevant to your claim.
2. “Soldiers don’t even see themselves as fighting for America’s security.”
Probably no one is in a better position than someone like Michael Totten to know what soldiers do and do not see themselves as fighting for.
He has embedded with the troops in Iraq on (if memory serves) five different occasions — giving him far more information than that to which you or I (or the vast majority of Americans) have access.
He says that my characterization of the troops’ motivations “nailed it.”
With that in mind, a few points:
A. We both acknowledge that various soldiers will have different perspectives. And in any war, there will be those who get it, those who don’t, and those who are just there to make a few bucks (or get over the requirements of a draft, in the case of WWII, Vietnam, etc.).
For my purposes, the question is not whether all soldiers or even most soldiers feel as I describe above. If even only SOME soldiers feel the way I describe, then you do them a real injustice by accusing them of latching onto bromides to justify their own (in your view, apparently) wasted lives/deaths.
So that’s why I encourage you to desist with the “you ain’t fighting for freedom, so don’t tell us you died in glory” schtick.
B. I’m not meaning to offer up either Den Beste or Totten as the final authority on any of these points.
That said, they’re non-partisan experts (Totten seems to lean liberal and Den Beste is a libertarian if I recall) who have each studied these issues in far greater detail than you or I have.
And so maybe, just maybe, they’re someone who you should spend some time studying if all you’ve been learning from is anti-war liberals or anti-war libertarians who actively promote one-sided views of the war.
So far, you seem only to dismiss them out-of-hand. For example, you’ve never acknowledged whether you read Den Beste’s article, and that would be a real shame if you haven’t.
C. What really matters to me is...
Not the war in Iraq.
I have an opinion about the war, one with plenty of ambivalence. But it doesn’t matter that much to me whether you agree with me about that.
What I would really like to accomplish, as a friend, is to persuade you to zoom out a bit and see a wider perspective — one in which there are multiple vantage points that deserve consideration.
You seem to have latched on pretty tightly to the view that the war is absolute and complete foolishness.
And I think anyone who is not intimately with the data coming in from people like Den Best and Totten is, frankly, unqualified to hold strong opinions on the subject, because there is SO MUCH politicized misinformation about the war.
So that’s it — I don’t care if you agree with me about Iraq. I would only hope that you’d come to see there are other valid perspective besides the one you have identified with, and some of them are worth studying.
And, again, cut the soldiers a little slack if you can find it in your heart. Some of them are, literally, giving their lives because they believe this whole plan really does have a chance of making us safer.
I realize you may always disagree, and maybe you’d even be right — but that doesn’t mean they have earned your scorn. Some of these are very good, smart people making the best decisions they can, and putting their lives on the line for people like you and me.
I’ve enjoyed having an opportunity to articulate what I find so important, here. You are a worthy opponent in intellectual debates.
I expect this may be my final volley, here. I hope it’s been at least somewhat worthwhile for you as well.
I’m closing this thread. It continues here.