Why justification is not the issue.

I’d like to say again how much I appreciate Trace, Cameron, and Marc over at “Snark”:http://www.arakna.net/blog/ . We may be on different sides, more or less, politically speaking, but they never stoop to name-calling and argument distortion the way so many conservatives have recently. I can argue with them and not fear being called a saddam-loving surrender-monkey for having a different opinion. As a result I feel I might actually be able to convince them of my opinion — and I’m more likely to listen and embrace theirs as well. So, hats off to Snark.

Now, on to answer “the question she posed”:http://www.arakna.net/blog/archives/000494.html#000494 about support for the war in Iraq.

Trace wants to know what evidence could be uncovered or what could happen to make those of us who “have problems with the war” feel the war is justifiable. The way the question is framed, I think, demonstrates a lack of understanding about what some of the “problems with the war” are. Those opposed to the war fall into five different camps — and most of the issues have precious little to do with “justification.”

These four groups are:

# War-protester socialite hippy-wannabee hangers-on. These people are protesting the war to be all political and stuff to try to get into so-and-so’s pants. You should dismiss them. I do.
# Straight-up religious or philosophical pacifists. Pragmatic arguments don’t impress them; they would rather die than kill. There is never any justification for these people. I salute and admire their dedication to their ideals. But for the most part there’s no point talking to them because they find offensive the suggestion that their actions should be shaped by events in the real world.
# Folks who wanted proof because they believe Saddam’s possession of WMD are in doubt. These are the people to whom “justifcation” for the war is a central issue. Presumably the discovery of WMD will change the minds of the doubters.
# Folks who wanted proof because they believe in due process. It may seem like a formality, but such people believe due process is an American Ideal and not just a law that only applies to Americans. They will see the war itself as an unjustifiable breaking with this American Ideal to the extent they value this Ideal over their own lives.
# Finally, there is the “justifiable, but not like this” crowd. The issue of “justification” has no bearing on our anti-war stance. Instead, we are concerned that:

* Bush’s manner has alienated our allies (and has, in fact, alienated us).
* Bush’s method will not increase our national security but decrease it.
* Bush’s motivation is not the elimination of WMD and liberation of the Iraqi people, and therefore the task will not hold his attention long enough for him to actually achieve these ends.

In other words, we’re more concerned with the *means* Bush has chosen to achieve his (purported) goals.

Futhermore, we think the Bush Administration’s brute-force cowboy posturing has squandered our resources, demonstrated the weaknesses in our defense network, and will ultimately lead to more instability and more death than careful diplomacy and sneaky political manipulation would have. The costs — in international prestige, abandonment of our princples, and human lives — have far outweighed the potential benefits. And even those benefits are not close to being assured!

There are many ways to skin a cat, and some of us fear Bush has chosen the method most destructive and least assured of success.

What would change my mind?

If the Iraq *is* effectively liberated and rebuilt into a democracy, I can admit that Bush’s actions were right. If terrorist organizations are intimidated enough to cease or reduce activities, I will admit that Bush’s war policy was effective. If Bush’s actions reduce terrorist enrollment, then I will feel safer because of what Bush did.