Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Fallacies of Pro-War Logic

By M. Junaid Alam, WireTap. Posted October 17, 2005.


The removal of Saddam Hussein has not decreased the suffering of the Iraqi people, nor has it brought more security for Americans.
Advertisement

There are two outstanding facts about the war on Iraq. One is that it was based entirely on lies. This most of us already know. There were no weapons of mass destruction, not until the U.S. dropped its own. There is no evidence that al-Qaeda movement was there either, not until the U.S. deployed its soldiers to fill out the pages of Osama's script.

But the other outstanding fact about the war is more perplexing: namely, that it is still being fought. Why are we still fighting a war that is clearly based on lies? Why does a solid, unwavering 40 percent of the American public continue to support the war effort, no matter the cost in lives or money?

It is no doubt true that, for a segment of pro-war America, the presence or absence of WMD or al-Qaeda is entirely irrelevant. In the minds of these war supporters, talk of either threat is as a mere bit of official token rationalism -- thinly veiled codeword for the barely concealed yearning to exact "revenge" on the ubiquitous "Them" for September 11.

But the official face of the pro-war rationale has not yet devolved into such a hideous visage -- not even if it is as "drink-sodden" as Mr. Hitchens'. The main public line of justification for the war employed by the Right is as follows: the United States liberated Iraq by removing a murderous dictator, thus freeing the people of a tyrannical menace and putting them on the path toward democracy. Conversely, the pro-war brigade maintains, anyone who is opposed to the war supports dictatorship.

What is the typical response to this rationale? Usually, a pathetic whimpering one: "Why, yes, dictatorship is bad, yes, Saddam is bad, yes, the people are better off, but the war was illegal and fought on false pretenses." This is a response crafted to convince a policy wonk or a U.N. bureaucrat, not a thinking American. It hardly addresses the pro-war argument, which attempts to make two points: one, that a desirable result brought about by dubious means nonetheless remains a good thing, and two, that a stance against the war is de facto in favor of Saddam.

The first point is plain enough. Sometimes the end can indeed justify the means. But in this case it is prudent to ask: what justifies the end? The removal of Saddam Hussein has not meant the removal of the suffering the Iraqi people endured whilst under Saddam Hussein. Outside of a tiny sliver of Baghdad, gangs, looters, rapists, mercenaries, and militias prowl the highways, the urban centers, and the hinterlands. Any semblance of real security in Iraq is, despite administration propaganda, nowhere in evidence. Under Saddam there was, at least, security to count on.

There were also basic services. Today these citizens of an oil-rich nation find themselves lining up for hours to fill their cars with petrol. The production of energy has barely reached that of pre-war levels, which is especially appalling since the latter was maintained under severe sanctions and dilapidated equipment, not the glorious free-market theology now flourishing in the country. There is little long-term prospect of improvement for either oil or energy production given the realities on the ground. Moreover, the reconstruction program -- twisted and contorted into abject failure by the well-documented greed of overpaid American contractors and select Iraqi cronies -- is severely crippled, at least under American auspices.

Adding insult to injury, as the U.N. discovered six months ago, malnutrition levels of children in Iraq are about twice as high as they were in the pre-war period. Unlike in the post-Gulf War era, the government does not -- and cannot -- carry out its past program of distributing foodstuffs. Who would be suicidal enough to deliver them in a country where even the main road to the airport is unsafe?


Digg!

M. Junaid Alam, 22, is a journalism student at the Northeastern University and co-editor of the leftist youth journal, Left Hook.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Well said.
Posted by: WhatNow? on Oct 17, 2005 4:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent article. I wish this article would be read nightly on the evening news. This is real news. This article is what every person on the globe needs to ponder.

The other news item I think needs to be constantly addressed is, where and how is all the money being spent in Iraq?

To me, those are two of the most important news at this time yet they are rarely discussed in the corporate media.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War in Iraq: corporate media
Posted by: dearkitty on Oct 17, 2005 4:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why are corporate media so often pro war; in the Iraq case; and probably in the Iran case, where Bush may try to start his next war? See here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The modern world
Posted by: loony on Oct 18, 2005 12:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I shall draw your attention to certain expressions in this article in order to show that the context in which we presently live is far more hopeful than the relatively recent past.
"outstanding" in the first and second paragraphs says it all. A war which was not based on lies to start it, and lies to continue it is, as the French say, a sheep with five legs. The difference between the war under discussion, and those of the past, is that we have able to discover the lies. And this is thanks to the Internet.
'Them", at the end of the second paragraph, is a truly frightening word. The two towers collapsed downwards, as did tower seven of the WTC. The hole in the pentagon was too small for the story to make sense. The fools that wrote this hollywood disaster story did not reckon with the Internet.
Not so many years ago, the scholar who wrote this article would have had to incude numbered footnotes to articles only obtainable in places of no access to the common reader. The Internet links he provides allows anyone to take any tangent he needs, without personal locomotion. The article itself would have been read only by his close associates, supposing that he would have even been able to write it in the first place.
It is clear why Bush would like to separate the American "Internets" as he calls it, from the "other Internets". He no longer has control of the media. We must keep things as they are, or return to the pre-print era of the middle ages.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ian
Posted by: Ian on Oct 29, 2005 4:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By going on about weapons of mass destruction, people keep missing the point. It doesn't matter whether he had any or not. Plenty of countries have WOMD, lots of them very nasty countries with poor human rights records, but so what? The only criteria was whether Saddam was a danger to the Unitied States. The simple truth is he wouldn't have dared to use them against America, that's why he didn't in the first Gulf War. The Islamic Fundamentalist who were a danger to the US, were as much a danger to Saddam and his Stalinist regime. How much Nerve Gas does Iran have I wonder?
If they'd found stocks of deadly chemicals(probably bought from western companies), it still wouldn't have made the war justified, because he still would have been no more likely to use them against the west than the next despotically led country.
So, this is the the point, brace yourself,
Weapons of Mass Destruction in terms of who has them and who doesn't are completely irrelevant in terms of global security.
We're swanning around in Iraq for God knows what reason while Iran develops a nuclear bomb. The very regime that is fanatically hostile to the US and the west in the first place, and should have been dealt with during the original hostage crisis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]