The Revolting Parade

Thanks, Andrew. Though yours is not a political blog as such, I do find your occasional political
“commentary” to be refreshingly calm & common sensical.

I agree with you on all points. The income tax issue, however, troubles me. Is a value added tax truly a viable alternative? Undoubtedly income tax is problematic on several levels, but what exactly do you mean when you call it “wicked”?

*

My God, I wonder what would result if we actually did get rid of the Constitution?

*

Anyway, like you, I’m impressed by Ron Paul. As far as your descriptive list goes — “the sordid, the inane…” — it certainly applies to folks like the unprincipled Mrs. Clinton & the cross-dressing Mayor of New York.

I know very little about Mr. Webb. Time to do a little research.

Excellent suggestion of the ticket of Ron Paul and Jim Webb!

“Needless to say, all of the candidates for both parties are thoroughly reprehensible in one way or another.”

In total agreement. Time for another revolution…

In total agreement. Time for another revolution…

Always the Jacobin, Mrs. P. As a DAR, at least your true to your ancestry.

Ah, I was so hoping to draw you out with that comment so that I could hit you with this:

“The House of Commons spent 700 hours debating the hunting ban; 7 hours on the decision to invade Iraq.”

-via Chasemeladies via The Guardian

Now if the members of the House of Commons or the members of the United States Congress did not properly debate, or think through, our war with Iraq properly before authorizing it, does this give us the luxury of just saying, “Hey, this isn’t working, we’re otta here.”

I say most emphatically, No.

There are intelligent, well-founded arguments for a prompt withdrawal from Iraq — ones that that go far beyond “Hey, this isn’t working, we’re outta here.”

Very well, Mrs. P. Don’t just say no; tell us why not!

I will be absolutely delighted to. I shall return.

OK, I’m back.

Now just to get us off on the right start, I’d like to start at the begining. The begining would be why we went to war with Iraq in the first place. Contrary to the media and the anti-war left’s assertions, the reason we went to war in Iraq was for gaining possession of Iraqi oil or, fear of weapons of mass destruction. There were far more significant reasons — morally significant reasons as the world did change on September 11, 2001.

In February of 2003, Michael Novak framed the real reason why we went to war with Iraq better than anyone ever has:

“EDITOR’S NOTE: NRO contributing editor Michael Novak was invited by United States Ambassador to the Holy See Jim Nicholson to deliver remarks to a public audience in the Vatican City on just-war doctrine and Iraq on the evening of February 10, 2003. While in Rome, Professor Novak speaks as a private citizen, a guest of the U.S. State Department as part of its U.S. Speaker and Specialist program, and not as an official representative of the government or as an official representative of American Catholics. While in Rome, Novak is also meeting with Vatican officials. The text of Novak’s lecture is printed below.

“The reason why the United States is going to war against Saddam Hussein, unless he fulfills his solemn obligations to international order or leaves power, has nothing to do with any new theory of “preventive war.” On the contrary, such a war comes under traditional just-war doctrine, for this war is a lawful conclusion to the just war fought and swiftly won in February, 1991. At that time, the war was summarily interrupted, in order to negotiate the terms of surrender with the unjust aggressor, Saddam Hussein. At the peace table, the United Nations insisted that, as a condition of his continuation in the presidency of Iraq, Saddam Hussein must [a] disarm and [b] provide proof to the U.N. that he had disarmed, accounting with transparency for all his known weapons systems and arsenals. In particular, Saddam Hussein was ordered to destroy his stocks of mustard gas, sarin, botulin, anthrax, and other chemical and biological agents. He was also to provide proof that he had destroyed all his prior work toward the development of nuclear weapons.

“During the next twelve years, despite constant warnings, Saddam Hussein brazenly flouted all these obligations. In late 2002, the Security Council again solemnly put Saddam Hussein under edict to prove that he had carried out these obligations, on which his very right under international law to remain in power depended. Again, he provided no such proof. Indeed, he continues to insult the Security Council by his performance.

“Meanwhile, in a sudden and violent fashion, another war was launched against the United States — and, indeed, against international civilized order — on September 11, 2001. This unsought and sudden war emerged from a new strategic concept, “asymmetrical warfare,” and it threw the behavior of Saddam Hussein into an entirely new light, and enhanced the danger Saddam Hussein poses to the civilized world a hundredfold.

“Before elaborating on that, let me recall that authentic Catholic doctrine on the just war, as formulated by St. Augustine and St. Thomas, lays out a clear path of reasoning for public authorities acting in their official capacities in approaching the decision to go to war, or not. Moreover, in evaluating these contingencies, the new Catholic Catechism assigns primary responsibility, not to distant commentators, but to such public authorities themselves. This assignment of responsibility is made for two reasons. First, they are the ones who bear the primary vocational role and constitutional duty to protect the lives and the rights of their people. Second, they are by the principle of subsidiarity the authorities closest to the facts of the case and — given the nature of war by clandestine terror networks today — privy to highly restricted intelligence. Others have a right and duty to voice their own judgments of conscience. But the final judgment belongs to public authorities: “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good” (Catechism, #2309).

“What is new in the world of just-war theory in the 20th century, to resume, is the concept of “asymmetrical warfare.” This concept has been developed by international terrorist groups that, although dependent on clandestine assistance from states willing to help them secretly, are not responsible to any public authority. In order to demonstrate the inability of elected governments to defend the lives of their own people, these terrorist cells execute dramatic attacks upon innocent civilians. The more dramatic and murderous these attacks, the more likely they are to shake legitimate governments to their foundations.

“This new strategic concept, and the new technological, educational, and logistical conditions that make it practicable, have brought about the widespread moral condemnation of such international terrorist groups, as the enemies of civilized order. The Vatican itself voiced this condemnation following the massacres of September 11, 2001.

“When it became clear that the main training ground and command center of the perpetrators of the massacres of September 11 were under the protection of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, moral authorities further agreed that a limited and carefully conducted war to bring about a change of regime in Afghanistan was morally obligatory.

“During the next months, intelligence services learned that the terrorists had plans for further attacks upon famous targets in European capitals, including Paris, London, and the Vatican. Months later, attacks upon the Moscow Opera House, Christian churches in Pakistan, and a crowded disco in Indonesia indicated the worldwide reach of the threat.

“Nonetheless, in the case of Iraq today, Civilta Cattolica argued recently that war would be unjust, and posited the theory that American motives, in particular, were driven by Iraqi oil: “The fundamental motive seems to be the geopolitical position that Iraq holds in the Middle East [as one of] the three major oil and natural gas producing states (Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia).” (The journal said nothing comparable about French, Russian, Chinese or others’ motives.) But America has just reasons for war far more important than Iraqi oil.*

“What is uppermost in American national interests is that, at a time we did not choose and in a way we did not will, war was declared upon us in word and deed on 09/11/01. That aggressor had no standing army, whose movements in advance gave notice of an imminent attack. On the contrary, the attack came all unexpected, striking its innocent victims on a soft, warm, blue-skied September day. The weapons employed were not conventional military armaments, but rather American civilian aircraft heavy with fuel for the long trip to California. The targets chosen — tall skyscrapers — left their unsuspecting victims particularly helpless.

“Normal criteria watched for by just-war theorists were not literally present: neither conventional military movements, nor visible signs of imminent attack, nor the authority of a hostile nation state. The horror of the damage was immense, just the same.

“International war had clearly been launched. Its perpetrators called it an international jihad, aimed not only against the U.S. but the entire West, indeed, against the whole non-Islamic world. (The world had already mourned the destruction of ancient and priceless Buddhist monuments in Afghanistan.)

“No major moral authority had any difficulty in recognizing that a war to prevent this new type of terrorism is not only just but morally obligatory.

“How does Iraq fit into that picture? From the point of view of public authorities who must calculate the risks of action or inaction vis-à-vis the regime of Saddam Hussein, two points are salient. Saddam Hussein has the means to wreak devastating destruction upon Paris, London, or Chicago, or any cities of his choosing, if only he can find clandestine undetectable “foot soldiers” to deliver small amounts of the sarin gas, botulins, anthrax, and other lethal elements to predetermined targets. Secondly, independent terrorist assault cells have already been highly trained for precisely such tasks, and have trumpeted far and wide their intentions to carry out such destruction willingly, with joy. All that is lacking between these two incendiary elements is a spark of contact.

“Given Saddam’s proven record in the use of such weapons, and given his recognized contempt for international law, only an imprudent or even foolhardy statesman could trust that these two forces will stay apart forever. At any time they could combine, in secret, to murder tens of thousands of innocent and unsuspecting citizens.

“Please note: Were such an attack to come, it would come without imminent threat, without having been signaled by movements of conventional arms, without advance warning of any kind.

“Somewhere between 0 and 10, in other words, there already is a probability of Saddam’s deadly weapons falling into al Qaeda’s willing hands. (There are also other branches of the international terror network). Reasonable observers can disagree about whether that risk is at 2 or 4 or 8. But this much is clear: Those who judge that the risk is low, and therefore allow Saddam to remain in power, will bear a horrific responsibility if they guessed wrong, and acts of destruction do occur.

“It is one thing for other observers to calculate these risks; it is another for duly constituted authorities, responsible for protecting their people from unprovoked attack.

“Of course, those who today choose the path of war will bear responsibility for all the bitter fruits of war to come. The moral question here, as in so many areas in which prudence must be invoked, requires the responsible weighing of risks. To settle this moral question also requires knowledge of information from intelligence services, which monitor terrorist networks and their activities.

“In brief, some persons argue today (as I do) that, under the original Catholic doctrine of justum bellum, a limited and carefully conducted war to bring about a change of regime in Iraq is, as a last resort, morally obligatory. For public authorities to fail to conduct such a war would be to put their trust imprudently in the sanity and good will of Saddam Hussein.

“Saddam Hussein is a leader of proven “megalomania ” (a term applied to him by President Mubarak of Egypt), an unusually cruel leader, who has made long and regular use of weapons of mass destruction even against his own citizens.

“Should Saddam violate their trust by a violent biological attack in some Western city, public authorities who made themselves hostage to his moral reliability would have inexcusably ignored his record.

“A word should be said here about the original Catholic doctrine of justum bellum, but especially of those ad bellum questions that arise in making the decisions that lead up to war. These questions quite naturally come before the in bello questions, those that query the conduct to be followed in waging war. Just-war doctrine has at its root the Catholic understanding of original sin, articulated in this context by St. Augustine in Book XIX of The City of God. In this world, Christians will always have to cope with the evil in the human breast that sows division, destruction, and devastation. Augustine had seen many such evils in his lifetime, including the horrors of the Sack of Rome in 410 A.D. Nonetheless, he held that Christians acting as public authorities are bound by laws of charity and justice even in waging war.

“Augustine defined peace as the “tranquility of order” represented by a dynamic, changing international order, created by just political communities, and mediated through law. When public authorities move to defend this order against unjust aggressors, theirs is a just political end. Just-war doctrine in its ad bellum considerations sets forth the rules under which public authorities are obliged to move to defend their own peoples, and to restore the minimum conditions of international order, by means of warfare. Warfare under this teaching is a morally appropriate political end, and may be morally obligatory upon public authorities, when circumstances dictate that evil must be stopped.

“The aim of a just war is the blocking of great evil, the restoration of peace, and the defense of minimum conditions of justice and world order. For both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, thinking about war falls under the principles of charity and justice. In their view, just war does not “begin with a presumption against violence,” but rather with a presumption that addresses first the duties of public authorities to charity and justice and, second, that takes seriously a sinful world in which injustice and violence against the innocent will continue for all time. These have certainly continued in the 21st century as in the 20th.

“No one today denies that international terrorism is a deliberate assault on the very possibility of international order. That public authorities have a duty to confront this terrorism, and to defeat it, is universally recognized.

“This is the context in which the ad bellum question concerning a limited and careful war upon Iraq is properly raised today. The primary duty of public authorities in well-ordered democracies is to protect the lives and rights of their people.

“Moreover, in assessing the many circumstances that must be weighed in moving toward a decision ad bellum, those public authorities who bear the immediate responsibility and who are closest to the facts of the case, have moral priority of place. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states this with no ambiguity, as we have seen above (#2309).

“The first reason, then, why public authorities in the United States have urged the United Nations to become serious about Iraq is the war preemptively declared upon the United States on 09/11/01. It was obvious from the beginning that 19 graduate students from middle-class families (mostly in Saudi Arabia) did not perform that deed unaided. They had the support of states (Afghanistan in the first place, but also Yemen, Iran, Sudan, and others) willing to act clandestinely but not openly, as international outlaws.

“Meanwhile, for 12 long years Saddam has flagrantly violated the conditions laid down by the United Nations for the continuation of his presidency. In the world become far more dangerous after September 11, 2001, either the world community now upholds international order, or it backs down from its own solemn agreements. In the latter case, individual sovereign nations will refuse to be complicit in the policy of appeasement. To do otherwise would join Saddam’s conspiracy against international order, and to accrue responsibility for anything he might do.

“Many other nations besides Iraq have been obliged to disarm, and to show proof of it, for instance, South Africa, Kazakhstan, and other nations of the former Soviet Union. All have complied fully and openly. Iraq has not. It has not accounted for immense supplies of chemical and biological weapons which on earlier occasions it either admitted that it possessed, or was shown by international inspectors to have possessed.

“It is not the burden of the international community to prove Iraq’s noncompliance. That fact was publicly and internationally well established years ago. It is Hussein’s obligation, as a condition for continuing in his presidency, to present evidence that he has disarmed. This he has so far disdained to do. Hussein has judged that the international community lacks the will to enforce its decrees.

“For some years, it seemed reasonable (if shameful) not to force Saddam Hussein to comply, but just to wait him out. However, the maturation of al Qaeda and other highly trained international terrorist groups adds to Hussein’s violation of U.N. decrees a new peril. On the record, Saddam is capable of ordering a tremendous loss of life, through a secretive, sudden attack upon major western cities with small amounts of biological or chemical agents.

“With less than a teaspoon of anthrax distributed in letters, for instance, thousands of government workers in Washington were obliged to be screened and preventively treated for anthrax poisoning, one Senate office building was closed for many weeks for decontamination, two post-office workers died, and many others fell ill for some time.

“Saddam Hussein has failed to account for more than 5,000 liters — five million teaspoons — of anthrax which he is known to have possessed just a few years ago.

“This does not include the thousands of liters of botulin and other forms of biological weapons, including nerve gas and sarin gas, reported by U.N. inspectors to have been present in his arsenals. Nor does it include the stockpiles of mustard gas the U.N. reported in his possession. “Mustard gas is not like marmalade,” Hans Blix famously announced in January. “Governments must know exactly where it is, and what is done with every container of it.” It is a deadly gas.

“In recent weeks, newspapers have carried reports from European intelligence agencies of serious efforts by highly trained Chechen and other Islamic jihadists preparing for terrorist attacks in European cities, in case there is war in Iraq. Whether or not there is war in Iraq, these hidden cells are active now, and will be active years from now. Probabilities are high that one or more of these cells will get their hands on biological or chemical agents. Nowhere will it be easier for them than in Iraq.

“That those chemical and biological agents lie waiting for them must be taken as a fact, until Hussein offers proof that he has destroyed them. For 12 years he has refused to do so, even under the pain of economic sanctions. To believe that he will now present such proof goes beyond common sense. Nonetheless, he has again been given a window of opportunity to prove that he has destroyed them, and that they pose no danger.

“Let us hope that Saddam Hussein as a last resort decides to obey his solemn obligations under the negotiated peace of 1991, and thus at last meets the minimum requirement of international order. In that case, there will be no war. In that case, the policy of the United States will have succeeded without the need for war.

“ENDNOTE: *At present, oil companies from France, Russia, and China have contracts to help develop Iraqi oil fields. Europe depends far more upon oil from Iraq than America (only a tiny fraction of U.S. oil comes from Iraq, about six percent). Oil from Iraq, indeed oil from the entire Middle East, ranks higher among European national interests than American. For some years, the United States has been moving to draw the preponderance of its oil from our own hemisphere, mostly from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela, and to cut back steadily on its use of Middle Eastern oil, to the level now of 26 percent of its annual. Europe is far more dependent on Iraqi oil, and far more involved with the Iraqi oil industry. I believe the U.S. should form a consortium of nations currently under contract to develop Iraq’s oil fields, prominently including Italy, France, Russia, and China.

“Within 15 years the United States hopes to be running a significant proportion of its automobiles and its heating appliances on hydrogen power. Experimental models are already in fairly wide use, and President Bush announced a major research program to support this effort. The goal of the United States is energy independence and, in the shorter term, continuing reductions in reliance on Middle Eastern oil.”

That was 2003. It is 2007. Saddam has been deposed and democracy is gaining a foothold in Iraq. The majority of the country is secure.

To the naysayers who scream “But there were no weapons of mass destruction. The whole thing is a fraud.”

First I say, “You are an idiot.” Second I say, “The situation is this. We know Saddam had them. Hans Blix will, or he used to, agree that they did exist. What happened to them? Did Saddam destroy them and then perversely decide not to tell us, risking a war? Or did hide them? Either outcome proves that Saddam violated the UN agreements for him remaining in power in Iraq. He violated the trems of agreement. Therefore war was the morally just thing to do.”

Now, to continue on the morally just theme. we have a duty to the Iraqis : We must help them secure their safety. We must help them learn to govern themselves under a fledgling democracy. This is is hard work and not for the faint of heart like Pelosi, Clinton, Carter and Reid…

The war has not been lost. So far only the media conceeds that. And Jim Webb…

Even if the government has a duty to the Iraqis, its duty to Americans is of far greater importance. America’s interest ought to be of greater concern to America’s government than Iraq’s interest.

I have yet to hear a single plausible explanation why it is rational to send soldiers who joined the military to defend their own country to fight and die to defend someone else’s; especially when the prolongation of that fight is directly against the interests of their own country.

We overthrew Saddam. Yippe-cayay. Now let’s bring the soldiers home and let Iraq sort out its own problems.

The vast majority of what you posted was about going to war with Iraq. We’ve already done that, so it’s irrelevant to debate it now. The question is: what do we do now?

we have a duty to the Iraqis

Why? Says who?

We must help them secure their safety.

Why? Says who?

We must help them learn to govern themselves under a fledgling democracy.

Why? Says who?

From where did these sudden moral obligations spring? They’re not in the Constitution. They’re not in the Declaration of Independence. Heck, they’re not even in the U.N. Charter.

We must help them learn to govern themselves under a fledgling democracy.

Well, let’s send whoever’s in charge over there a history of the constitutional development of the English-speaking nations, tell him to read it, and call it a day, alright? Or would you prefer to send Americans to die there instead?

Well & succinctly put, Andrew. Especially following the (sadly) delusional & somewhat shrill (“To the naysayers…First, I say, ‘You are an idiot.'”) followup from Mrs. P.

(Please don’t take this as an ad-hominem attack on Mrs. P; I’m simply trying to be straighforward.)

Andrew,

First I put up why went went to war to frame the context of my argument. There was a real threat to our national security with Saddam in power in Iraq and violating the 17 UN resolutions. Obviously, you do not agree. Therefore my arguments will have little sway with you but not to worry, that will not deter me.

Let us begin with the Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

So how much justice, domestic tranqulitiy etal did the occupants of the World Trade Towers, the Pentagon, the NYC first responders and the highjacked passengers on 4 planes on September 11, 2001 experience?

Our duty to the Iraqis stems from the fact that we and some of our allies conquered the country and brought down the tyranny that ran it. Therefore, we are obligated–if not expressly by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution–to do as much as we can to put the Iraqi government on a firm and, yes, democratic footing and, thus, give the Iraqi people a fighting chance at living something approximating freedom and liberty.
An immediate withdrawal from Iraq might seem obviously “commonsensical” to some. Yet, looking at the ambitions of the terrorist elements in Iraq, running from the reestablishment of the Ba’athist regime (Saddamism without Saddam) to the imposition of a Taliban-like regime, it doesn’t seem quite right, quite American if you will, to leave millions of people to such a fate.
If the commonsensical course were followed and the U.S. military left, then in all likelihood, the final disposition of Iraq would be decided only after a prolonged and bloody civil war (think post-Tito Yugoslavia writ large) with all of the attendant horrors of such a conflict. Do we really want that much blood on our hands?
As much as some might think it would admirably Bismarckian to say it should be of no matter to us if hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are killed and millions more displaced, I cannot see how such an attitude could pass muster in either a moral, indeed Christian, sense or in a political sense (Massive disruption and wider conflict in a strategically important part of the world is *not* good for this country’s interests).
If the conflicts in Iraq are so knotty as to be insoluble and, thus, Iraq breaks itself up into new states (again, post-Tito Yugoslavia) or settles into a confederatation (the Confederate States of Iraq. Hmmmm . . . something to that.), then it will with the least amount of bloodshed under the protection of the U.S. military. Otherwise, there is the risk of the partition or confederation spurring widespread, horrific communal violence along the lines of what happened during the partition of India in 1947, violence that might have been prevented by the presence and active intervention of British troops, or the 1948 war between Israel and its neighbors (again, in the aftermath of a British withdrawal).
Furthermore, absent a stable Iraqi government ready, willing, and able to defend itself against all threats, foreign and domestic; a confederation; or an agreed partition, the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq will be a geostrategic defeat for the United States and it allies and a great fillip for our enemies, be they Iran’s mullahs or Al-Qaeda’s murderers. Any cold-eyed adherent of realpolitik or warm-hearted libertarian should be able to see that.

My dear Mrs. P., debates about whether it was right to launch this war or not are irrelevant to the debate at hand. I asserted that a prompt withdrawal from Iraq was necessary. This statement has no implications either way as to whether we are right to be there in the first place. We have gone into Iraq, so what’s the use of crying over spilt milk? Let’s mop up the milk and be on our way.

Furthermore, you respond to my query by invoking the Constitution and recalling World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Are you seriously claiming that it is impossible–that there is no other way–to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” other than by extending our already prolonged stay in Iraq? And if so, why?

Our duty to the Iraqis stems from the fact that we and some of our allies conquered the country and brought down the tyranny that ran it. Therefore, we are obligated–if not expressly by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution–to do as much as we can to put the Iraqi government on a firm and, yes, democratic footing and, thus, give the Iraqi people a fighting chance at living something approximating freedom and liberty.

Now, Old Dominion Tory is being much closer to sensible in his remarks. It is our responsibility, he says, because we are the ones who went in there and got rid of the pre-existing government. I can understand the claim that we must put Iraqi government on a firm footing, though whether it is democratic or not seems neither here nor there.

If the commonsensical course were followed and the U.S. military left, then in all likelihood, the final disposition of Iraq would be decided only after a prolonged and bloody civil war (think post-Tito Yugoslavia writ large) with all of the attendant horrors of such a conflict. Do we really want that much blood on our hands?

The blood would not be on our hands, but rather upon those doing the killing. If a man peacefully tends to his garden while two people kill eachother on the other side of the world, should we blame the gardener?

(Massive disruption and wider conflict in a strategically important part of the world is *not* good for this country’s interests)

But isn’t that what we have now? And some evil men are even suggesting we should extend the war by invading or nuking Iran.

If the conflicts in Iraq are so knotty as to be insoluble and, thus, Iraq breaks itself up into new states (again, post-Tito Yugoslavia) or settles into a confederatation (the Confederate States of Iraq. Hmmmm . . . something to that.), then it will with the least amount of bloodshed under the protection of the U.S. military.

Dividing Iraq into three seperate entities would make much sense. Naturally, our government are firmly committed against this policy. At any rate, since Iraq now has a government of its own, it is not a US decision.

Overall, it is extremely unlikely that a democratic government in Iraq will be a stable one, and likewise that a stable government in Iraq will be a democratic one. Well, we’ve established democracy there. There is a functioning democratic government in Iraq today. Can we bring our troops home then? No, no! It must be a firm democratic government, a rare creature indeed in this particular neck of the woods. And who is to define “firm”? Who’s to say when and how the war is “won”? I say the war was won when Saddam was toppled. Now there is an insurgency against the new Iraqi government; a problem the Iraqi government needs to deal with.

Then there’s the idea of “if we don’t stay, the Islamists will take over”. And what happens if we establish “firm” democratic government in Iraq and the Islamists are then firmly and democratically elected?

Thankfully, Andrew’s comments remain clear & free of such jargon & verbal camouflage as “geostrategic” & “realpolitik.”

I also appreciate his calm response to Mrs. Peperium’s last comment — a grotesque manipulation about the Constitution & the victims of 9/11.

Again, I was not debating why we entered Iraq. Citing Michael Novak’s speech was a framework for sensible argument on the future of Iraq. Most people when arguing about breakdown into choruses of “Bush lied, people died”. I do know you are not fond of Bush –you’ve called him the worst President of the 20th century on my blog–so it’s not out of the realm of possibility that your opposition to Iraq is because you think Bush lied. These are important things to determine at the start of honest arguments.

Now, per your Constitution remark:

“Furthermore, you respond to my query by invoking the Constitution and recalling World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Are you seriously claiming that it is impossible–that there is no other way–to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” other than by extending our already prolonged stay in Iraq?”

No, not at all. Again, just sounding you out. I just wanted to see if you would believed our government failed those people horribly.

Because they did.

“Diding Iraq into three seperate entities would make much sense. Naturally, our government are firmly committed against this policy. At any rate, since Iraq now has a government of its own, it is not a US decision.”

Our government was against OUR dividing Iraq. It is the often stated position of our Administration and State Department that if the Iraqis eventually decide to do this themselves, we will help them.

“Then there’s the idea of “if we don’t stay, the Islamists will take over”. And what happens if we establish “firm” democratic government in Iraq and the Islamists are then firmly and democratically elected?”

Then the democratically elected Islamists are beholden to the democratic laws of Iraq. Like Old Saddam eventually was…

I understand Mr. Cusack’s frustration with the “prolonged” stay of U.S. forces in Iraq. However, it is, however, necessary for them to stay there in order to ensure that our enemies (Iran and the radical Islamists) are not victorious. If we withdraw from Iraq, no assurances that we did so of our own volition no matter how loudly and frequently we make them will be able to drown out the claims of the Iranians and the likes of Al-Qaeda that the U.S. *again* has been proven to be a paper tiger and the American people have no stomach for a long-term fight. And, in those claims will be a kernel of truth, a very disturbing truth, about our national will.
Moreover, the fact on the ground is that, as vicious and as unrelenting as the terror campaign in Iraq has been, the Islamists have not achieved their war aims through it. Withdrawing from Iraq will be tantamount to handing them an unearned victory on the battlefield as well as in the realms of diplomacy, public and otherwise.
When I stated that “[m]assive disruption and wider conflict in a strategically important part of the world is *not* good for this country’s interests,” you asked, “But isn’t that what we have now?” My concern is that a broader Iraqi civil conflict could mean a wider war, involving not only the Iraqis, but also Turkey, Syria, Jordan, and Iran as well as some other players. Again, such a conflict would be detrimental to our national interests.
I understand what you’re trying to get across in the homey gardner analogy, Andrew. I agree that blood would be on the hands of those who would do the killing in any Iraqi civil conflict after we withdrew. Nevertheless, if we abandon Iraq in full knowledge of what would happen in the aftermath of our withdrawal, then we certainly would bear a large share of the responsibility for the blood spilled.
In one of the more spectacular atrocities of the Bosnian civil war, a Bosnian town full of Muslim refugees was attacked by Serbian forces. A general serving in the U.N. peacekeepers had declared the town was under the protection of the U.N.; the U.N. then withdrew the peacekeepers. The town was taken and the Serbs massacred thousands of Muslim men and boys. Yes, the Serbs squeezed the triggers, but the people at U.N. who left these people to be slaughtered bore–and still bears–some of the blame as well.
At one point during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Israelis had their backs to the wall; even the more resolute Israeli leaders were talking about “the destruction of the Third Temple.” It was the U.S. airlift of munitions and other supplies that provided Israel the means to stave off defeat and win the war. Now, the United States could have tended its garden and shaken its head over the two people fighting on the other side of the world. Doing so, however, could have lead the destruction of Israel and untold human suffering–and we would have borne some of the responsibility for that as well.

I think good points have been made by both sides here. It is rare in my experince for such a discussion to go this long in a comment box without degenerating into name-calling. My congratulations to all participants.

In RE: “Abolish the Departments of Homeland Security, Education, and Housing & Urban Development…”

And what would be put in their place? Free market, free fall? Say the Social Security Administration is abolished – poof! – gone. Then what? Do you have any relatives who enjoy the benefits of Medicare or affordable housing for seniors or the disabled? Perhaps not.

One can easily assume that these suggestions of yours come out of a sitz im Leben: conditioned by your own situation which is heavily influenced by Bronxville, Thornton-Donovan, St. Andrews, the foibles of British Labor Party politics, international travel and the comfort of the fireside in an upper middle class neighborhood. I’m not knocking any of these things of your situation or you yourself Andrew, but I am assuming…

A good part of what I see so prominenly displayed on this web site are situational factors of a personal life comfortably insulated – or isolated from need. Did you need student loan funds or grants? Have you needed rescue from a natural disaster? Do you need help paying for the high rent in safe, decent housing?

The questions I pose above are in no way related to the efficiency of the welfare state, nor is it an attempt at apology for the notorious bungling common and endemic to many well meant governmental initiatives. However, I do point out your own priviledged situation as contrasted with the absence of any expressed social consciousness in these pages.

It is a byword that the weight of the progressive income tax, or the evasion thereof, falls disproprtionately on the rich. Hence the characterization of income tax as wicked …erm…certainly by them. My question is whether you put that and these other suggestions forward as an excerscise in the further appropriation of class affect, or if there is something more here in terms of a conscious plan of reform.

Rob’s questions are worthwhile, his comments frank without being abrasive.

Indeed, why characterize income tax as “wicked”? No doubt there are problems associated with it — questions of fairness, deployment, etc. — but what makes it “wicked”?

As for the Department of Homeland Security (a rather Teutonic sounding name, I always thought) — it has proved to be, the most part, another boon-doogle.

Sorry, that’s “boon-doggle.”

And what would be put in their place?

Nothing, on the federal level.

For Homeland Security, we conveniently already have a Department of Defense. For education, housing and urban development, these issues are completely inappropriate for the federal level of government (they are often even inappropriate for state governments in the larger states). They are much more suited to be taken care of on a local, municipal basis.

You mention, for example, Social Security and student loans and grants. There is absolutely no reason why these things should not be taken care of at state levels.

You must remember that state governments have almost immeasurably more leeway according to our constitution than the federal government. There are two reasons why this is often forgotten. First, the federal government does not actually heed the restrictions placed upon it by the Constitution. Secondly, state elected officials don’t want to take responsibility for the things which actually are their responsibility; they often find it much easier to react to a problem or issue by saying “Washington needs to do something”, even in areas of concern in which the federal gov’t has no constitutional grounds for action.

Another argument for shifting things back to the states is that it provides greater space for experimentation and adjustment. For example, suppose you have one social security system for an entire country. It would be incredibly difficult to adapt and change it because it would require the consent of too many different states with divergent interest. Now imagine that, in one country, you have fifty different systems. If one state has a particularly expensive system, it can learn from other states that are more willing to reform. If one state’s system performs very poorly in the services it offers than it can look to others to see how they manage and learn from these examples. To have just one system, especially for such a huge country as the United States, is rather stultifying.

I think the most important principle here is subsidiarity: that decisions be taken as close to the people they affect. Decisions about a public school in a little town in New Mexico, for example, ought to be taken by the parents of students and by the taxpayers of that town.

the absence of any expressed social consciousness in these pages

English is the preferred tongue of this website. I’m not sure whether this little statement is Marxist or Freudian, as I have avoided learning either of those languages.

It is a byword that the weight of the progressive income tax, or the evasion thereof, falls disproprtionately on the rich.

But the alternative I suggest, a V.A.T., would also, by its very nature, fall disproportionately on the rich (if one assumes that the rich spend more than others).

My fundamental disagreement with the federal income tax is twofold: A) it takes power away from workers by reducing their income. B) It puts more power in the hands of the federal government, which is ever increasingly remote from the citizens it purportedly exists to serve.

Furthermore, to earn money is something that the overwhelming majority of people simply must do. It seems wicked to punish people for life’s necessities. I would much rather have a VAT because nobody needs a flat-screen television or a yacht or a Gucci handbag. Tax spending, not earning! Also, I am told that the VAT would, apparently, help American industry against foreign competition in some way which I don’t quite understand. (Apologies for my ignorance). Income tax, meanwhile, hurts the American working class by taking away a portion of their income, while the portion of the upper-classes which it takes away also harms the American worker because that is money that could be invested in businesses to employ people.

What is really of the essence is this: we need diffusion of power, rather than centralization. I admit a certain bias in favor of families, circles of friends, neighborhoods, parishes, voluntary associations, villages, towns, cities, counties, and even states against the massive overarching (and often illegal) power of the central government.

Andrew Cusack wrote:

“What is really of the essence is this: we need diffusion of power, rather than centralization. I admit a certain bias in favor of families, circles of friends, neighborhoods, parishes, voluntary associations, villages, towns, cities, counties, and even states against the massive overarching (and often illegal) power of the central government.”

The above statement summarizes why I am a monarchist. Thank you, sir, for such a succinct illumination of the point.

I, too, find Andrew’s comment — “we need diffusion of power, rather than centralization” –appealing. I can’t, however, see what that statement has to do with monarchy. Please enlighten me.

“…Nothing, on the federal level.

For Homeland Security, we conveniently already have a Department of Defense…”

Yikes! That specific suggestion means a police state. That’s one area where centralization of power would be disasterous…unless of course I was the Reichsfuehrer in charge of things.

But thank you for your thoughtful reply, Andrew. I did not mean to come down too hard on you in terms of social class. A lot of that is merely circumstance and good fortune well met…or lack of either.

With your reply I now see that you were essentially offering solutions to governmental problems based on aspects of the issue of States Rights. Of course that issue is an old bone of contention that will always be the subject of debate.

While I do appreciate the debate and theories of unitary v state federated systems of government, I think the time has long past for American States Rights issues to be enhanced as workable within the American system, as such. The mere size and scope of such a project beggars my imagination.

There was once such an America to which the items in your suggested proposal might properly be addressed, but it has long passed away never to return short of cateclysm. In thinking of that, surely the American Civil War is the catecylsmic event on which all of the issues connected to States Rights and federal power have turned and been changed forever.

It would be far, far easier to take that one billion a day we are spending in Iraq and use it to make the USA a friggin’ paradise, for Pete’s sake.

I, too, find Andrew’s comment — “we need diffusion of power, rather than centralization” –appealing. I can’t, however, see what that statement has to do with monarchy. Please enlighten me.

When Flambeaux speaks of ‘monarchy’ I believe what he, like many (perhaps even most) monarchists, really means to say a mixed system of government under the monarchic principal. The most familiar example of this is the ‘Westminster’ system of government (as it has been called) which existed in Britain, at least in theory, until not too long ago. In this system, you have various powers counteracting eachother. There is the Crown, the very font of authority and legitimacy. The Crown shares power with the “aristocracy” (an aristocracy based on birth, yes, but which has always been open to new blood) in the form of the House of Lords, and with the “people” in the shape of the elected House of Commons. If any of the parts in this equation get too powerful, the others are supposed to work to counteract that monopolization of power. Unfortunately, because of the rise in the mistaken view that popular power provides the only form of legitimacy, the House of Commons has increasingly horded power which, more properly, ought to be shared with the Lords and the Crown. It is in the process of abolishing the Lords; after that it will do its best to destroy, or at least make effectively irrelevant, the Crown. Then the monopolization of power in the hands of whoever controls the Commons will be complete. If God is gracious and men are brave, however, then there will be interventions to prevent this from happening.

Yikes! That specific suggestion means a police state. That’s one area where centralization of power would be disasterous

So… getting rid of the Department which is in the process of turning America into a police state would, by your logic, turn America into a police state. We have a Department of Defense (which is to say, a military) to defend us from foreign threats. We have the FBI, state, and local police forces to protect us domestically. Anything else is a threat to our liberty.

With your reply I now see that you were essentially offering solutions to governmental problems based on aspects of the issue of States Rights. Of course that issue is an old bone of contention that will always be the subject of debate.

To say “States Rights” is merely one way of framing the issue. To me, it is not about “States Rights”, it is merely about preserving our freedoms and liberties as well as our security, not to mention actually preserving or restoring constitutional order.

While I do appreciate the debate and theories of unitary v state federated systems of government, I think the time has long past for American States Rights issues to be enhanced as workable within the American system, as such. The mere size and scope of such a project beggars my imagination.

Size and scope? Workable? It is the size and scope of centralization which is astounding, not to mention the stealth and sublety with which it has been achieved. But to claim it is unworkable flies in the face of common sense and reason. Governments of smaller states such as, say, Austria, Denmark, even tiny Liechtenstein exist. Their mere existence proves the possibility of smaller states to exist.

In thinking of that, surely the American Civil War is the catecylsmic event on which all of the issues connected to States Rights and federal power have turned and been changed forever.

You’re on to something here. The effect of the Civil War was to turn a free association of free peoples into an involuntary de facto unitary state. Changed, yes. But forever? There is no forever in the history of mortals.

It would be far, far easier to take that one billion a day we are spending in Iraq and use it to make the USA a friggin’ paradise, for Pete’s sake.

But then who would do that spending? If it were the federal government, then we would all be in danger. For with bribery on such a large scale, they would be able to pass any ridiculous freedom-snatching legislation they could think up. Much better to simply give that money back to the taxpayers. Then it can pay for home improvements and college educations and dental appointments, rather than the attempts by our wicked overlords to justify their rule.

Thanks, Andrew, for your thoughtful response. I will confess that, like many Americans, I know precious little about the monarchic principal. Your comments were fascinating.

As an American sympathetic to the ideals of monarchy, would you like to see the monarchic principal established in the States?

If so, how could that come about? I mean, under what circumstances? Who or what could establish a Crown in this country, and by whose authority and what process could it achieve legitimacy? What kind of persons would constitute an aristocracy, and how would they be recognized? Finally, how would a tradition — replete with either a mythology or some other means of giving philosophical and emotional roots to certain ideas/ideals — be formed to establish the Crown as “the font of authority and legitimacy”?

A wonderful post, as usual.

One one Andrew’s critics compared air-lifted U.S. aid to Israel with our efforts in Iraq, attempting to show (in both cases) that we can make a difference. But these two efforts are not the same. Aiding Israel when Arab/Muslim armies threaten her destructions is reasonable. We should behave in a similar fashion if Britain, Australia, or New Zealand were threatened. But in Iraq we invaded, not aided. And Israel is a civilized place, worth preserving. Attempting to make Iraq (or any Muslim country) a peaceful democracy is pure folly and hubris. It was never going to go well.

Best to get out and retreat to First Principles.

“There is the Crown, the very font of authority and legitimacy. The Crown shares power with the “aristocracy” (an aristocracy based on birth, yes, but which has always been open to new blood) in the form of the House of Lords, and with the “people” in the shape of the elected House of Commons. If any of the parts in this equation get too powerful, the others are supposed to work to counteract that monopolization of power. Unfortunately, because of the rise in the mistaken view that popular power provides the only form of legitimacy, the House of Commons has increasingly horded power which, more properly, ought to be shared with the Lords and the Crown. It is in the process of abolishing the Lords…etc.

Oh good heavens, Andrew! We know that the American founders explicitly rejected monarchy and created a new thing in representative government, in practice sui generis. At the time the founders were putting together that confederation and then US Constitution, the Parliament at Westminster had long evolved into a unitary government of the legislative Commons with the Lords and Privy Council as adjunct. So in the American republic the Civil War defined States Rights, and the election of Andrew Jackson in 1828 effectively killed off Federalist or monarchic notions of American aristocrarcy at least until the Roosevelts, Kennedy’s or the Bush clan.

Governmental and institutional theory is fine, especially when coupled with creative romance and idealism. However, at some point we are forced by the social sciences to come up against the hard reality that all institutional systems, secular and sacred alike, degrade over time. Unfortunately, that very fact is the congenital blind spot of those absorbed in the life of institutions themselves.

So whatever solutions are proposed by the theoritician, however inspired or brilliant in regard to institutuions of whatever kind, we can be sure that the practical and moral consequenses of their postulations will be somewhat different than expected. It is well to remember that over time such unintended consequences may well become greatly different.

As the “founders” overturned, so too can they be overturned.