i was just getting ready to log off, but then i saw this, loved it, and am now forcing it upon you, whoever you are.
i have felt what he says below. and it's true that sometimes it sucks to be right.
the moon last night was eerily gorgeous.
goodnight moon.
c u l t u r e k i t c h e n
Written by (Some Rights Reserved) http://www.culturekitchen.com/archives/003504.html
c u l t u r e k i t c h e n
Liza Sabater's daily servings to the Reality-Based citizenry of art, culture, entertainment, life, media, politics, sex, and technology from the very surreal New York City.
About Bio Categories Colophon Copyleft Events Feeds Sidelinks New York City October 18, 2005
We Were Right
by Jeff Langstraat
This past weekend, I managed to rent a car and drive out to visit some friends in New York state (including meeting, for the first time, fellow CultureKitchen chef Lorraine Barry--it was a lovely, if short, visit). Two of the folks I visited (ael at tales from new york and J Barry of musings from upstate) were on the faculty with me at Minnesota State University, Mankato. The three of us, along with another faculty member, organized an anti-war teach-in that coincided with the nationl student strike on March 5, 2003. (The three of us also marched in the February 10 march in Minnesota--a hellish 3-mile hike in three-degree weather, with J having a fucked up ankle, to boot.) One of the things I was proudest of that day was the breadth of topics we covered, from experiences of life as a war refugee to a historical look at the anti-war movement on that campus to discussions of the potential costs of this war to a conversation on Just War theology. As we were reminiscing about that day, we kept coming back to one point; We were right, dammit!
Those of us who were against this war were often caricatured as having no understanding of the "new threats" of living in a post-9/11 world, of being too emotional about the issue, of letting our hatred of Bush drive all of our actions.... This is crap. There were very good reasons to opose this war, and there were members of the anti-war left laying them out, and not just at our little teach-in. Todd Gitlin provides some of his own words from that time, which I'm going to quote at length (via Atrios):
“Political decency consists not just in taking the right position but in being willing to face contrary positions, face them at their strong points, not win arguments cheaply—but face the bad music, face the suffering that goes on if you do the right thing, also face the suffering that goes on if you don’t do the right thing, and make a judgment, which might well be in fear and trembling, about which is the better way. The smiley face actions are damned rare. War in Iraq is not one of them. Neither is the absence of war in Iraq. I don’t see how to have a nice day one way or the other—certainly not for Iraqis.
“But the Bush administration thinks it does know how to have a nice day, by giving war a chance. For them, it’s a matter of will and impulse speaking a muffled language of arguments because arguments are expected of them, but their arguments are so tremulous, shoddy, and shifting, you know that the arguments aren’t the explanation, the deep argument. For months we’ve been peppered with talking points in the guise of a case: Saddam’s imminent weapons of mass destruction/Saddam’s putative links to al-Qaeda/Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990/Saddam’s use of poison gas in 1987-88….ergo precaution dictates preemption, QED—follow the bouncing logic…. [There followed a long critique of Bush.]....
“If wishes were arguments, the strongest argument for an American war would be the most ambitious, which is Kanan Makiya’s—the wish that by deposing Saddam Hussein and occupying Iraq, the U. S. would install the first democratic regime in the Arab world, a regime that, in turn, would undermine the autocratic consensus that governs the region, reverse the Islamist movement and foster the growth of anti-Islamist tendencies elsewhere. Such an outcome is devoutly to be desired. I take it especially seriously coming from Kanan Makiya, from whom I’ve learned more about the monstrous tyranny of Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath party than from anyone else. And I have to say: If only the wish sufficed.
“But the world in which the wish would suffice is not the world we live in. An American war in Iraq is very unlikely to bring it about. What it is far more likely to bring about is carnage and a boost to terror. The risks are far too great to justify war. Wars get out of control and are, after all, hellish. That is why they must be matters of last resort. In Iraq’s neighborhood, there are simply too many ways in which this particular war could get out of control. The scenario most likely to bring about the use of weapons of mass destruction is precisely the one George W. Bush has been angling for: an attack on Saddam Hussein’s regime. The scenario most likely to bring about terror attacks—even on Americans—is precisely the same. The scenario most likely to win recruits for al-Qaeda is precisely the same. Against Saddam Hussein’s future threats, there are substantial, not merely rhetorical, alternatives. The case for containment is strong. Smart sanctions (not the current blunderbuss kind), maintenance of the no-fly zones, and inspections with teeth are the alternatives to war."
That anyone was surprised we invaded is beyond me, as is the fact that anyone bought the Bush administration's changing rationale. I remember watching one of the 2000 Bush/Gore debates and saying aloud, "He wants to invade Iraq." The members of this administration had always been obsessed with it. (Remember PNAC, everyone?) This was a war looking for a reason, and 9/11 gave them that reason, or at least one they could exploit. None of the explicit reasons they provided ever held up, though. And the rosy picture they painted was pure fantasy.
Unable to deal with the crumbling of that fantasy, though, they love to play the "what if" game. "What if we hand't been wrong on every count?" Well, that's a lot of what ifs. Let's just say you fucked up. You were wrong. Accept it. Admit it. Your failure to do so is telling. Beneath your bluster is a lack of respect for the truth.
That's a starting point for discussing the "what now." Yes, the fact is that we have troops on the ground, being killed daily, in Iraq and we need to deal in the now. But, understanding how to react in the present requires an accurate assessment of how we got to that present. Handwaving the mistakes of the past away doesn't give us any better idea of how to deal with the present. So, all of you who supported this war and continue to support Shrub's "stay the ever-changing course" plan, shut up until you can admit those mistakes and the effects those have had on the present, and on the future course of events. Until you do that, there's no reason for us to take you seriously.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.