Patterico's Pontifications

1/2/2007

Accepted Wisdom™: The Saddam Nostalgia Edition

Filed under: Accepted Wisdom,General,War — Patterico @ 2:00 pm



(Accepted Wisdom™ is a semi-regular feature of this site, highlighting contradictory viewpoints held by [in this case some of] the elite.)

It is Until recently, it was Accepted Wisdom™ that:

It was wrong for the United States to provide support to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, despite arguments that it was the only way to achieve stability in the region.

And at the same time:

The best option for ending the violence in Iraq is for the United States to put Saddam Hussein back in power. This is the only way to restore stability to the region.

Oh, well. I guess the elite can’t argue Viewpoint #2 any more. Looks like it’s back to an emphasis on contradictory Viewpoint #1.

And don’t forget: the viewpoints are indeed consistent, if you remember the connecting thread: The United States Is Always Wrong.

UPDATE: Some commenters are objecting that this is hardly a universal view. Fair enough. But some have certainly advanced it.

Jonathan Chait had a column in the L.A. Times titled Bring Back Saddam Hussein, which some people believed was an exercise in Swiftian irony, because they hadn’t read it. Jonah Goldberg said: no, don’t bring back Saddam! Give us a Pinochet! — a silly suggestion which isn’t much different. Psyberian tells us in comments that Imus has made the same argument as Chait. And at least one commenter on this site (our friend Neville Chamberlain) has said restoring Saddam was our best option until he was killed. I’m sure there are other examples besides the ones I have cited. (This guy, for one.)

But OK, I’ll grant you, these folks do not make up the entirety of the elite. For that reason I have added “[in this case some of]” to the first sentence of the post.

33 Responses to “Accepted Wisdom™: The Saddam Nostalgia Edition”

  1. It was wrong for the United States to provide support to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, despite arguments that it was the only way to achieve stability in the region.

    I thought we liked him because he was destabilizing iran.

    actus (10527e)

  2. I have to disagree: it was *never* accepted wisdom that restoring Saddam to power was the best option for ending the violence. I have *never* seen that argued in earnest in op-ed pages, or by politicians of any stripe.

    [Jonathan Chait did. I think Jonah Goldberg did. I’m pretty sure they’re not the only ones. Here, “Neville Chamberlain” did. — P]

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  3. I think the “accepted wisdom” is that the difference bewteen Iraq now and Iraq under Saddam was not worth the 25,000 American casualties, the $500,000,000,000 and the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis we spent to bring about the change…

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  4. [Jonathan Chait did. I think Jonah Goldberg did. I’m pretty sure they’re not the only ones. Here, “Neville Chamberlain” did. — P]

    And thats what it takes to have something be accepted by the elite.

    actus (10527e)

  5. Patterico: if Chait and Goldberg did, then I stand corrected. (“Neville Chamberlain”, on the other hand, I don’t consider to be an op-ed page or a politician, so, while an interesting data point, is not strictly relevant to the point I was making. :))

    It does not seem to me, given what i’ve read and what i’ve heard from my friends, that support for restoring Saddam existed to any great degree in the anti-war left; it seems to have been a product of previously pro-war “realists”. I’m not sure it’s fair to characterize it as “accepted wisdom”, even among leftists. 🙂

    That said, I suspect i’m taking a joke far too seriously. 🙂

    Happy New Year!

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  6. Here is the link to when I posted on Jonathan Chait’s column, right here on this blog.

    I was wrong about Goldberg . . . he said that Iraq needed a “Pinochet” and not a Saddam. (Parenthetically: WTF?) He also (incorrectly, in my view) branded Chait’s column “Swiftian.” In my view, it was entirely serious. Judge for yourself.

    Patterico (906bfc)

  7. The contradiction still exists if you consider the constant calls to “deal with” North Korea, Iran, Syria and anyone else who hates the US enough. If it was wrong to deal with Saddam because of his brutality, why is it imperative to deal with other regimes that are also brutal? In the case of North Korea, the regime there is arguably worse than anything Saddam ever did.

    Doc Rampage (47be8d)

  8. Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man. For war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of war, as it is in the nature of weather. For as the nature of foul weather lieth not in a shower or two of rain, but in an inclination thereto of many days together: so the nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace.

    Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

    — Thomas Hobbes

    awe: an emotion variously combining dread, veneration, and wonder that is inspired by authority or by the sacred or sublime

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  9. I’m missing your point, Neville. Have you quoted Hobbes because you think we can learn from history? If not, then why have you chosen to reprint that lengthy quote? On the other hand, if you believe we can learn from history, what did you learn from “your” own pre-war and wartime experiences?

    DRJ (51a774)

  10. Just that we need an Iraqi government that can inspire a sense of “awe” in its citizens.

    Preferably one that’s heavy on the veneration and wonder and light on the dread, but awe is the key according to Hobbes.

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  11. The same folks who make a point we should never have cooperated with Sadam in the eighties have forgotten who the major enemy in the mid-east was at the time.

    It was Iran who had held our embassy personnel hostage, it was Iran whose theocratic government was a destabilizing force in the region and whose example to other mid eastern nations posed a deep threat to the west. It was Iran who was at war with a secular (though despotic) Iraq.

    Has the US ever chosen to between inhumane regimes to counter the more imminent threat? We supported Stalin’s Soviet Union during WW2, to counter an equally reprehensible Nazi Germany.

    Do the same people who criticize us for providing satellite intelligence information to Iraq, criticize FDR for Lend-Lease aid to the USSR?

    I doubt it.

    Corky Boyd (a8cc75)

  12. There may have been some individuals who made the ridiculous argument that Saddam should be returned to power, but there simply has not been a serious thread of discussion along these lines in this country’s discourse. To say that this view of a tiny fringe minority is “accepted wisdom,” which you define as “a viewpoint held by the elite,” is a major stretch. This post wasn’t up to your usual standard, Patterico. What’s the term… straw man?

    Steve M. (834912)

  13. Patterico: I concede the point that it was said in earnest by columnists (and think that ‘restoring saddam’ and ‘installing a pinochet’ are largely equivalent propositions. You are correct, and my memory is poor.

    That said … I’m not convinced that it’s ever been “accepted wisdom”. 🙂 Goldberg and Chait, I submit, no more make ‘accepted wisdom’ than do Krugman and Dowd.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  14. …[T]he United States Is Always Wrong. – Patterico

    At least get that right Patterico. It isn’t that the U.S. is always wrong; the theme is that the Republicans are always wrong. As you consistently confuse the U.S. with “us,” you merely highlight your egocentrism.

    Also, Imus has repeatedly claimed that giving Iraq back to Saddam would be the way to go too.

    Psyberian, the Infuriating (490f62)

  15. Don’t forget the tortured logic of the neocons – it was good to support Saddam (who they knew was a murderous dictator) in the 1980s to further their Cold War chess match, AND it was good to invade Iraq using 9/11 as a completely irrelevant pretense, to ensure long-term destabilization of the region as justification for another long war that will funnel resources into the connected…the viewpoints are consistent, so long as you keep in mind that whatever the US government does is right.

    Frank N Stein (38ff57)

  16. Psyberian, the Infuriating? Quite the title, that! 🙂

    Dana (556f76)

  17. OK, I have added an update and a small edit to reflect y’all’s carping.

    Since Neville C. is a representative of the subsection of the elite that holds these contradictory views, why don’t you folks get him to explain it? Meanwhile, I have a movie to watch with the wife.

    Patterico (906bfc)

  18. Thank you for the update. 🙂 Enjoy the movie! 🙂

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  19. I can’t remember how I felt about our support for Saddam back in the old days, but I do remember questioning our being against Iran once we gunned down their civilian airliner…

    I’ll go with Hobbes…

    The only thing worse than a government that rules by fear alone is…a government that can’t rule at all.

    Saddam was better for Iraq than the freakshow we’ve bolted together.

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  20. It goes like this: Once upon a time when everything was wonderful, and Carter was mere moments from solving the entire Mideast, this guy Reagan came along and broke everything.

    Ragan backed Saddam, which was wrong. But now it’s all broken and there’s not much we can do anymore, because Reagan Straussians the neocons have broken everything.

    So we need to put Saddam someone like Saddam back in charge.

    Or something like that.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  21. Neville #19:

    The only thing worse than a government that rules by fear alone is…a government that can’t rule at all.

    It’s a good thing the founders of America didn’t see things the way you do, Neville, or Americans would still be British taxpayers. Of course, most Americans did fear the changes brought about by the American Revolutionary War and with good reason. I’m glad they had the courage to follow through on their democratic desires. I hope enough Iraqis have the same courage and desire, and I think they do.

    DRJ (51a774)

  22. I don’t think the problem is the Iraqi people, DRJ.

    I think the Bush administration and the U.S. military keep trying to reset the game in the hopes that a more…profitable outcome can be reached.

    We couldn’t have won our freedom from Britain without the aid of the French, but they didn’t hang around after the war was over interfering with the formation of our new government.

    If they had, we would have started fighting them…

    We’re the problem in Iraq now…we need to go.

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  23. “it was wrong for the united states to provide support to saddam hussein in the 1980’s, despite arguments that it was the only way to achieve stability in the region.”

    i’ve never heard anybody say anything as stupid as that. what we do say is “why this irrational, bushist turnabout against our old buddy who we propped up for so long?” big difference. decisions are properly evaluated in the context known to the decisionmaker at the time, outcomes can fairly be evaluated in hindsight.

    “the best option for ending the violence in iraq is for the united states to put saddam hussein back in power…”

    i don’t think anybody, even jonathan chait, was seriously advocating this. i detected the swiftian undertones in reading it, swamped by something else: the desperation that comes from seeing american lives pissed away by the dumbest president in american history who failed to ever articulate a coherent mission while also declaring the mission accomplished. we’re patriots just as much as you are patterico, but we’ve reached the point where we’ll pick up any piece of shit within reach and throw it at the wall just to see if it sticks. i’m old enough to remember vietnam when it happened, old enough to have my birthday subjected to a draft lottery. you have the vigor and absolute self-assurance of youth, and i have complete confidence that you’ll develop the wisdom of age when time goes by.

    assistant devil's advocate (af1b54)

  24. Neville,

    I think you need to revisit the role France played in early American history. France helped America win its independence primarily to thwart England’s holdings and power. Once the war was won, France did everything it could to weaken the young republic and to someday conquer or take control of its territory. When that proved unsuccessful, the French tried other methods during the U.S. Civil War, by supporting the Confederacy, and in Mexico in an effort to gain control of the territories of Louisiana and Texas. In summary, the French coveted American possessions, a fact that is not surprising given France’s history of imperialism and colonization.

    Perhaps you truly believe that the US wishes to conquer and colonize Iraq but the US has no imperialistic history that makes that a reasonable belief. In addition, American actions in Iraq (allowing free votes, turning over power to local control, and forming national military and police forces) are not consistent with an imperialistic policy.

    DRJ (51a774)

  25. I don’t think the motives behind continuing our occupation of Iraq are anywhere near as crude as colonization, DRJ.

    For the U.S. military, I think they realize that the moment they pull out of Iraq, Americans, particularly the new Democratic-controlled Congress, will begin to question why we should continue to spend $600 billion a year (more than the rest of the world combined) on defense.

    For the administration, I can only assume their attitude has devolved into the mindset of a stalker…only they can protect the Iraqis.

    Meds, therapy and a restraining order may be required.

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  26. Neville said: Saddam was better for Iraq than the freakshow we’ve bolted together.

    …and Mussolini made the trains run on time and we know how that worked out.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  27. I’m generally sceptical when groups are proposed to hold contradictory viewpoints. Who are ‘the elite’ in this case?

    I’m aware that a lot of people believe that the US should never have supported Saddam as a regional strongman in opposition to Iran and that there are also a statistically small but, until his hanging, growing number of people proposing Saddam’s reinstatement but I doubt very many of the people who thought the former also thought the latter.

    B (08fd8d)

  28. Meds, therapy and a restraining order may be required.

    … to bring Neville back to reality …

    We need to spend $600 billion/year (what’s that, about 4% of GDP?) on defense to keep the rest of the world from trying to steal our cookies or subjugate us to their fanatical religious facism. Sort of like insurance… you don’t see the point of paying for it until you need it.

    Dubya (c16726)

  29. Once again, the true face of liberalism shines through. According to Chamberlain, the Middle East doesn’t deserve Democracy. Again, (since he is representing the Left in this thread), Neville believes that Non-white cultures do not deserve democacy because “of the Freakshow” representation that is now there. Do you remember the Articles of Confederation? It took the US 12 years and almost two rebellions to get it right. Do you Neville believe non-white cultures outside Europe and the United States belive can handle Democracy or Capitalism? If not, why?

    JSF (9f37aa)

  30. The belief that we “got it right” after only 12 years may vary depending on your skin color, sex and geographic position, I suppose.

    I agree that the Iraqi’s both deserve and can handle democracy, but it’s hard to see how they’ll ever achieve it as long as the U.S. military keeps shooting at their politicians to make it look like they’re doin’ something useful for the $100 billion a year they’re pocketing.

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  31. When did we “shoot at their politicians?” I must have missed that.

    Dubya (c16726)

  32. …and who’s the “they” who’re pocketing the alleged $100M?

    That could be read to say our military guys are corrupt. Is Neville really John Kerry?

    Dubya (c16726)

  33. “You are not going to like this.

    On the demonstrable virtues of not caring if children die, on hardening your mind for war, and other things we can no longer avoid discussing.

    Beware that you are ready before you pass this seal.

    Let us begin with a debate between a peaceful, gentle soul, and me. The topic could be Israel’s war, or ours in Iraq, or — if they have the heart for it — the one to come.

    The gentle soul — how I respect her! — will begin by pointing out how many innocents have died in the recent wars, and especially the children, who are the most obviously innocent. She will point out figures for Iraq, for Afghanistan, for Lebanon, and ask: “How can you justify this? These poor children, who might have been good men, good women, lain in the cold earth?”

    We have all had the conversation that far, have we not? We are accustomed to reply: “But the enemy is the one that targets children. We try our best to avoid hurting children. That makes us better. Furthermore, the enemy hides himself among children. As a result, in spite of our best efforts, sometimes children die on the other side also. But again, it is not our fault — it is his fault. He endangers them.”

    She replies: “But how can you justify their deaths? Regardless of how hard you try, will you not kill them? Some of them? Should we not choose peace instead?”

    Let us consider that.

    What if we asked her, “Let us speculate that our enemy — say in Iran — seeks to kill our children. If we attack them to stop it, we may or may not kill any of their children — and we will do everything in our power to avoid it. If we do not, they certainly will kill ours. Should we attack them or not?”

    She will answer: “That is a false example. Nothing is certain, and it is said that hard cases make bad law.”

    “Fair enough,” we reply, “but where will you find the parent who will sacrifice her children for the possibility of keeping another parent’s child alive?”

    “It would be impossible,” she will agree, but add, “However, nothing is that certain.”

    “Then let us make it conditional,” I continue. “Let us say that there is the possibility we shall kill a child — but we shall do our best not to do so — and only the possibility that they will kill our child, but it is their aim. Now, should we try to stop them — though risking their child? Or should we refuse, and take the increased risk that they will succeed in their murder, since no one dares disrupt them?”

    “It is always wrong to take the risk of killing a child, whether we do it or they do,” she will say.

    “Why so?” I ask.

    “Because it endangers the innocent,” she replies.

    “If that is the reason,” I answer, “then you are wrong. It is best that we bomb without fear.”

    Her eyes grow wide. “You are mad,” she says.

    “Not so,” I answer. “Consider: when the enemy seeks to kill our child to motivate us to surrender to his will, is it not because he believes that the danger to the children will move our hearts?”

    “It is,” she must agree.

    “And when he hides among children,” I add, “why? Children do little to deflect artillery. Must it not be because he knows that we — we ourselves — fear for the children, even his children?”

    She nods, silently.

    “Then it is proven,” I say. “It is our love of these innocents that endangers them. If we did not care if children died, they would be in little danger.”

    “That cannot be,” she replies in anger.

    “But it is so,” I contest. “If we did not care if our children died, they would not be targets. There would be no reason to target them, because we would not be moved by their deaths.

    “If we did not care if their children died,” I add, “there would be no reason to clutter military emplacements with their presence. If it were not that we are horrified by the deaths of children, the enemy’s children would be clear of all places of battle — because they are, except for the fact that we love them, a hindrance.”

    She bites her lip.

    “Of course, we cannot cut out our hearts,” I tell her. “Nor should we — as we wish to remain men, and good men, rather than monsters. Yet it is our love that is the chief danger to the innocent now — to our own innocents, and theirs also.”

    “What do you suggest?” she demands of me. “If you will not hate children, if you assert that it is right to love them — but you say we cannot love them, without wrongfully endangering them — what can we do? Where is the right?”

    “It must be,” I tell her sadly, “Here: That we pursue war without thought of the children. That we do not turn aside from the death of the innocent, but push on to the conclusion, through all fearful fire. If we do that, the children will lose their value as hostages, and as targets: if we love them, we must harden our hearts against their loss. Ours and theirs.”

    “How can that be right?” she wonders.

    “It cannot be,” I must say. “Love should always rise, above war and fear and death. Love should always be first, and not last, in our hearts. It should never be that love brings wrong, and disdain brings right.

    “And yet,” I say, “It is. I have shown you that it is. That means we have moved into a time beyond human wisdom. We can no longer know the right. It is beyond us.

    “We can only do,” I must warn her, and you. “We can only do, and pray, that when we are done we may be forgiven.”
    On the Virtues of Killing Children

    AF (8f7ccc)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1058 secs.