November 16, 2001

7:22 PM

The World Food Programannounces that it has been able to ship in more food to Afghanistan than it needs: 52,000 metric tons this month. Distribution problems still remain (and are being solved), but it could be a whole lot worse, and it looks like there will be no mass starvation.
posted by Steven Den Beste (43 comments total)

This is, in point of fact, some of the best news yet. Quite apart from the success at achieving our military objectives (and who can deny that we are closer today than -- 7 days ago -- we were predicted to be by Spring?), it shows just how quickly things have stabilized. There is only one city -- Kandahar -- reported to be the site of intensive fighting. Most of the countryside seems to be open to the travel of reporters and even exiles from neighboring countries.

Most of all, though, the story indicates how hollow the overstated "genocide" rhetoric was. The bulk of the fighting in this war has taken place over the last week, yet according to WFP:

"Whenever security conditions stabilize enough to enable aid workers to go in, WFP seizes this window of opportunity and sends in as much food as possible," Bertini said. The rapid increase in the amount of food delivered over the past four weeks can be largely attributed to the increased trucking capacity, maximization of the Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan routes into Afghanistan, purchasing over 30,000 tons of food in the region and borrowing tens of thousands of tons of wheat from Pakistan. At its peak earlier this week, WFP was employing over 2000 trucks in its food delivery operation.

Thus is disproven the charge that American bombing was blocking aid delivery and ensuring starvation.

From the anger and indignation, you would think that those using this argument would be cheering or at least sighing with relief. Or was their concern for the Afghans based solely on their utility as a rhetorical device? Hmmmm.

Thank God, I say, for plucky international aid workers, thank God for a quick war, thank God for the people of Afghanistan rejecting the fascist government which was cynically using them as pawns and protection.
posted by dhartung at 10:49 PM on November 16, 2001

I would have celebrated, but I hate comments like "ROCKIN'!" or "EXCELLENT!"

That said, fantastic!
posted by gleemax at 11:34 PM on November 16, 2001

Multitasking at its higher levels...
posted by Mack Twain at 11:35 PM on November 16, 2001

dhartung: I, for one, am happy to be wrong about this, and hope to remain wrong for a long time.
posted by signal at 12:03 AM on November 17, 2001

Thus is disproven the charge that American bombing was blocking aid delivery and ensuring starvation. Or was their concern for the Afghans based solely on their utility as a rhetorical device?

Not in my case, although I'm guilty of using such arguments in previous threads. I was genuinely concerned and now I am less so.

In any case, it was the UN that made that charge. It was just repeated here.

Thanks for the link, Steven.
posted by walrus at 4:27 AM on November 17, 2001

YES
posted by roboto at 5:28 AM on November 17, 2001

Actually, the UN was just warning, objectively. Certain anti-war luminaries were picking up the warning and running with it (that one invokes Pol Pot). I can't find the quote now, but at least one column wrote, roughly: Whatever the outcome of the war, one thing is now certain: the US is responsible for the deaths of millions on the assumption ... well, there's at least half a dozen there I don't need to enumerate; and the phrase "silent genocide" had been circulating, a deliberate linkage to the term of art for the blaming on the US of the deaths of a half-million Iraqi children (now widely believed in the Arab world), which is in fact a theoretical figure on the basis of an apparently increased death rate stretched out over ten years, though you never see it reported that way.

And the latest from Z Magazine at least recognizes, grudgingly, that the US bombing is but one factor among many, but it's the only one they can influence, and feels compelled to repeat the media lie (of the same ilk as above) that "the US military supported the Taliban", which in point of inarguable fact they have never done.

Kofi Annan, of course, is much more believable because he doesn't resort to such smears.

ANyway you get the idea.
posted by dhartung at 8:35 AM on November 17, 2001

Thus is disproven the charge that American bombing was blocking aid delivery and ensuring starvation.

It depends what you mean by "delivery". The standard complaint of aid workers in refugee camps across Afghanistan was that the stockpiled "deliveries" from outside the country weren't getting any further. As Steven suggested, there are still some distribution problems -- mainly the hiring of drivers and ancillary staff in areas still under bombardment, and reaching areas where the roads have been "interdicted" -- but the situation has improved substantially. It's worth tracking the sites of charities on the ground, such as Christian Aid, as they provide the closest thing to an "aid blog".
posted by holgate at 9:26 AM on November 17, 2001

thank God for a quick war

Wait, now you've got me all confused. Are you saying the war is over? Our objective was to get the Taliban out of the major cities? I thought it was to end terrorism and to eliminate Al Quaeda's network.
And when did we declare war?

Bravo for giving food to hungry people, but I guess I'm not gonna be satisfied until it's not necessary to airlift plastic-encased rations to keep millions of people alive. It's really, really easy for us to just drop food in front of people and pat ourselves on the back, but it's not a permanent solution to the problems we have undeniably had a part in creating. When we've set up an infrastructure and have ensured that the current power vacuum isn't filled by an equally horrible government, I will stand up and cheer (no joke), but until then, I'm viewing this as nothing more than a small step in the right direction.

Which probably makes me a bitter, leftist, anti-war loony who just can't admit when he's something something something. Hooray for simplified politics.
posted by Hildago at 12:47 PM on November 17, 2001

No, the war is not over. But once Kunduz falls and the Taliban leave Kandahar, it will be confined to a few small places where there aren't many civilians, and everywhere else in Afghanistan the supplies will flow (as indeed they already are).

And then, as the war continues, the people of Afghanistan will get fed.

But what was "quick" was to finish the war in the heavily inhabited areas. And the war is already over in Mazar-e Sharif, and Kabul, and Herat, and a lot of other places where a lot of people live. Indeed, a lot of the refugees are already moving back home again.

And starting next year a lot of aid (especially from the US) will flow into the nation to try to rebuild its economy so that it can once again feed itself. (Note that the head of the US Agency for International Development is actually in Afghanistan right now beginning to work on the long term problem.)
posted by Steven Den Beste at 1:56 PM on November 17, 2001

dhartung: From the anger and indignation, you would think that those using this argument would be cheering or at least sighing with relief. Or was their concern for the Afghans based solely on their utility as a rhetorical device? Hmmmm.

wtf?

this is way out of left field. the government told us (and is *still* telling us, as a matter of fact) that this will be a years-long drawn out engagement. in october, aid agencies themselves called for a halt to the bombing so that aid could get through. on the first of this month, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan said that less than half the volume of food aid required by Afghanistan was getting through.

now, suddenly, we hear that aid is getting through. this is an unexpected piece of unmixed good news.

in your first sentence you imply that those who were concerned that bombing would cause starvation in afghanistan are not happy and relieved to hear that the unexpected speediness of the battle has eliminated this concern, yet you present no evidence in support of this ridiculous charge; and in your second you are ascribing motives to these imaginary behaviors, again with no evidence.

when it comes down to it, I can't discern your specific charge at all: you haven't explained what "those using this argument" were arguing for or against. it sounds sinister, though.

I've been frustrated since 9.11 with an increased tendency of those on the right (or in support of military action) to create large black and white areas -- ascribing an entire set of motives and opinions to those with whom they disagree -- with little or no regard for the nuances of human thought.

it is entirely possible that an individual might oppose bombing afghanistan strictly on the grounds that it would lead to starvation for the people. that person, thanks to an unexpected military rout, has been proven wrong. it is also possible that this fear of starvation may have been one of a number of objections to bombing; the individual who held this objection *and* others based on whatever their ethical/tactical/political grounds might be, will presumably be pleased to learn that one of their objections is no longer a concern, and will still be opposed to bombing for other reasons.

people can have mixed opinions, and can think that an action is good or bad based on a number of reasons. one person can support military action and oppose cluster bombs. another can oppose military action and support the capture and trial of individual terrorists or their leader. yet another can support the military action and oppose the introduction of military tribunals in the US. there is a whole range of thought and opinion about this undeclared war, and it does everyone a disservice to ascribe a whole set of beliefs based on one publicly stated position.
posted by rebeccablood at 3:28 PM on November 17, 2001

Rebecca, there are indeed many, many points of view on the anti-war side. The problem is that there hasn't been a single one of them which passes the pragmatism test. They're all idealistic; many are morally sound; they reflect well on the good nature and intentions of those who believe them.

But they're all fatally flawed. Every single one of them. That's because they won't work in the real world; they won't solve the problem that faces us.

It is possible for an idealist to be pragmatic as well -- but none of those opposing this war have been. I've been watching the arguments on the left. Occasionally I see a particularly egregious one and I take it apart on my own site. Sometimes they're even reasonable, although sometimes they're so far out in left field that it's difficult to believe that those writing them are sane. But the one thing they invariably have in common is that they will not work.

The issue of starvation is not one that is universally subscribed to by the anti-war left, nor is it even central to every such argument. But it's a good example of the way that the anti-war left has been completely blowing it in this argument. They're preaching to the choir; every argument they make shatters when compared against reality.

This example is not the end-all and be-all of the leftist failure, but it is deeply symbolic and very representative; every other argument (every single one) has also failed.

The anti-war left needs to do two things: Admit its screwups, and do better in future. That means to make realistic arguments which will convince people who do not hold leftist points of view. Those of us who are in favor of war are succeeding in that. We are making arguments like "It's better for some people to be killed in a war now than for more people to die later because we didn't fight it." That argument and others like it is resonating with the American swing-voters, and that is how the decision to fight or not fight will be made.

If all you care about is wrapping yourself in idealism, then please continue just as you have. But if you want to actually make a difference, if you want to stop this war instead of just saying that you hate it, then you're going to have to change your ways.

You-and-yours are losing the war of ideas because you're fighting with a blindfold and one arm tied behind your back. And the shame of it is that you've done that to yourselves.

Why did I post this? Because I wanted anti-war leftists to admit that they were wrong -- not for spite, but because I expect better of them. I'm deeply ashamed of the feeble arguments they're making. It may well be that I'm wrong in my support of this war, but so far no-one on your side has even slightly proved that to me.

Don't make arguments to convince others who hold your point of view; that will get you no where. Make arguments that will convince me. But to do that, you're going to have to talk not about morality but about consequences, and you're going to have to be convincing when you do so. Otherwise I'll keep shredding the feeble arguments you-and-yours make on my web site, and so will my brothers and sisters who agree with me, and partly because of that this war will continue.

If you want this war to stop, then stop crippling yourself.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 5:08 PM on November 17, 2001

rebecca - I think what dhartung was getting at is that despite this 'unmixed good news' as you call it, we are only hearing about it from those who never beleived the mass starvation/silent genocide claims to begin with. It would seem to me that those who loudly opposed the US actions using these possibilities as their rationale, they should have come forward and withdrawn their concerns when this news was released.
posted by schlyer at 5:12 PM on November 17, 2001

So, put up or shut up. I challenge you, Rebecca, to a blog debate. Make your best case on your site. I'll answer it on mine and link to you. Then you respond to my objections on yours, and so on. Or, if you wish, I'll start.

And others will read what each of us writes, and if one of us makes a more convincing case than the other we'll sway the opinions of the readers to our points of view. If you really think you can make a case which will stand up to criticism, then put up your dukes.

My contention is that the reason that Berkeley-liberals try to squelch debate is that they are subliminally aware of the fragility of their arguments. They hate criticism and honest debate because they know their ideas won't survive them.

But that's the power of open debate, and the reason it is valuable in a free society. By taking two people with strong points of view and given each of them a platform to make their case, others can evaluate how convincing of an argument each makes.

I broaden that invitation: I don't want to risk being inundated here but I'll take on the first two people who accept this challenge (and I will also take on Rebecca this way if she wishes).

Send me mail if you accept.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 5:15 PM on November 17, 2001

Here is my formal challenge.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 6:07 PM on November 17, 2001

But if you want to actually make a difference, if you want to stop this war instead of just saying that you hate it, then you're going to have to change your ways.

I do find the "you" part of your argument rather cloying, Steven, since your part in the war effort, beyond celebrating it, appears to have been nil. Since you've already established yourself as a defender of military credibility over moral credibility -- a term better known as "might is right", I believe -- you've drawn an ideological line in the sand that can't be breached by those who think otherwise.
posted by holgate at 6:15 PM on November 17, 2001

Steven - With all due respect, challenging Rebecca to a 'blog debate' isn't going to prove your case to her, any more than the arguments of the so-called 'anti-war left' are proving their case to you.

And would you be surprised to learn that the vast majority of the 'anti-war left' look at the arguments of the 'pro-war right' and see them as illogical and fatally flawed? It's true. Each side sees the other as completely out of touch with reality. And neither side can be dismissed, as is often attempted, as a bunch of clueless fucking morons. That's just not a realistic portrayal of the issue.

That said, I would appreciate (with no sarcasm intended) some clarification on this paragraph:

The issue of starvation is not one that is universally subscribed to by the anti-war left, nor is it even central to every such argument. But it's a good example of the way that the anti-war left has been completely blowing it in this argument. They're preaching to the choir; every argument they make shatters when compared against reality.

First of all, what is the position of the anti-war left on starvation? Is there even a single argument, or are you, for convenience, grouping a lot of very different opinions together?

I'm on the 'anti-war left,' so before I continue I'll give you my position on starvation:

That bombing campaigns might cause a flood of refugees and a dearth of supplies, thus precipitating starvation. Because causing the starvation of innocent people is morally wrong, prolonged bombing campaigns should be avoided.

Would you say that's roughly the position of the anti-war left? If so, how far is that from the position of the pro-war faction? I've certainly heard it repeated by people who are definitely for the war. If so, you are right in saying it is by no means the lynch-pin of one side or the other. On the other hand, you also can't claim it's disproving as a victory for one side or the other, which you seem to want to.

And for that matter, is it even really impractical? This is the part I was most confused by. To say it's impractical is to say that it would probably never be true under normal circumstances. I would argue, on the other hand, that it's a perfectly logical, even self-evident conclusion. Bombings DO cause refugees. Refugees DO tend to starve. The difference is that due to the efforts of the UN's World Food Program (among others), this particular group of bombing refugees may not (note, this is not yet a foregone conclusion) suffer from further starvation in the next few months. Sadly, this is not the normal course of events.

I hate to get down to semantics here, but the fact that an outside organization stepped in and was fortunate enough to be able to address the problem does not prove the aforementioned argument impractical, only indefinite. Indeed, we saw starvation as a result of the bombing campaigns before the WFP's program matched supply with demand. Was the argument practical then, but not anymore?

Seems like if something is criticized as dangerous, but in practice doesn't happen to go wrong, that doesn't necessarily invalidate the criticism, so long as it was sound to begin with. It's like calling Russian Roulette safe because you survived the first pull.

Anyway, in case you hadn't guessed, I do take issue with the word 'impractical,' because it implies that the arguments of the left are flighty and ill-conceived, when I know for a fact, and you surely must realize, they are for the most part arrived at after considerable soul-searching and rational deduction. They are simply constructed under a different set of principles than their counterparts on the 'other side.'

Likewise, I would be careful about concluding that arguments against the war are faulty simply because of recent (arguably dubious) successes at routing the Taliban and providing food to the people of Afghanistan. For one thing, it entails lumping too many people together under one thesis. Relatively few of us said we shouldn't go to war because we would never have any victories.

And please don't consider this an acceptance of your challenge. I don't like to do that kind of thing. For issues like this, no amount of arguing is going to change anyone's mind one way or the other. Other things might, but verbal debate tends to make people too defensive of their own agenda to be brought around to another. IMHO, the only thing we can try to do is clarify our points and remain civil to each other.
posted by Hildago at 6:25 PM on November 17, 2001

sdb: Those of us who are in favor of war are succeeding in that

well, not always. at least not always with me.

You-and-yours are losing the war of ideas because you're fighting with a blindfold and one arm tied behind your back. And the shame of it is that you've done that to yourselves.

see, the thing is, you don't know where I stand on the war. do you? you're doing exactly the thing I was referring to above: assuming that you know my position overall based on one statement (in this case, a rebuttal of dan's inference that the left is not happy that starvation has been averted in afghanistan).

and I will point out that it's possible to question the efficacy, motives, scope, creep, and effectiveness of the war without necessarily opposing it. but many of the pro-war contingent seem to have an all-or-nothing mentality when it comes to this subject. if I don't agree with you on one point, you presume to know instantly where I stand on a dozen others.

from my perspective it is perfectly possible to question the actions and motivations of those in power while maintaining a neutral attitude about the war.

steven, you know I respect you, but your reaction to my note is one of the reasons I haven't been participating much on metafilter these days: it's a losing battle. I can state my case as clearly as I can, I can define my terms, and I still get painted with a broad brush by the pro-war faction.

I don't mind being disagreed with; in fact, I love a good disagreement. but it's no use if, when I state my position with all the frankness and good will I can muster, I'm not heard at best, and smeared at worst.

I know there are plenty of strident voices on the left; there are plenty of those (in residence) on the right, too. but I don't think I'm one of them.

I try hard to reason things out clearly. I try hard to understand opposing points of view. I try hard to argue facts, not make personal attacks. I try very hard not to misrepresent the positions of those with whom I disagree, but to argue issues based on an accurate understanding -- and public representation -- of my opponents' viewpoints.

but lately I haven't been met with anything like that in response. and it seems this is the mood across the country. there is no longer room for dissent. this new world is providing me with an unexpected view into human nature, and I hope that one day I can integrate it with my old view of human nature; but right now, I just have a deep sadness at what I'm seeing. I look around and sometimes I feel that my heart is broken.

fwiw, in so many cases, I think the right's current influence is based less on the persuasiveness of their arguments and more on the fact that their solutions (war) matches the mood of an angry country. I am so often not persuaded, and yet I see people lauding the clear thinking of those who cry for revenge.

metafilter used to be one of my favorite places to visit, but since 9.11 it's been all shouting and slandering. there were always loud, unreasonable voices here, but there were always a few islands of thoughtfulness and intellectual integrity that made it worthwhile. most of that is gone now. it has become a very unfriendly place for me to be lately.

as for your challenge, I have to decline. the other reason I haven't been here much lately is that I just started a project that is taking up enormous swaths of my time. my plate is too full; I've begun updating my weblog only three times a week, and I couldn't even manage that last week.

another reason is that I'm not the best person for the job. I'm not strongly anti-war. see? you don't know where I stand. I'm decidedly not pro-war, but I'm not the best representative of your imagined opposition. and I'll say this: many of the liberals I know share my attitude. it was clear from bush's first response that there would *be* a war, and I'm old enough to realize from the outset that his rhetoric would make it impossible to back down. never mind the outrage of most of the country, demanding revenge. I haven't bothered to be anti-war because it won't make any difference. I'm not convinced we're doing the right thing (and I'm not convinced it's the worst thing) but I am convinced that it was the inevitable response.

I do have many concerns about how the war is being conducted (cluster bombs?), though, and concerns about attendant actions (military tribunals). this is most of what I'm hearing from the left, a pretty similar reaction to mine, but the right is consistently painting that to equal "anti-war" and making spurious attacks on our intellectual ability and our patriotism.

this entire thread is a good example of that: you've assumed all sorts of beliefs based on a few remarks. those who share my views are being consistently (and it almost seems, deliberately) misinterpreted. I'm not accusing you of that here, but some of your homies are deliberately doing that. it's become so pervasive that I have begun to believe that some people's reasoning is being filtered through what I guess is their anger, and their reasoning goes all amuck as a result. I can't believe, for example, that dhartung's post was designed deliberately to slander the left, but he's also too smart to make the charges he did. so I think something else is going on, and I'm hoping that things will get back to normal someday.

so you may not have noticed any non-rabid voices to the left because, when we do speak, we're consistently misinterpreted as being rabid, and then, after a while, we stop speaking.

sorry for the ramble, but I've been very distressed about this for some time now. I just wanted to let you know what is going on from my perspective.

rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 6:51 PM on November 17, 2001

Rebecca, we are succeeding because the majority of voters agree with this war. We don't need unanimity; simply confining those who dislike this war to the political margins is sufficient.

I am not judging your position based solely on your responses in this thread; I've been reading your blog for months, for instance, and I've read other things you've written on MetaFilter.

But if I indeed to have misconceptions about your point of view, then why not enlighten me by trying to write them down, and letting me debate you?

and I will point out that it's possible to question the efficacy, motives, scope, creep, and effectiveness of the war without necessarily opposing it. The problem with that argument is, as has been pointed out extremely well elsewhere, that it often turns out that every possible way of prosecuting the war is considered wrong. In essence, disagreeing with the details is a sneaky way of disagreeing with the overall issue. (Here's a beautiful refutation of that point of view.)

but lately I haven't been met with anything like that in response. and it seems this is the mood across the country. there is no longer room for dissent. There's plenty of room for dissent.

But when some people say that, what they really mean is that they want the ability to dissent without having others dissent with them. In other words, they want to criticize but not be criticized in turn. That is, to say the least, inconsistent.

No-one is sending the police to your door to arrest you for dissent, or beating you during halftime at the soccer game. (Ask the women of Kabul what repression means.) What is happening is that people are telling you that you're wrong. That is the sign of healthy discourse, not the sign of repression. The response is not for you to get offended, but for you to prove that you aren't.

Of course, if you yourself aren't even certain what you think, then it is clear that you should not be debating.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 7:08 PM on November 17, 2001

I am not judging your position based solely on your responses in this thread; I've been reading your blog for months, for instance, and I've read other things you've written on MetaFilter.

and I have never said in any of those places that I am anti-war.

But when some people say that, what they really mean is that they want the ability to dissent without having others dissent with them. In other words, they want to criticize but not be criticized in turn. That is, to say the least, inconsistent.

well, excuse me, steven, but this is all about me. :) and you are deliberately misrepresenting my point of view. I am often disappointed when I state a strong opinion and someone who clearly disagrees with me refuses to state their perspective. I actively seek out various opinions in the people I call friends. I am anxious to hear differing points of view, in order to test my own and to learn things. as I think you have observed, I *love* a good debate.

I also have not claimed that I am being repressed or that I am offended. I have said that I feel consistently and sometimes deliberately misinterpreted by those who disagree with me. your responses to me in this thread provide numerous good examples of the phenomenon.

I am definitely not the best person to represent the anti-war movement; I don't belong. I don't consider myself to be the best person to represent the loyal opposition, either. in any case, I simply don't have time to take you up on your challenge. I would be pleased, though, if someone else would.

but if you want to persuade readers with opposing viewpoints, you'll have to listen and understand your debaters more clearly than you have me in this thread.
posted by rebeccablood at 7:26 PM on November 17, 2001

First, I was royally pissed when I wrote that. I apologize for the pugnacious tone.

Second, though it was overtly addressed to you, it was really intended as a general challenge to my left wing friends here on MetaFilter, and for that reason it was actually more of a collective judgement than one specifically aimed at you.

And third, I want to do this precisely so that some specific representative of the loyal opposition really will step up and try to make a coherent and convincing case, and I really will respond specifically to what they write.

I have come to my conclusions about what you specifically think about the war primarily by judging what you link to and what you say about it. I've seen numerous posts of the form "Here's a really good argument against the war or some aspect of how it's being handled" but not really any which favor it or approve of any aspect of it. From that I conclude that you lean against the war. Also, some of your posts lean towards the "moral equivalence" argument. I'd link to some of them except that they don't all have link targets: On 11/12 you made an argument for moral equivalence (re bridges). On 10/31 you linked to and quoted an article beginning "The war against terrorism is a fraud." On 10/1 you linked to an Alternet article which advocated propaganda instead of combat. On 10/8 you linked an interview with Noam Chomsky.

There were others, but the point is that there is a definite editorial bias there -- which is your privilege. But it's observable and it demonstrates a clear point of view -- which is also your privilege. Nonetheless, it's there and it is clearly against the current policies of the US. I happen to think that the current policies of the US are not flawless but are substantially correct, so I think you and I do fundamentally disagree.

But I accept that you don't want to participate in this, and you need feel no obligation to do so.

My challenge to others who oppose the war still stands.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 7:53 PM on November 17, 2001

Just a note: there is a pro-war left. (self included)
posted by owillis at 7:56 PM on November 17, 2001

Hell, considering that I'm in favor of gay marriage, I don't consider myself to be on the "right".

But I am in favor of this war and I think it's been handled substantially correctly so far, and I think we should continue to fight it.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 8:31 PM on November 17, 2001

Reading rebeccablood's posts above brings me to 2 conclusions about rebeccablood:

1. "No one understands me, sigh..." (classic response)

2. She chickened out.

Back to basics.
posted by norm1153 at 9:12 PM on November 17, 2001

1. "No one understands me, sigh..." (classic response)

2. She chickened out.

Back to basics.

Seems that she's right.
posted by Hildago at 9:46 PM on November 17, 2001

We don't need unanimity; simply confining those who dislike this war to the political margins is sufficient.

You might look at that from another angle and see why being a dissenting voice is pretty fucking scary right now. Yes, we are grudgingly given the right to say what we feel, but you get the eerie feeling that no one has listened to a single word you've said. Our arguments are answered with fallacies or misinterpretations, or with something to the effect of, "hey, you wouldn't even be able to say that if we hadn't fought wars!"

Bit by bit it adds up to frustration. Rebecca nailed the tone shared by a lot of people I've talked with. As she repeatedly insisted, not even necessarily on the anti-war side, just among people with reservations and unanswered questions about this whole messy business. We're seeing a very Conradian (Conradish? Conradesque?) glimpse into human nature; people you used to be able to carry on rational debate with now have this glossy look in their eyes that tells you there's no arguing with them. Not all people, but enough to slowly discourage you from speaking up. It's too big a ball to try to unravel when no one wants you to be right in the first place.

This is a roundabout way of giving you another reason why your challenge is a bad idea. Answer this honestly: did you throw the gauntlet down wanting to facilitate an open-minded debate, or to prove to some hippy how wrong they are?
posted by Hildago at 10:14 PM on November 17, 2001

I feel compeled to comment on this as I think I posted the first thread about "silent genocide."

I am very, very glad that the Afghanis are getting food.

I still do not agree with the war. But my reasons are based in moral considerations, and I view many of the actions of my government with suspicion. I have no all-encompassing solution that will pull the rug out from under the pragmatists. I will say that I think we should seriously reconsider our energy policy, and that women should be involved in the new government in Afgahnistan. But these are fragments. I do not claim to understand the economics of changing said policy, nor do I fully understand the culture of Afganistan. I do my best on the ground I live on - we own only one car, I volunteer in my community, I vote, I write letters when something moves me to. Arguments for war come from the time-tested annals of history and I am not the person who will change that. I can only hope that in my lifetime there will be someone who will.
posted by kittyloop at 11:00 PM on November 17, 2001

norm:

rebecca "chickened out," but you

1. have not contributed anything to the thread up until now, and
2. your one contribution has been a potshot taken at rcb.

pot, kettle.
posted by moz at 11:45 PM on November 17, 2001

'pro-war'

*takes a deep breath after deleting the expletive-littered screed he'd typed*

I never cease to be bowled over that reasoning, thinking adults, able to function at any ethical level higher than 'eye-for-an-eye', are actually capable of using such a phrase with a straight face.

'pro-war'

Think about what you're saying, for the love of whatever deity you prefer.

"I am pro-war".

I hope no-one takes you up on your debate offer, Steven, I really do. I certainly have no interest. That anyone can say "I have not yet seen what I consider to be a single convincing argument against this war", when the most obvious argument of all, that it's wrong to kill people* is staring you in the face, means, in my books, that by inviting people to go toe-to-toe with you, you're being the intellectual equivalent of a schoolyard bully, confident (justifiably) in your ability to 'win'. This is the sort of thing I used to do when I was an arrogant high-school boy, bent on using my intellect to humiliate anyone who crossed me.

I'm surprised at you. I may be veering close to personal attack here, and if so, I apologize. And if anyone better equipped than I does take up the debate gauntlet, I will follow with interest. As I've said elsewhere, what little democracy is left in our societies in the west is kept ticking over by the fact that such debates are possible, if carried on mostly at the margins.

*please don't anyone bother pulling an outraged face and yelling 'But they killed 4600 of us!'. That makes more killing no more justified.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:06 AM on November 18, 2001

"I do not like war, and I would not choose war ever as the solution to any problem, but sometimes we must do what has to be done."
- General Robert E. Lee

I hope someone does take you up on your debate offer, SDB, because I am hoping (for once) to read a well-thought out essay written by someone on the left who opposes this war AND can offer another viable solution to the problem we are facing in organized terrorism.

"It's better for some people to be killed in a war now than for more people to die later because we didn't fight it." That argument and others like it is resonating with the American swing-voters...

This is absolutely right on. Pre-9.11, I considered myself to be on the left. I considered Nader, but voted for Gore. I'm a relatively young man (26), and like many in my age group, I didn't give much thought to politics until the last couple years. But Post-9.11, I am finding myself to be increasingly swinging towards the right, mostly because I do not want to be led by a party who doesn't understand Mr. Lee's words, quoted above. What I'm hearing from the anti-war left is "War is wrong, because... well, it's war, damn it, and war is always wrong!" That doesn't do it for me, because it doesn't give me any alternative solution to believe in.

My country was never attacked before, in my lifetime. This is the first war for me, really. Desert Storm? Watched it on TV, it was like a movie of the week or a video game. Everyone said we were liberating Kuwait, what the hell do I know? I was fifteen. I'm not going to lie to you, 9.11 pissed me off. For weeks I was walking around in a daze. Depressed. Uneasy. Couldn't sleep. I didn't know what the hell the terrorists were so pissed off about, but I knew it wasn't anything I had done. Or those people in the towers, a lot of them were my age. Or even younger. I didn't want any more people to die, but then again, I kind of wanted some more people to die, you know what I mean? I was angry. Now, I'm willing to consider another alternative, if it exists. But so far, I haven't heard one that makes sense to me.

And would you be surprised to learn that the vast majority of the 'anti-war left' look at the arguments of the 'pro-war right' and see them as illogical and fatally flawed? It's true.

Why? How? Tell me! Without backing up statements like this, your next claim that "neither side can be dismissed" falls flat. And precisely because of this, I can dismiss your claims. I will. And I do.

SDB convinces me with his facts, his reasoning, and his willingness to issue this challenge to anyone who is willing to accept it. That's putting your money where you mouth is, IMO. I read the formal challenge, it seems well-thought out and perfectly fair to all involved. But I believe that no one will accept his challenge "because they know that their concepts would not survive the process." If I'm wrong, step up to the plate.

we are grudgingly given the right to say what we feel, but you get the eerie feeling that no one has listened to a single word you've said.

I think you're wrong. I know I listen to every word that anyone has to say, I consider it, and I make my judgment. But just because you didn't change my mind doesn't mean that I didn't listen.

did you throw the gauntlet down wanting to facilitate an open-minded debate, or to prove to some hippy how wrong they are?

SDB's words, posted further up the thread: I want to do this precisely so that some specific representative of the loyal opposition really will step up and try to make a coherent and convincing case, and I really will respond specifically to what they write.

And I want to hear what they have to say! But after reading this thread (twice), I'm convinced that the result of this challenge that will not come to pass would be 1) an open-minded debate, and 2) some "hippy" being proven how wrong s/he is.

That's my take.
posted by David Dark at 5:08 AM on November 18, 2001

I'm completely sincere and I wrote my formal challenge to try to demonstrate that. I tried to make it as fair to whoever decides to take the challenge as I could. Because they would write in their own forum (i.e. not in mine) I would not have the ability to alter or suppress or limit what they said -- so how could I prevent them from making the best case I could?

Hidalgo, would I be "open-minded"? It depends on what you mean by that. If by that you mean Berkely Rules, then the answer is no. I'm not going to say "Well, your opinion is different than mine and therefore I am honor bound to say that you are right." That's not acceptable.

But I will read what is written and respond to it specifically. If I think it's right I'll say so, but if I think it's wrong I'll say that too and do my best to back it up.

The power of science is that what it thinks it knows is the result of reasoned honorable debate. When someone proposes a new concept, others evaluate it, do their best to shoot it down, and if they fail then it becomes scientific orthodoxy. It is the fact that it stood despite being criticized that lends it its strength. That is the weakness of Berkeley Rules, and it's the reason I won't play by them. An idea is only worthy of respect if it survives criticism.

But I'm not doing this just to try to prove to some hippy etc. (I might mention that when I was 32 my hair touched my belt. Somewhere I've got a picture; I ought to find it and put it on my site.)

I'm completely serious about this, and of course the challenge is reciprocal, because I fully expect my ideas to be criticized too.

Yes, it's true that I'm confident. But that's because I think I'm right and I think I can prove it. I think my ideas will survive criticism.

I want to make sure to emphasize that I don't think there is anything wrong with Rebeccah not accepting my challenge. (In that I disagree with Norm.) But I will be a bit disappointed if no-one at all accepts it.

But not surprised.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 6:51 AM on November 18, 2001

Stavros, it may well be wrong to kill people. Is it wrong to stand by and let people be killed?

If by killing one person now we can prevent the deaths of 10 others later, should we?

Sometimes life hands us situations where we don't have any absolutely good choice, and we are forced to select the least bad of a lot of bad alternatives. In such a case an evil choice can still be the right choice, simply because all the alternatives are worse -- including inaction.

I believe that is the situation we're facing now. Yes, we're killing people, and yes that is a bad thing. But if we didn't do so, even more people would die and that would be worse.

Which is why your particular argument is one of the many I've read which does not convince.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 6:54 AM on November 18, 2001

You might look at that from another angle and see why being a dissenting voice is pretty fucking scary right now. It's always scary to be a dissenting voice. It always has been.

But part of the responsibility of being a citizen is to be a dissenting voice when you think your nation is going the wrong way. If you do, and if you are right, and if you can make a convincing argument for that, then eventually more and more people will flock to your cause and you will prevail. That's the healthy aspect of liberal democracy.

I've seen it happen. Anti-war protests against Viet Nam started small, but the movement grew and eventually prevailed. Some few members of that movement actually were killed -- but they died for their country just as surely as did those who died in combat in Viet Nam. Citizenship isn't just about privileges, it's also about responsibilities and duties. We get much benefit from our nation (whichever nation that is) but we, every single one of us, must also pay for that benefit. Dissent is one of those duties.

But dissent only will be successful if indeed it is correct and well thought out and presented convincingly. That's what I'm looking for from the anti-war left. So far I haven't seen it.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 7:11 AM on November 18, 2001

Um, debate? Anyone? Hello?
posted by Steven Den Beste at 7:41 AM on November 19, 2001

I don't think anyone is interested. Sorry.
posted by Hildago at 12:35 PM on November 19, 2001

Well, they're missing a bet. I get about 1500 hits a day, and whoever takes me on will get a lot of traffic for their site. (But I did get a response: on Sunday some kind person started signing me up for opt-in porn spam lists.)
posted by Steven Den Beste at 6:20 AM on November 20, 2001

I'm going to quote a very wise man.

"Life is too goddamned short to spend arguing with someone who will never admit that he's wrong."
posted by anapestic at 6:46 AM on November 20, 2001

I'm sure people could find all sorts of ways to draw traffic. Some of them might even be pleasant.
posted by rodii at 7:11 AM on November 20, 2001

ouch
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:15 AM on November 20, 2001

I guess that settles it. No one is convinced that they can best Steve in debate.

They complain that no one will listen, so they refuse to talk. They draw an analogy between political debate and schoolyard bullying, as if they prefer a political system that forbids debate. They make up a phantom quote about the futility of arguing with someone who will never admit that he's wrong, even though Steve has said he will admit when he's proved wrong. They imply that political debate should be avoided because it's not "pleasant." Perhaps all unpleasant things should be avoided. I hate to take out the trash and pay the bills. Let's see what happens when I avoid those unpleasant tasks.

No one will enage Steve in debate. If his political opponents truly believed that they were right, at least one would take Steve up on his offer and convince us all.

But no one will engage Steve in debate.
posted by Holden at 7:11 AM on November 21, 2001

No one is convinced that they can best Steve in debate.

I don't think that's the most rational conclusion you could draw.

Personally, I think the most sensible explanation for a lack of takers would be that most people still reading these threads don't really disapprove of having some kind of war, although some (including me) have expressed a belief that it's execution was incorrect in the details. However, it's clear that Al Qaeda aren't going to stop without some kind of military action.

If Steven had wanted a more open debate on war in general, and had expressed it less competitively, I imagine some people may have been interested. Sounds too much like a tennis match with different-sized rackets, for me though ;)
posted by walrus at 10:30 AM on November 21, 2001

But I wrote what I felt. I don't think that all war is a great time and we should fight every time that the opportunity arises; I think that this particular war is justified and that the US government is fighting it about the right way so far.

But I thought that there were a lot of people who did indeed object to this particular war or to how this particular war is being fought -- and that was what I wanted to debate about.

As to "less competitively", that's Berkeley rules. Forget it.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 11:37 AM on November 21, 2001

Sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent you or "them". Just my two pennorth ...
posted by walrus at 12:01 PM on November 21, 2001