Against the War ... For Now?

March 14, 2003 10:34 AM

We, the West, will ultimately invade, occupy, and remake the Middle East. So says Dan Savage in this week's issue of The Stranger, arriving at Ann Coulter's conclusions via Michael Moore's logic. His argument goes like this: We (the West) were the birdbrained manufacturers of the violent mess that characterizes the Middle Eastern region today, and it's our responsibility to fix it. Which means invading, deposing all the leaders, and starting again. But he's against the war. Oh, you figure it out.
posted by grrarrgh00 (34 comments total)

This one, it seems to me, is so politically garbled that it can't properly be called a left-wing or right-wing argument, so I'm curious to see who would embrace it and who would refute it, or if it would just be generally unpopular. And yet it makes an odd sort of sense. Note that I don't say I agree; I'm not informed enough about the history of the region to have an opinion on either Mr. Savage's claims or his conclusions.

And for the record, I'm not a fan or a detractor of Dan Savage in himself. I'm mostly just confused by the man.
posted by grrarrgh00 at 10:41 AM on March 14, 2003

Actually, it makes a lot of sense. The last 'graph:

The Islamo-fascists will succeed where the Bush administration has failed. Colin Powell couldn't bring France, Germany, and Russia to their senses, but the next wave of deadly terrorist attacks no doubt will. So we'll just have to wait until after New York or Paris or Seattle or Strasbourg is wiped off the map to do what must be done. Make no mistake, my fellow lefties: We, the West, will ultimately invade, occupy, and remake the Middle East. Unfortunately for future innocent victims of terrorist attacks, the United States can't do it alone, which means we can't do it now.

posted by goethean at 10:43 AM on March 14, 2003

I've always been impressed with Dan Savage's realism. Case in point, his distaste for Nader in the 2000 elections. He's far more than just a sex columnist.
posted by pjgulliver at 10:44 AM on March 14, 2003

I've seen better op-ed writing in Metafilter comments, and that's pretty insulting.
posted by Stan Chin at 10:46 AM on March 14, 2003

Ahem. Link, please, Stan?
posted by luser at 10:50 AM on March 14, 2003

No.
posted by Stan Chin at 10:53 AM on March 14, 2003

"Colin Powell couldn't bring France, Germany, and Russia to their senses, but the next wave of deadly terrorist attacks no doubt will."

This is the problem with what he is saying right there. These are two different things.

We get plenty of help from France, Germany, and Russia when it comes to tracking down terrorists. What they have a problem with is invading Iraq. These two things are unrelated.

If Paris gets leveled by a nuke, the French will not decide to attack Iraq. They'll decide to attack the people who placed the nuke. Duh. Iraq has no nukes and no links to groups that want to use them in terrorist attacks.

Hello? Clue train comin' through: There is no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:54 AM on March 14, 2003

Hating George Bush and calling yourself a "lefty" doesn't make you a lefty. Savage is just rationalizing his ape-man gut reaction to 9/11 by couching it in some pseudo-liberal language and really shaky logic.

What right does the West have to remake the Middle East? Well, the West made the region the mess it is today.

OK, fine. But you didn't answer your own question. What right does the West have to remake the Middle East?

But what right do we have to impose our values on them? About as much right as we had to impose "our" values on them Germans.

Wait, "them" meaning who? The Middle Eastern governments? They haven't declared war on us, asshole. We didn't go after the Axis in WWII until we were attacked. And, last I heard, Al Quaeda was not a government and Bin Laden was leader of no nation. Apples and oranges, dude.

There's also the small matter of our values being superior--can we lefties get behind that concept?

Um, no.

This reads like it was written by some highschool kid who's still torn between what Momma always told him and what his new-found hippy friends are saying.

Lame.
posted by jpoulos at 10:56 AM on March 14, 2003

This is a train wreck of "logic" all premised on the notion that the post-colonial statist structure in the Middle East is to blame for the Islamic nut jobs that want to kill us. What's noticeably absent is any warrant for the implicit claim that once we impose a new post-colonial statist structure that it will actually solve the problem of the nut jobs. Until there's a cognizable argument on that point, I will ignore Savage's authority on international affairs and defer to him on such important points as licking Gary Bauer's doorknobs.
posted by norm at 10:58 AM on March 14, 2003

Also, he calls himself a "lefty" no less than seven times in the article. Methinks he dost protest too much.
posted by jpoulos at 10:59 AM on March 14, 2003

Off topic: How many of you non-Seattle-residing Mefites read the Stranger on a regular basis?

As a Seattleite, I find it just about impossible to make it through any given week without consulting the Stranger at least once to keep up on the happenings (read: gossip) about town. I wasn't aware that my neighbors (my home is three doors down from the Stranger HQ) had a national audience.
posted by tomharpel at 11:00 AM on March 14, 2003

["doth", not dost]
posted by jpoulos at 11:01 AM on March 14, 2003

Dan Savage seems to use "we lefties" like Camille Paglia does "we feminists" - i.e. it allows him to spout comlete BS he wouldn't otherwise be able to get away with.

Or maybe it was a typo and the real meaning is a Savage self-assessment... "wee lefties"...
posted by soyjoy at 11:03 AM on March 14, 2003

Note that I don't say I agree; I'm not informed enough about the history of the region to have an opinion on either Mr. Savage's claims or his conclusions.
Mr. Savage isn't very informed about the region either, grrarrgh00, but unlike you, he felt compelled to write about it anyway. You are by far wiser than he is.
posted by talos at 11:06 AM on March 14, 2003

By the way, I'm stoopied, and when this issue of The Stranger is archived in a week, the link I linked to will no longer be valid. So, future MeFi surfers, use this link instead to view the article in question, if you find yourself possessed of such a desire.

And norm's point is the one that popped up in my head too. Why does Savage presuppose that we'll be any less shortsighted and uninformed when we go about rectifying this mess than we were when we went about creating it?
posted by grrarrgh00 at 11:07 AM on March 14, 2003

grrarrgh00, because Dan Savage is more about spouting off his bizarro opinions to garner popularity, knowing full well that that's all his opinions will do. I believe that Mr. Savage does indeed have political aspirations, but he will have to learn to curb his acerbic wit, the art of when to speak and a rhetoric that is more in line with any left or right speak. Personally, I love Dan Savage. He has caused more liquid to come out of my nose from sudden laughter than most people. I love the fact that he is opinionated and out-spoken, but I think he should stick to what he knows best - sex.
posted by ashbury at 11:24 AM on March 14, 2003

Savage is presuming that the international community has learned something about nation building in the past 50-80 years. Which it has. Doesn't mean that invading and remaking Iraq would be a cake walk, or necessarily the best policy. But undoubtedly the global community knows far more about these type of operations now than they did at the immediate end of WWII and the decolonization period.
posted by pjgulliver at 11:26 AM on March 14, 2003

Why does Savage presuppose that we'll be any less shortsighted and uninformed when we go about rectifying this mess than we were when we went about creating it?

Ever hear of learning from past mistakes?
posted by themikeb at 11:31 AM on March 14, 2003

This so didn't need to be posted. Do we really need to hear yet another pundit's fascinating views on Iraq?
posted by oissubke at 11:32 AM on March 14, 2003

You so didn't need to comment again. Do we really needa to hear another oissubke complaint about what shouldn't be posted?

Ever hear of learning from past mistakes?

Well, they're doing a bang-up job in Afghanistan. And the Balkans are just a fabulous place to raise a family.

What makes you think anyone has learned anything?
posted by jpoulos at 11:43 AM on March 14, 2003

I value Dan Savage's political opinions about as much as I would George Will's sex advice.
posted by Ty Webb at 11:43 AM on March 14, 2003

Only in America could someone write a column about the mess the West has made in the Middle East, and not mention Israel, even in passing.
posted by cell divide at 11:46 AM on March 14, 2003

This guy reads more like Jackie Harvey than the Christopher Hitchens wannabe that he actually is. "I was for the war, but now I'm against it," he cheerily exclaims, as though we were keeping an accounting of his knee-jerk reactions.

The baleful thing that the West bred in the Middle East was not statehood, but rather the ideal of statehood that developed in Europe during the Enlightenment, and that particular cultural gift is a fait accompli. The only people that can sort out the mess that the Middle East is in are . . . surprise! the people who live there. Imagine what Americans would have thought if England, Spain and France had intervened militarily in the US Civil War. Those countries together had been instrumental in creating the United States eighty years previously, just as Britain was with Iraq. Western ideas laid haphazardly over arab sensibilities bred these attitudes; the genie is out of the bottle. Instead of dropping bombs, we should be dropping copies of Rousseau and de Tocqueville, so that these guys can put all that heady shit into perspective.
posted by vraxoin at 11:46 AM on March 14, 2003

George Will's sex advice.

**barfs on screen**
posted by Ufez Jones at 11:47 AM on March 14, 2003

This so didn't need to be posted. Do we really need to hear yet another pundit's fascinating views on Iraq?

So you think discussing Eminem would be a better use of time than considering alternate viewpoints on serious issues?
posted by nofundy at 11:48 AM on March 14, 2003

George Will's political advice

**barfs on screen also**

(screen getting icky?)
posted by nofundy at 11:50 AM on March 14, 2003

And someone thought I had Dan and Michael confused last week... ;-)
posted by WolfDaddy at 12:01 PM on March 14, 2003

There's also the small matter of our values being superior--can we lefties get behind that concept?

Yes.

Cultural relativism is where the "left" and I part company. Any population group that, for example, practices female genital mutilation is totally inferior to the one I live in.
posted by Scoo at 12:10 PM on March 14, 2003

Heh. Someone said 'George Will'.

Soon the bow wave created by the movement of the great ship America into full-scale war will wash away Lilliputian nuisances, such as French diplomacy. -- George Will

The Love Boat is in dry dock?
posted by Opus Dark at 12:12 PM on March 14, 2003

What makes you think anyone has learned anything?
jpolous, you hit the hammer on the nail.

Middle East, and not mention Israel
Cell divide what are you saying, really?. This article reads politics not religion. By your comment; religion & politics are one in the same in the Middle East/Israel?

If so, a better reason with why we should do as vraxion has enlighten us to do. I trust in the Lord, I'm sure He knows best.[this last sentance is said easier than done by a man with feet of clay]
posted by thomcatspike at 12:12 PM on March 14, 2003

What about ones that invade countries halfway around the world?
posted by jpoulos at 12:13 PM on March 14, 2003

For me, the worst of it is how Savage equates the spread of democracy with "invading their countries and deposing their leaders." What a wretched mess of an argument.

Look at Iran, for instance - another country Savage somehow failed to mention in his oh-so-deep analysis. The mullahs are ruling a population increasingly disgusted with them (sadly, in true democratic fashion, the population is expressing its disgust by staying home from the polls). The *last* thing Iran needs is a Western invasion; nonviolent support and assistance from those of us with "superior values" would be enough, thanks.

The West made it a mess. The West is going to have to clean it up.

This is underwear gnomes territory, isn't it?

1. Get underwear.
2. ?
3. Make Profit.
posted by mediareport at 1:06 PM on March 14, 2003

By your comment; religion & politics are one in the same in the Middle East/Israel?

Yes, they are. In fact, that's part of the problem. Whereas the West, after give or take a thousand years of religious warfare, decided to abolish the connection between state and religion, the Muslims world in fact did the opposite, and merged religious with secular authority. The Caliph of the Ottoman empire was both Pope and Emperor. When the Ottoman empire collapsed, a political and spiritual void was left in the Muslim world, and the various fundamentalist movements are at a reaction to the devolution of power that resulted (among other things).

Personally, I think the Middle East isn't going to remake itself into a bunch of liberal/social democracies without our intervention, but I don't trust Bush, Blair or anyone else in power to do it properly. Maybe in a few election cycles, someone will be prepared to treat the middle east seriously instead of as a geopolitical sandbox to play with their G.I. Joes in. Until then, though, it's not optimistic.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 1:17 PM on March 14, 2003

I, too, have problems with cultural relativity when it comes to the issue of genital mutilation.
posted by Nicolae Carpathia at 1:41 PM on March 14, 2003