I see a frail old woman being assaulted by someone much smaller and less powerful than myself. I can easily intervene and prevent further suffering on her part, but I stay out of it because I don't want to interfere with her right of self-determination.You are not the United States or its military. Libya is not an old woman. Morality does not translate through metaphor.
"Libya" is not a distinct entity. It is made up of many actors. An old woman has individual agency. A country has a vast sea of divergent opinions, intents, and interests. Whatever else is true in this metaphor, the old woman isn't hurt by me. In real life, Libyans-- "good," "bad," and every shade between-- will be killed by our aggression. Of all the self-congratulating bullshit narratives that have been totally undone by this intervention, none tells more about the American character than the return of the canard of war without civilian casualties, of war where only the "bad guys" are hurt. American ordnance will kill children in Libya. Libyan rebels are in the process of assaulting and murdering pro-Qaddafi loyalists. Squeeze that into your metaphor.
I beat up the person assaulting the old woman. He recovers, some day. I can use non-lethal force to save the old woman. If I got it wrong, somehow, the consequences are not permanent. There is no such thing as non-lethal military force, no matter how much you might want to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend. People who are knocked down in this war never get up. There's no such thing as a smart bomb. Children die. Innocents die. Grow up. Grow up.
Finally: in the metaphor, I choose to intervene or not intervene. I fight. I risk my physical health. I risk maiming or killing another human being. In this situation, with war on Libya? Nobody is asking me to actually fight. Nobody on the Internet is proposing that they themselves go to fight. They are instead asking me to do what they are doing, which is to write blog posts calling for military action from thousands of miles away. They risk nothing and sacrifice nothing, but as the metaphor shows, they are desperate to believe that they are achieving something in telling other people to go kill in Libya. "Liberal" hawks never fall out of love with the idea that telling other people to go fight and die is courageous and virtuous. And when they are done, they turn off their Macbooks and go to bed.
Funny thing about virtue: it comes only with sacrifice. Funny thing about courage: it comes only with personal, physical danger. Funny thing about righteousness: it never, ever operates by metaphor.
Posts
35 comments:
Right on. Individuals are not the same thing, morally, as groups of people, and neither are the same thing as sovereign governments. It is the rare exception for an ethical analysis to apply in the same way to all three.
Entirely aside from the Libya debate (I'm still not sure what to think about it), few things annoy me more than the trope, used so often by Greenwald and Digby (and you, I guess?), that those who advocate wars must have been a member of the military or be willing to go fight in a war themselves. It's very easy for someone who is (relatively) pacifist to say, because a pacifist actually CAN live out their beliefs while sitting behind a Macbook. Yes, there is such a thing as a chickenhawk ... but, I mean, ffs. It always reminds me of when Michael Moore walked up to a pro-war senator and asked him why he hadn't "sent his son" to fight in Iraq, as if this was anything other than a silly ad hominem.
1. This metaphor, which has been wheeled out time and time again, directly analogizes my refusal to advocate that other people fight with a supposed refusal to fight myself, to say nothing of its myriad other problems. If you can't see the relevance of the difference I'm not sure what to tell you.
2. The chicken hawk argument is an has always been a legitimate criticism of the people making pro-war arguments. It is not an anti-war argument in itself, but despite what people like to tell you, sorting the consistency and character of those engaging in political discussion is necessary.
There's no "must" about it, Paul, and Freddie isn't saying that if you want to advocate for going to war, you have to be willing to fight. He's just pointing out that there is a world of difference between one person choosing to intervene in a fight on an old lady's behalf and many, many people saying that many, many other people should intervene in a conflict in another country.
You don't have to be willing to do the fighting to advocate for it; but Jesus, it certainly takes a lot more courage to put yourself in the way of physical harm, even just on behalf of an old lady, than to write a hawkish blog post. And if more bloggers or commentators (or senators) did have to risk getting hurt -- well goodness, maybe we wouldn't go to war so quickly.
Accusations of chicken hawkery are valid, I think, when
1. The author confuses advocacy of warfare with commission of warfare, and hopes to take on some of the supposed virtues of fighting in war (like courage) by advocating fighting in war
2. The author talks about struggles for civilization or for human rights, where the inflation of the moral necessity for fighting compels one to ask why the author isn't then themselves fighting if the stakes are that high
3. The author confuses the personal with the proxy, as in this metaphor
Sure. And adopting the self-righteous attitude of a religious fudamentalist while typing away safely in your room, thousands of miles away from the population centers that were (were!) being bombed mercilessly by Libyan fighter jets and tanks is an incredibly courageous act.
Please.
You're right. The old lady anology doesn't hold. We're talking about not one but thousands of defenseless old ladies, old men, children, babies, and women...not being mugged, but being indiscriminately attacked with heavy military machinery.
I'm as non-interventionist as the next guy but the US prevented a civilian massacre in Benghazi. And the impetus for US intervention did not originate within the US - this is a key point for me - it originated within the UN and the Libyan population itself.
(I have to admit, I'm marvelling at finding myself on this side of the debate.)
I'm as non-interventionist as the next guy
Let's allow that to marinate for awhile.
Fine. I renounce that statement. I'm non-interventionist but not to the point of religious zealotry.
"...but the US prevented a civilian massacre in Benghazi."
Thus assuring all that when the rebels (perhaps) take Tripoli there will be no slaughter of MM Gaddafi loyalists or even a few civilians just for good measure?
"it originated within the UN and the Libyan population itself.
Yewbetcha'. France and Italy had nothing to do with this.
I have many fine liberal friends who argue like you do, and when pushed on this, retreat to the "it was a gut decision" justification.
Jayzuz 'effing Xrist...just listen to yourself.
Hey Ben,
The conflation of Freddie with a 'religious fundamentalist' was a nice touch. You pick that up on the internets?
Ben,
It isn't "thousands of defenseless old ladies." It's thousands of armed combatants and many more thousands of unarmed civilians who support those combatants. If there's an appropriate metaphor here, it isn't mugger and old lady, but rival gangs. The U.S., NATO, and others, have intervened on behalf of one rival gang -- the smaller one, which was losing the fight -- to prevent the larger gang from winning. It now looks like the smaller gang is going to win. Once they do, they may become the "mugger". What happens then? Will you advocate bombing them? And then what?
Freddie, I read the journalism produced by war correspondents. I am thankful for their work, and think there ought be such a thing as a war correspondent. Does that mean I want to be a war correspondent? No. Does my not wanting to be a war correspondent make me a coward or does it mean that isn’t the right career for me? Does it tell you anything particularly interesting about my “consistency and character”? Replace war correspondent with any number of potentially dangerous careers, firefighter, police officer, or member of the armed forces… Are my career choices really a worthy object of debate when discussing humanitarian intervention? (Especially when, as I read Ben There, advancing a thought experiment, like Peter Singer’s drowning child, meant to draw upon a particular vision of moral philosophy or normative ethics to advance a case.)
The careers of advocates for humanitarian intervention are orthogonal to the position of being in favor of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect. To prove how tangential to the actual arguments the careers of myself or various other individuals are, what if I were in the military, or what if I applied to be in the military, or otherwise in the service of the US government? Would that make one jot of difference to your position on interventionists possessing imperfect information (being insufficiently knowledgeable about the circumstances in which they seek intervention) or your view on the robust nature of state sovereignty and self-determination’s role in whether the US ought intervene or not? Even if you would say, well, I might listen more carefully, I think your reasoning would not change in the slightest. Nor should it change, the career choices of advocates of this or that policy position are beside the core points of principle under discussion. (Otherwise, people like John McCain and John Kerry advocating early intervention in Libya would have already convinced you given their careers in the military.)
Over time, I’ve seen you repeatedly criticize the treatment of people opposed to the Iraq war in the run-up to the conflict. I don’t think you’ve used these words precisely, but I read you as saying all sorts of baseless personal attacks were leveled at Iraq war opponents, from charges of being un-American to being un-Serious, to the especially bizarre being some sort of supporter of Saddam Hussein – and further that these charges were unfair and wrong to have been made. Sometimes it seems the lesson you draw is that you too can be as vicious, you too can wield sharp elbows, fouling fellow discussants, yes you too can heap vitriol upon those with whom you disagree.
I’d venture that isn’t the lesson you should have taken from any episode of ad hominem attacks being hurled here and there. But what do I know, I’m just another lizard brain, with the notable distinction however, of being author of the wrongest thing ever published on the intertubes. Yours reptillianly, CC
Obviously you have a beef with our country taking this action. From this post and others, it is clear that you have a beef with those who you think supposedly have a beef with you for not advocating for that action. What I am unclear about is whether you have a beef with either 1) those who advocate for this action who are not in the government making the decisions, or whose flesh is not on the line to carry out or potentially receive orders to aid in carrying out the action; or 2) with people who do not advocate for or against the action, because they are not convinced it is the wrong, but also not convinced it is the right, decision.
I should have said obviously you have a beef with the decision makers in our government, not with :our country." I am curious about what your answers to the other questions might be.
Michael, as noted, I'm not accusing everyone who is advocating war while not fighting of being a chicken hawk, only saying that the analogy is bogus in part because of individual agency.
I like the rival gangs analogy, which is as about as close an analogy to the reality here (ongoing civil war) as anything else.
I didn't think you were calling anyone a chickenhawk, to be honest. I was just wondering what criticisms, and how severe, you are aiming at whom on this generally, not limited to this post.
As they taught me in that ol' Ivy League that produces all the neo-imperialist and neo-liberal filth that runs the USA, analogy is the weakest form of argument.
As people on this thread have pointed out, a better analogy/metaphor is: Gang war.
In my humble, an even better one is: Family feud, with all the implication of ancient, impenetrable hatreds that that implies.
The US is intervening in a family feud. Completely insane.
funny thing about progress....it has almost always come through some violence
Anonymous: "The US is intervening in a family feud. Completely insane."
So I guess you opposed the French intervening in our revolution so we could defeat Britain?
Ben There: "And the impetus for US intervention did not originate within the US - this is a key point for me."
Love that liberal pose! God forbid the U.S. ever did something for its own interests.
"So I guess you opposed the French intervening in our revolution so we could defeat Britain?"
The intervention that damaged the French economy and helped inspire a revolution that destroyed the government that launched it?
Gang analogy:
Okay, but the two gangs are not equal. One gang has tanks and fighter jets and is in a position to slaughter the other gang en masse as a result of their superior firepower. Sorry, but massive human carnage is a negative to me, even if it involves gang members. And I think it's a little unfair to equate 90%+ of the Libyan civilian population to thugs/gang members.
Family feud analogy:
Big, strong, testosterone-advantage husband is beating his petite wife. Yes, I say intervene in that family feud.
MarcV -
Yes, I am 100% opposed to the US bombing foreign countries solely to promote its self-interests, with the obvious exception of legitimiate self-defense.
(Apologies for the multiple posts. Technical difficulties.)
Ben, did you notice there how your reformulation of the "family feud" analogy once again reduced the nation of Libya to a single individual (petite wife)? So the only objection you have to the "old woman" analogy is that her age should be left indeterminate?
Ben There isn't very smart. A "family feud" isn't when a husband beats a wife. That's "domestic violence." A family feud is a multi-generational war between many people on each side, with murky reasons for it that no one outside can understand. Like the Hatfields and the McCoys. Or the clan warfare in the Balkans that goes on for centuries. There's also a famous family feud in Huck Finn. Neo-liberal Obama-worshipping Americanists don't read books, though, they spend their time in college networking and figuring out how to worm and slime their way in DC fellowships and TNR internship gigs.
Mark V is not very intelligent. French support for the American Revolution was horrible for France and was considered one of the factors that led to the French Revolution, which overthrew and murdered the members of the regime that provided that support. (Please see about about what neo-liberal Americanist dweebs do in college.)
Absolutely brilliant. Individual morality simply cannot be compared or somehow transferred to government, especially when the government is engaging in violence.
If anyone really feels that we need to intervene in Libya then let them do what Hemmingay and Georoge Orwell did in the Soanish civil war-grab and gun and go join the Libyan rebels! No, they don't feel that strongly about it, just strongly enough to send other people to do somethign about it.
So who's rescuing the old lady in Bahrain?
Anyone who's keen to retain the 'little old lady getting mugged' trope, or the 'petite housewife getting beat up by her bohunk husband' canard, you can, simply by analogising the intervention itself...
"I read on the internet that somewhere there was a little old lady getting mugged... so I go to the place they said it happened, close my eyes and open fire with an Uzi."
"The TV told me that a petite housewife is getting beat up by er drunken husband, so I sent letter-bombs to some houses in the suburb mentioned in the story."
Srsly... for the fucktards who believe the "There was gunna be a massacree!" trope... ever heard of Hill & Knowlton, Nariyah the Ambassador's daughter, and 'babies being thrown out of incubators'? Or perhaps "Huns bayonetting Nuns" from WWI?
Are you fucking 12?
The governments of the self-styled 'western powers' were unable to find a way to 'do a de Gaulle' in Tunisia and Egypt (i.e., was unable to claim victory after sitting on the sidelines while someone else did all the work)... so they are keen to be seen as being the decisive factor in Libya.
Plus, Gaddafi has the 'Saddam Factor' (which is why there was that ludicrous 'look at this random chick who says she was raped by Gaddafi's forces' new tripe) - the 'go to' demonisation that gulls housewives almost as well as accusations of child molestation.
It's fun watching tards repeat made-for-TV justifications ("There was going to be a massacre").
Like Fallujah?
GT –
Juan Cole - who is hardly a shill for the military industrial complex or an uninformed redneck – believes that “there was gonna be a massacre” trope. He’s one of the most well-informed individuals on middle eastern affairs and is not exactly known for being a purveyor of made-for-tv justifications.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/answer-to-glenn-greenwald.html
Anonyomous –
Bahrain. No attacks on civilians with fighter jets and tanks.
Other Anonymous –
Try as I might, I just can’t get myself to equate a popular uprising for democracy against a violent dictator to a family feud or gang fight. The massive imbalance in firepower and justness in one’s cause* is just too much for me to overcome. My old lady analogy, that source of much consternation, was meant to convey the imbalance in brute strength between the two sides of this conflict.
*Yes, I’m aware that this isn’t clear cut. “What if the rebels are worse than Qaddafi?” Fair point. But I’m operating under the assumption that the majority of the population wants the Qaddafi regime gone and that the rebels represent the popular will.
The Easterners would have been slaughtered with $300 million worth of weapons and ammo Libya bought from France, Germany, the UK and Italy. Then the US, France, Italy wipe out said weapons in the nick of time, then send in $160 million of Tomahawks. Obama had to cancel a $77 million dollar weapons order for Libya just before this all broke loose. Tough call.
"But I’m operating under the assumption that the majority of the population wants the Qaddafi regime gone and that the rebels represent the popular will."
HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY KNOW THIS WITH THE CERTAINTY TO DEMAND THE MASS DEPLOYMENT OF MILITARY POWER?!
This statement is the essence of Freddie's point about the inherent arrogance involved in advocating "humanitarian" military action. Nobody in the U.S. who's reacting to incomplete and superficial news reports, can know anything about the country they're advocating the invasion of.
Ben There: So it's OK to put a rifle bullet in the old lady's brain as long as you don't run over her with a tank. Sorry I missed the sublety of your reasoning. But then, I wasn't arguing that we should intervene in Bahrain.
Anonymous –
If the UN, The Arab League, and others in the international community decide that intervention is necessary in Bahrain, and if there is indication that it is supported by Bahranian popular will, and if it appears to be a necessary step to prevent large numbers of civilians from being massacred by the Bahranian Monarchy – then yes, I will support US participation in intervention. As of yet, none of these seem to be the case. And a point so many of you are missing is that the NATO/UN/US intervention in Libya is likely to give other regimes (like the Bahrain monarchy) pause before turning their military arsenal on their own citizenry.
Since subtlety isn’t your strong suit, allow me to point out that there are dramatic differences between the kind of firepower (and the corresponding human consequences) being used against civilians in Libya versus those in Bahrain.
I don’t know what the threshold is for intervention. Is the use of outside force justified to prevent a few dozen protesters from being shot by police or only to prevent thousands of them from being blown up by fighter jets? Luckily, no single individual has to make that call. Making those kinds of calls is the very reason for the UN’s existence in the first place.
Matthew –
“HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY KNOW THIS WITH THE CERTAINTY TO DEMAND THE MASS DEPLOYMENT OF MILITARY POWER?!”
See my last paragraph to anonymous above. To answer your question: I can’t and I don’t. And for that matter, what single individual can? What you all seem to be missing is that this was not a unilateral decision on the part of Obama, Sarkozy, or any pundit or blogger. This was a decision reached by the UN Security Council, an institution set up for the purpose of determining when to use military force to deal with bad actors and prevent the massive loss of human life.
To be clear: I am not demanding the mass deployment of military power. I am supporting a decision reached by and supported by the UN, The Arab League, and a significant portion of the international community. To your point, I cannot personally know with certainty when military force is justified. The fact that support for intervention seems to be broad based among other concerned and informed parties lends legitimacy to it in my view.
I love the implication that the all mighty and powerful blogger Ben There watched a two minute segment on CNN and then singlehandedly orchestrated an international military attack on Libya.
Post a Comment