Not exactly “umbrage”

After yesterday’s quick post here on a topic Juan Cole had raised that seemed to me to equate participating in antiwar marches was the equivalent of “marching for Saddam”, Juan sent me a well-expressed and thoughtful e-mail in response. Then he put a reference to this discussion up onto his blog. Right down at the bottom of this post today, he wrote:

    Helena Cobban took umbrage at my saying originally “march to keep Saddam in power” because she felt it was a slur against anti-war protesters, implying that that was their goal. I wasn’t, however, talking about other people; I was talking about my own ethical stance. I knew for a fact that Saddam was not going to be overthrown by internal forces and that he was committing virtual genocide against people like the Marsh Arabs. For me, marching against the war would have been done in knowledge that it would result in Saddam staying in power. She wants me to apologize. I’m always glad to apologize. I don’t see what it costs you to say you are sorry about hurting someone’s feelings inadvertently. But I didn’t mean, in my own mind, what she read me to mean, in the first place. I think an anti-war position was ethically defensible; it just wasn’t the position I was comfortable with. I think it mattered, too, whether you actually knew and interacted with Iraqi Shiites and Kurds very much.

I am certainly happy to accept his explanation, viz., that he was talking about his own choices not anyone else’s. Maybe I’m overly sensitive. There have certainly been many slurs thrown around to that effect against opponents of the war.
I’m not so happy to be described as “taking umbrage”. I grew up in a family where people were constantly accusing others of “taking umbrage”. I take it to mean some kind of a passive-aggressive hissy-fit, which I think belittles the seriousness of the points that I raised. “Offense”, maybe I took. “Umbrage”, no.
Also, I notably didn’t ask Juan to apologize (though I gracefully accept the apology he offered.) I suggested he might want to enact a little remorse over the affair. A small point, maybe. But I am very interested in the mechanistics of how people get beyond differences, and I tend to think that a process of remonstrance/reproach followed by discussion, (preferably enacted) remorse, and then reintegration is more effective at building or repairing longterm relationships than the traditional western sequence of accusation, confession/apology, and forgiveness.
Anyway, back to the larger issue: I have known and interacted with many Iraqi Kurds and Shi-ites, though probably not as many or as closely as Juan. It was a terrible dilemma, fuguring out how to be effective as non-stakeholders (outsiders) in helping them throw off the yoke of Saddamist, authoritarian misrule. Just as it still is, regarding the people of Burma, or North Korea, or a number of other rights hell-holes around the world. Juan says he “knew for a fact” that Saddam wasn’t going to be overthrown by internal forces. I can’t be quite as definitive about that as he was; but certainly, it looked highly unlikely that that would happen anytime in the foreseeable future.
But he seems to assume it was internal rebellion– or externally launched war. That there was, in other words, no other alternative.
I wonder if he says that about North Korea or Burma?
Maybe I know war better than he does. I have lived as a mother of small kids through one, for a number of years. And I have studied wars and their tragic sequelae in a number of places throughout the Middle East and the rest of the world. My main conclusions? War is always (a) massively harmful to the rights and even lives of large civilian populations, and (b) unpredictable.
Now I happen to agree with Juan that, broadly speaking, it was unwise (and possibly also, given their level of terrorization, unfair) to insist that the Iraqi people should be left with the total responsibility of liberating themselves. But still, the only alternatives were not between war (= infliction of massive rights abuses from a distance) and doing nothing. If we ever come to a point in human affairs where those are the only choices, it’ll be a truly tragic day.
But no, there were other options available–theoretically, at least. So what we need to do is start working hard to persuade people to make those theoretical options a real possibility. Like my suggestion of having the UN create a robust UNMOVIC-style operation devoted to “monitoring, observing, and verifying” the compliance of various autocratic regimes with the UN’s own human-rights instruments. Or perhaps, through the rapid expansion and upgrading of something like the new Nonviolent Peaceforce.
Goodness! If human ingenuity can invent the atom bomb, theater missile defense systems, “Daisy Cutter” heavy ordnance, and all those other whizz-bang instruments of death and destruction, surely we can design and start implementing their nonviolent equivalents in short order– and for a fraction of the cost!
Meantime, I’m sure Juan won’t take amiss my reminding y’all of this: the casualty toll in Iraq continues to grow.

29 thoughts on “Not exactly “umbrage””

  1. And I’m sure the UN Security Council will have no objection to the idea of a “human rights UNMOVIC” taking on oppressive regimes what with the veto of the Chinese Communist Party politburo (aka the butchers of Tiananmen Square), not to mention the realpolitk-considerations of the other permanent members.

  2. James has a not insignificant point. I just note that many governments that are great WMD proliferators (including, of course, Israel along with numerous others) signed on with relish to or at least went along with the creation of the Iraqi-WMD UNMOVIC. It was always a case of “Do as I want” not “Do as I do”.
    Meantime, the situation in, say, Burma or North Korea is of intense concern to China, and organizing a UN-led process by which the internal political tensions in those countries can be defused and their societies headed toward better rights situations without having war or massive further internal collapse could well seem like an attractive option.
    To be realistic, we shd not expect the Security Council to accept a resolution sending a human-rights UNMOVIC to any of the veto-wielding P-5 nations since each wd veto that. (All the more reason to change the archaic veto system, I say.)

  3. I knew for a fact that Saddam was not going to be overthrown by internal forces
    I think this comment presupposes that the U.S. sponsored sanctions would continue. Although that was not unrealistic, I think the chances of an internal opposition developing would have been much greater without the sanctions.
    As far as I can see, there was nothing incoherent about marching for peace, opposing the genocidal sanctions, and believing that one was not supporting Saddam Hussein — not in principle, and not significantly in practice.

  4. It seems safe to say that war represents a failure of moral imagination. Of course, WWII will probably continue to stand as the one exception to the rule — and people will continue to use it as the rhetorical example to justify wars in the future (as opposed to looking at other wars which, in retrospect, show a great deal more moral ambiguity, as I believe this one will). It will continue to be possible to dismiss arguments against war as “appeasement,” and to compare dictators with Hitler, and so on and on.
    But the exception WWII represents in terms of its “justness” may also characterize its aftermath. The poorest countries in the world are also those who have undergone American interventions of one sort or another; there is practically a direct correlation. And as the situation in Iraq becomes more untenable on a daily basis, the future seems all too predictable: America will leave without even attempting to complete its task of rebuilding, and Iraq will be left facing possibly generations of civil war and poverty.

  5. Vivion, there is of course the small point of who *starts* the war. In WWII the Germans were the aggressors in Europe and Japan attacked the US. The US only fought in WWII after both Japan and Germany declared war on it.
    Marjolein

  6. Marjolein: point taken. Although not sure if you mean that as an opposing point of discussion; just makes the “justification” of this war all the more convoluted.

  7. Vivion, I ment that you can hardly use WWII as an example to justify this war. In actual fact I think justifying this war is more than just convoluted… impossible seems a better description.
    Wars that can be used as an example of how a war can be justified are wars out of self defense (which for me includes wars to become independent). In this case pro-war people want to justify being the agressor – and thus want to claim moral justification to start future wars too. Of course there has never been an agressor that had NOT justified going to war for his followers.
    Sometimes people try to use Hitler as an example of a situation were early attacking would *have been* better, thus justifying the act of preemptive agression. “If only one of the attacks on his life would have succeeded, the holocaust could have been prevented”. That may be true, but you can only judge with hindsight *and* by your own usually not too objective standards. The guy who just got executed in Florida for killing an abortion doctor was also convinced that he did the only morally acceptable thing.
    Marjolein

  8. Marjolein, I agree with virtually everything you are saying; thanks for elaborating.
    One thought: you say that,
    “Wars that can be used as an example of how a war can be justified are wars out of self defense (which for me includes wars to become independent).”
    I assume you refer here to the pro-Iraq war hawks who justified the invasion saying that it was, in fact, defensive.
    But then you add in wars for independence. Are you saying you, yourself, believe that wars for independence are more easily justified, or that they are easily used as examples to justify other wars?
    That brings up the whole issue of the limits of nonviolence, I think…

  9. grin, I guess I was trying to be more detailed in my answer than I needed to be. When I referred to independence wars, I meant in general and in historic perspective.
    I *do* think war/violence can be justified. The US was justified (IMHO) in fighting to become an independent state. We (I am Dutch) initiated a war against our god-appointed king (that is how they were viewed in those days) and had to fight for 80 years to become an independent republic. For as long as that lasted ;-). So for me, that is the only situation I can think of right now where the agressor can be in his right.
    When I referred to self-defense as a justification I meant in general. WWII war was justified; of course one should fight if one is attacked. The NATO agreed to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan because they agreed that was self-defense for the US and thus they were obliged by treaty to assist.
    I had my doubts then, but the Taliban *was* hiding Osama bin Laden who in all likelyhood was planning more attacks – and Bush promised that this time the US would not abandon the Afghanistani people so that in the end the country would benefit. So I hesitantly supported the attacks and saw some justification.
    The situation in Iraq is totally different. It cannot be justified at all. The self-defense argument is total nonsens and those responsible for the invasion *knew*. Using WWII as a justification for attacking Iraq is absurd; the two cases are uncomparable. In the first the US was attacked and responded to a war declaration. In the second the US attacked a country. Not the same thing!

  10. Marjolein, thanks again. You say you are Dutch; are you living in Holland? My stepfather is Dutch, and he fought in the Dutch underground in WWII. He was also horrified at the US war against Iraq.
    You must have heard how often the rhetoric here in the United States repeatedly compared Saddam to Hitler, and the policies of “old Europe” to Chamberlain’s appeasement.
    But this tendency is what I was referring to in my first post. Every war-to-be is a good war, every opponent is a new Hitler, every time it is WWII all over again — brought up in memory by so many who never saw WWII, but who idealize it. There are fewer and fewer left who can remember and compare. And probably fewer still who acknowledge that the allies committed their own atrocities.
    War robs everyone of innocence, of the very moral authority they need so much to justify their policies. And we cling so much to the notions of our own purity. Does this mean that war is never justified? No, but if one makes the decision that there is no other choice, then one must also admit one’s complicity in the ensuing destruction.

  11. Hi Vivion,
    Yes, I live in the Netherlands. I tried to figure out where you live, but I cannot find a country that ends with .nt. Not There?
    My mother was 9 when WWII ended, and my stephfather 14. They never elaborated about it, but with enough snippets of information I can build my own image. Also, I grew up in Amsterdam, less than 100 m. from wheren Anne Frank lived. As a girl I identified strongly and have read a lot of stories about the war since. Which is one of the main reasons I see war as an absolute last ressort I guess.
    yes, I followed the American rethoric on its irratic course. Hitler comparisons are an automatic when people want to point out how bad someone is (not just in the US) and WWII seems to be dragged in any discussion where an European has a different opinion than an American. If I received an Euro for every time someone made a remark about how ungratefull we are since his or her grandfather helped liberating Europe from the evil Germans my bank would be much politer to me ;-).
    Indeed, that war is dragged into any discussion and people do not have realistic views about it. Unfortunately people also forget to make the comparisons they *should make*, about the events that lead to a climate where WWII became possible. Or WWI for that matter; in some ways even more comparable with what has happened the past few years.
    I totally agree with your last paragraph. People that wage war should be confronted with the consequences, not protected from them. If war is truelly the only solution one should take responsibility and face the resulting death and destruction.

  12. Marjolein — your last post stands on its own, and hardly needs any further comment from me. But to answer your question about where I live, it’s in the Boston area in the U.S. (The .nt at the end of my email address should be .net, but I don’t want spam.)
    I had the opportunity to travel to Germany twice this year, once during the war, itself. It was extremely odd to have my opinions fall into the center / norm of the country I was in, while back here in the US , I come across as some sort of lefty-oddball. The same happened in Canada when I travelled there. I think 95% of Americans (left and right) have absolutely no idea how isolated their opinions are in the context of the rest of the world. It reminds me (rather scarily) of the Serbs during the time of Slobodan Milosovic.

  13. Vivion,
    To be honest; I don’t think most Americans *care* about how isolated their opinions are. I often find it almost scary how many Americans don’t have a clue about in how many ways they are tied to the rest of the world.
    In the Netherlands I am a LibDem, which puts me more or less in the centre with a slight bend to the left (we have a representative multi-party system and at election time every Dutch citizen above 18 gets an invite to vote nationally, every inhibitant above 18 gets an invite to vote locally). I have noticed that that makes me a left wing radical in the American political spectrum though ;-).
    I have great admiration for people who dare to go against the flow, who think for themselves, are informed, investigate issues, form their own opinions and stand by them. Even if their conclusions are the total opposite, I still respect them. Which is why I think it is a shame and a scary fact that nowadays in America critisism seems to be proof of unpatriotic behaviour. I can find myself more in Thomas Jeffersons words; “dissent is the highest form of patriotism”.
    I enjoyed our little exchange of thoughts, and wish you all the best – and an environment that feels that discussions also are means to learn from others and thus to improve yourself.

  14. Just to say I am really enjoying the intelligent and engaging discussion above, and I feel really honored that JWN has been able to provide an place for it.
    I do have quite a few thoughts of my own on the subject. Several of my main posts have explored different aspects of it. Struggles by communities against domination by outside powers obviously constitute a huge and challenging set of cases, though I think Gandhi and the Dalai Lama have a lot to say to these cases that is worth giving very serious attention to. Main message? Armed action is not the only (and perhaps not the most effective) means of resistance in such cases…
    I do think a problem that many/most people raised in the “western” cultural tradition have is the very burdensome, centuries-long legacy of Augistinian doctrines re “just war”, “justified self-defense”, etc, all of which were imho four-centuries-later accretions onto the original message of the Gospels. (Accretions, moreover, introduced at a time that Christians found themselves exercizing worldly power and thus suddenly trying to fashion a new kind of realpolitik.)
    I think Buddhist views of violence, and what I can understand of Jesus’s original view, showed a far more profound understanding of the phenomenon than the excessively “righteous”, judgmental, finger-pointing way that most cultural westerners view it.
    More, later, here and in main posts…

  15. Why is the UN’s sorry record re: enforcing human rights so deserving of your good faith? Do you honestly believe that Saddam’s removal through peaceful means was anything close to realistic?
    War might be harmful for children and other living things, but so are homicidal dictators.

  16. Alex, do you honestly believe that the US invaded because they had the wellbeing of the Iraqi people at heart?
    Marjolein

  17. Marjolein,
    I don’t think the purpose of Iraq was entirely humanitarian — but it’s simply wrong to pretend that it wasn’t part of the prewar pitch. When 500,000 children are alleged to have died under ineffectual and government-abused sanctions, hundreds of thousands more killed by secret police, why may these figure not be compared with wartime casualty figures? When Iraq’s ‘sovereignty’ is solemnly invoked, is it unfair to question whether Hussein enjoyed the consent of those he governed?

  18. Theologicus,
    “I think the chances of an internal opposition developing would have been much greater without the sanctions.”
    What is the basis for this judgement? I personally agree that sactions would be useless against any regime like Hussein’s Iraq. But from where do you draw the odd conclusion that Hussein’s overthrow was even possible (let alone likely?)
    More on this:
    http://www.sptimes.com/2003/02/01/Worldandnation/Coup__exile_long_shot.shtml

  19. Vivian:
    you write:
    “The poorest countries in the world are also those who have undergone American interventions of one sort or another; there is practically a direct correlation.”
    The 10 poorest countries in the world (expressed as GDP per capita) are:
    Malawi, Eritrea, Tanzania, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Niger, Ethiopia, Burundi, Nepal, Sierra Leone and Guinea-Bissau.
    Exactly which of these has been the victim of US interventionism??
    Among the 20 most impoverished nations (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_pop_bel_pov_lin) Haiti alone has suffered an American military intervention, and then in an internationally sanctioned effort to restore an elected official. Among the top 100, most seem to be in western and southeastern africa.

  20. Oops I did it again! – Brittney Spears TGP thumbnail gallery we live together welivetogether little trouble maker joey jenna big naturals in the vip latina hardcore movies solo video girl

Comments are closed.