Bone's article

relevant forum thread

Generally when I read Pamela Bone's articles I  think 'right on!', and that it is nice to see a well written and strong left liberal perspective.  This recent article however, where she claims that what matters is democracy in Iraq, rather than whether supporting the war was the correct thing to do, is the wrong approach.  It is important to recognise when you get it wrong, and it is OK for people who did get it right to point out why they got it right and others did not.   I understand her not wanting to gloat about getting it right, however for those who got it wrong it is important to recognise it in order that similar mistakes are not repeated in the future.  So, here it is a matter of combatting liberalism. 

It does matter who got the original question right and who got it wrong.  It matters because there are a lot of people out there who will get it wrong next time if they do not forthrightly admit their mistakes this time around. I got it wrong about the first gulf war, not because I immediately took a pacifist stance that all war, or killing is wrong, but because I did not fully understand the national sovereignty issues involved. 

When I realised that my previous understanding about the concrete conditions was wrong I was able to see that in fact our government, then a Labor government, was correct to place Australian lives in danger for the greater good of collective security.  Even this previous experience did not immediately flow to supporting the gulf war MK2, as my initial reaction is to avoid war almost at any cost; but it did mean that I initially adopted a neutral approach until I had done a bit more research.  This time when I reached a conclusion it was a well informed one.  

These are turbulent and interesting times which require us all to go the extra mile in accepting that it is OK to make mistakes, but it is not OK to continue making them.  I think that there will be a leap in human personal evolution when people come to realise not only that is it OK to make mistakes, but it is good to make mistakes.  (However, it is not OK to keep chanting the mantra and getting it wrong) Only mediocre thinkers never make mistakes, and this is because they never go out on a limb.  Society needs people to go out on a limb and risk being wrong.  In these rapidly changing times people who do boldly go where others are not will get it dramatically wrong from time to time.  The important thing is the self reflection.  Maybe the entire paradigm was wrong and requires adjustment, or possibly there were issues undiscovered that lead to the mistake.  Either way everybody benefits from examining where they went wrong.   Celebrate your mistakes probably won't catch on much as a slogan but as a regular mistake maker they give me comfort today.

These are hastily written words in the interest of generating further comment and debate.

Gloating isn't an issue. People learn from history, and from recent past events. Two conflicting 'hypotheses' were offered and tested. One said the war was about oil and would result in a casualty level of such magnitude that it would be better to leave the regime in power or wait until the people could rise up against it. This hypothesis saw only catastrophe as the result of war, including a refugee crisis on the same scale as the Balkans.

The other hypothesis was that, following Sept 11 and the ascendancy of the neo-cons, there was a fundamental change in strategic thinking and that Bush et al really did want to drain the swamps in order to eradicate the mosquitoes. According to this view - the view advocated by this site among others - the war was necessary, would create a democratic state in Iraq, and this would have a ripple (inspirational) effect in the region. A tiny number of individuals maintained that the war should be supported on Left-wing grounds but mostly by people identified in the public mind with the 'Right' side of politics. The war was opposed by people calling themselves 'Left' as well as old stalwarts of the Right such as Pat Buchanan and the Pope.

Which hypothesis is being verified? The casualty rate (even accepting the Lancet figure of 100,000, which is based on sampling and not actual 'body count') isn't a convincing argument against the war because, as Bone points out, the numbers that would have been killed had the regime not been toppled would have been greater (especially if one accepts the figures of anti-war leaders like Pilger, who reckoned 50,000 children were dying each year in Iraq because of UN sanctions).

The anti-war fears about a refugee crisis were symbolic of their negativity and lack of understanding that Bush and the neo-cons really did mean what they said about democratisation. People fled persecution in Iraq because of the Ba'ath regime - about 3 million had fled to various countries. As soon as Saddam was toppled, the UNHCR started planning for the return of refugees to their homeland. This process is continuing. But the point is: far from the war creating a refugee catastrophe, the opposite has happened. This is but one example of where the anti's hypothesis failed.

I wonder how long it will take - and what it will take - before some people are able to acknowledge that the war was worth it, that the region is being democratised, and that the Iraqi people are better off now that they have cause for hope.

Incidentally, like Anita, I initially opposed Gulf War 1. I attended demonstrations against it because I came from a tradition (a culture?) of anti-American protest. I mixed in social circles where everyone thought the same on this issue and at no point bothered to do any proper investigation or to seriously consider the pro-war point of view. In other words, I reacted out of habit rather than careful thought. I was jolted, however, into some serious rethinking when, at one demo, there was a small group wearing pro-Saddam t-shirts. No-one was having a go at them, they were an organic part of the demonstration. Then, I was handed a leaflet by an old comrade from the Vietnam protest era, comparing the Iraqi struggle to the Vietnamese, and comparing Saddam to Ho Chi Minh. I decided not to attend further demos and to do a bit of reading. Then, I attended a 'Politics in the Pub' session, where one Albert Langer was taking on two or three local anti-war leaders and his demolition of their case got me thinking further. What really impressed me was that Albert argued a case from a Marxist perspective and revived my interest in Marxism from 'the old days' - and it made sense.

Eventually, I started arguing with the people I'd previously marched with and, once they had to actually argue a case rather than just appeal to prejudice or be comfortable among the like-minded, their case seemed even more impoverished. Some could not really argue - they didn't have the knowledge base, hadn't done the research - while others struck me as strangely Rightwing in their conspiratorial theories.

The point I'm making is that I was able to eventually acknowledge that I had been wrong, mistaken, and to analyse the reasons why. I understand that some people are doing this now, and acknowledging that the original hypothesis that in effect denied the prospect of a democratic, better, outcome for Iraq has been proven wrong. But I know from personal experience that others are clinging to their original dogmas, drowning with them, if you like, while progress continues in the region.

One of my favourite books from my teenage years is Langston Hughes' "Fight for Freedom"- a history of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People. It has an enthralling momentum as it details the highs and lows in the development of a progressive movement in America in the first half of the twentieth century. Above all, it shows that a small group of people can have a huge impact when their cause is in tune with the needs of oppressed people at a given point in time. The NAACP snowballed into a mass organisation, against significant odds, especially in the southern parts of the US. (Incidentally, American communists - 'Stalinists' - played a significant role in it in the 1930s and 1940s).

I think the same thing is happening in the Middle East. There's a snowballing effect and a movement for democratic change that is exciting and inspirational to those who embrace its objectives. And it's snowballing only because it represents a long-overdue partial-fulfillment of the aspirations of the oppressed peoples in the region.

My hypothesis is this: the movement for democratic change in the region will continue, it will face big problems - just like the NAACP did - but its goals are so overdue as to be irreversible.

The issue now is not so much to squabble about the discredited diehards who once led an anti-war movement but to work out ways in which Leftists who supported the war can take things further. I believe in the power of the pen, as one way of doing this. Women and university students are emerging as important focal points in the struggle for democracy in the region and it would be good to think about how specific symbolic struggles can be supported by a tiny community of pro-war Leftists in the Antipodes.

Barry

Pamela Bone is right; what counts is democracy in Iraq. 

From that struggle for democracy an ‘education’ for outsiders follows.  Pamela’s approach, is the basis of building the broadest possible united front, from this point forward.  The alternate approach (of having to admit to error), would drive some people into their shells and away from positively contributing, and would thus harm the further development of the, always required, united front. 

The focus must be on uniting the many to defeat the few. 

What’s important for the development of the individual, at any one time, is not the same thing as what is required for the development of the ‘revolution’, and the latter takes precedent.  Thus “…for those who got it wrong it is important to recognise it in order that similar mistakes are not repeated…(It’s) a matter of combatting liberalism.” is secondary. 

Individuals should always reflect on the stand they have taken on events, both after they have had a chance to unfold more fully, and in the debate taking place at he time.  That’s how we learn.  Yet how often do we see people, engaging in non-debate; dodging issue after issue? 

An open and honest approach is what people are supposed to be doing all the time over any issues.  So we should debate each other forcefully, and also call individuals to account in the course of the debate and expose them to the extent that they are not so engaged.   But, where at all possible, (and it usually is possible) criticism should leave people with a way forward.

Personal development is not the issue, the development of a united front over political and / or economic goals, complete with debates over alternative strategies and tactics for achieving the goals is the issue.  The third area of struggle (the theoretical) is so important and so disparaged by the practical people who achieve so little in the long run.

Barry says; “Gloating isn't an issue.” Bullshit.  If gloating is even perceived to be occurring (and it at least seems as though it is, to a respondent who held the opposite view and is reflecting on this view now) then even the style that is leading to this perception is harmful.  It is especially so, when one holds a correct view, which may as well have been, developed in a closet, and then left on the top shelf for future generations to discover.  The Lastsuperpower analysis is hardly penetrating anywhere much.   The view that the US is serious about democratization is recently being independently rediscovered, and invariably in an enfeeble form, around the world.  Lastsuperpower is two years ahead.

Meanwhile, the ABC types, are swamping the mass media with one distortion after another, or worse still telling the truth over the WMD fraud, without being systematically counted with the left justification for launching an ‘ilegal revolutionary war for te overthrow of tyranny.  There is now a constant stream of exposure of the ruling elite (in power) for being liars.   pretend that an alternative view left of GWB, yet supportive of liberating Iraq does not exist.  Sure, the general trend of history is for progress, but so what?

 The issue now (as always) is …to work out ways in which Leftists who supported the war can take things further than the right-wingers who are making the democratic revolution.