One of the things that has been going around the net is Pirates and Emperors, a Chomsky-inspired Schoolhouse Rock style video about how the US is EEEEEEvil. Like a Pirate, see? Or an Emperor.
It contains one of the anti-war arguments that I found most annoying before the invasion of Iraq. If you remember, back in February 2003 YHB said, “In fact, any time I hear an administration official, I tend to start reconsidering my pro-war stance. Any time I see an anti-war protest, I become confirmed in my pro-war stance. The only time I give out with the old "he's right, you know?" is when Tony Blair speaks. Which, sadly, leaves me with the sneaking suspicion that I'm only pro-war because he is.” This was one of the anti-war tropes that drove YHB back towards the pro-war side.
The argument essentially is that we shouldn’t invade/have invaded because twenty-five years ago, we supported the Contras, and that was wrong. Hunh? I mean, yes, it was wrong, but surely that ignores all of the details of what was actually going on in Iraq and its neighbor regions. I mean, the argument applied equally well to Haiti, Central Europe and Somalia, and surely any argument worth paying any attention to couldn’t be applied equally well to four totally different situations (always excepting pacificism as a first principle). Further, the argument as I saw it presented at the time and as presented in Pirates and Emperors is essentially an argument ad hominem, and the hominem in question is Uncle Sam, who isn’t a person.
Now, an effective argument ad hominem, which was also argued, although not as frequently or publicly, would be that the individuals involved in planning the invasion of Iraq were also involved in planning the disastrous actions in Nicaragua, and hadn’t shown that they were better planners now than they were then. Even then, we do need that step that argues that the person hasn’t changed. It makes perfect sense that Saddam Hussein may have been a reasonably benevolent dictator forty years ago, but that he was an evil tyrant by 1991. It may not be true, but it is plausible. Similarly, if Robert S. McNamara was advising on the invasion in 2003, one would have to decide if that were a good or bad thing, in light not just of his years as Secretary of State, but since then. Still and all, it makes much more sense to say that we can’t trust Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to make either moral decisions or coherent plans than that we oughtn’t invade Iraq because some other administration did something bad somewhere else.
And, of course, in the end it was the ad hominem argument that convinced me. But with luck, and a lot of work, these particular people will be ousted, and a new Executive will be in place soon, and we will have to judge them as well. Because Augustine certainly would not have argued that all emperors are pirates, or even that all pirates are pirates. We should judge each one by his (or her) actions, and we judge each action by its merits. It’s not very persuasive (or I hope it isn’t) to say that the US has no standing to do a moral action tomorrow because it did an immoral one yesterday.
chazak, chazak, v’nitchazek,
-Vardibidian.
Huh. That wasn’t how I interpreted Pirates and Emperors at all. I saw it as saying that taking things by force is taking things by force and killing is killing regardless of who’s doing it, and that government shouldn’t get a pass on the means they use even if they ends they seek are well meant. I thought the Contras were in there to illustrate that the same means (e.g. bombing civilian targets) are or are not styled as terrorism by the US government depending on whether the end is one we desire.
I also didn’t see the “that was bad, so this must be too” connection that you did, V.
Unlike Laura, however, I didn’t like the song/video at all, perhaps because of its Schoolhouse Rock style; it’s way too overtly political and partisan for that. As lefty peacenik propaganda, it’s fine, but as something that I’d want to see on Saturday morning television, not so much. The sentiment is good, but the partisanship wrecks it as a general lesson. :^(
Well, if they talked about the Contras to show that the US was willing to call murder of civilians “freedom fighting”, then it’s dishonest: the position of the Government was that such murders did not occur. The Government never had a stated policy supporting groups that used assassination, terrorism and indiscriminate property destruction. The fact that it did, in fact, support such groups is important. The fact that the government did, covertly, encourage such groups to use assassination, terrorism, and indiscriminate property destruction is important. But to say that they called such activities “freedom fighting” is untrue.
Now, if they want to make the argument that the US consistently lies about its actions in a particular way, and therefore if the US says it is not engaging in terrorism, but there is evidence that it is, you should, based on the history, believe that it is, well that’s a legitimate argument. And perhaps that’s the argument they are making. But to me, it looks like they are saying that the US is eeeevil, that we support dictators and terrorists. Which is true, but irrelevant.
Oh, and the Schoolhouse Rock style was really well-done, I thought. Nobody is ever going to show this on Saturday Morning Television anyway; I think the best part of it is the gag that we don’t allow it on TV.
Of course, the actual Schoolhouse Rock had a good deal of propaganda, including a bizarre one about Tyrannasaurus Debt, where they outright support one particular policy position, and Tax Man Max, where they imply that taxes are stiflingly high. But that’s another matter.
Thanks,
-V.