The blogosphere is a-flutter with praise for Marxist Norman Geras’ criticism of the anti-liberation left, and rightly so. My favorite part was the conclusion:
When the war began a division of opinion was soon evident amongst its opponents, between those who wanted a speedy outcome – in other words, a victory for the coalition forces, for that is all a speedy outcome could realistically have meant – and those who did not. These latter preferred that the Coalition forces should suffer reverses, get bogged down, and you know the story: stalemate, quagmire, Stalingrad scenario in Baghdad, and so forth, leading to a US and British withdrawal. But what these critics of the war thereby wished for was a spectacular triumph for the regime in Baghdad, since that is what a withdrawal would have been. So much for solidarity with the victims of oppression, for commitment to democratic values and basic human rights.
Similarly today, with all those who seem so to relish every new difficulty, every set-back for US forces: what they align themselves with is a future of prolonged hardship and suffering for the Iraqi people, whether via an actual rather than imagined quagmire, a ruinous civil war, or the return (out of either) of some new and ghastly political tyranny; rather than a rapid stabilization and democratization of the country, promising its inhabitants an early prospect of national normalization. That is caring more to have been right than for a decent outcome for the people of this long unfortunate country.
Conclusion. Such impulses have displayed themselves very widely across left and liberal opinion in recent months. Why? For some, because what the US government and its allies do, whatever they do, has to be opposed – and opposed however thuggish and benighted the forces which this threatens to put your anti-war critic into close company with. For some, because of an uncontrollable animus towards George Bush and his administration. For some, because of a one-eyed perspective on international legality and its relation to issues of international justice and morality. Whatever the case or the combination, it has produced a calamitous compromise of the core values of socialism, or liberalism or both, on the part of thousands of people who claim attachment to them. You have to go back to the apologias for, and fellow-travelling with, the crimes of Stalinism to find as shameful a moral failure of liberal and left opinion as in the wrong-headed – and too often, in the circumstances, sickeningly smug – opposition to the freeing of the Iraqi people from one of the foulest regimes on the planet.
But the question this raises is: why is it remarkable that a leftist supports the liberation of an oppressed people all of a sudden?
My, how the Movement has fallen.
It’s not ‘remarkable’, I don’t think. The left is still supporting Tibet, protesting the IRA’s actions. They’re still ferociously opposing the governments in Mayanmar, and Guatemala for human rights violations as well.
but they’re not on FoxNews every night, and those causes haven’t brought as many protestors in cities all around the world, either.
The Movement has fallen only if you’re measuring it by CNN. There are plenty of bad guys out there, and there are plenty of leftists who want to see them gone.
In fact, there’s actually a piece in Salon recently where old-school Republicans have criticized Bush for his (what they even call “left-leaning”) nation-building policies:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/07/28/doubts/index_np.html
Funny point of view you have. The only left-wing protests on C-Span lately have been the ANSWER rallies against regime change in Iraq. The little darlings clearly aren’t against the IRA – the American left is the IRA’s only means of support, especially Tom Hayden and Teddy Kennedy.
I do remember the Free Tibet (with purchase of equal or greater value) and the Boycott Myanmar actions that resulted in forceful action in the California Assembly, however, so credit for that.
It’s no surprise to hear Marxists supporting worldwide military intervention as a way of controlling the world. This is part and parcel of Marxism. It’s the underlying reason we fought the Cold War.
It *IS* a surprise to have a man occupying the office of the leader of the free world who advocates the same failed approach as Soviet leaders of the past.
There’s certainly a solid argument to be made for the case in Iraq. But Bush didn’t make it. We went into Iraq anyway.
The real question now is no longer about Iraq but about the idea of pre-emptive war as the best policy tool for solving America’s problems. The question isn’t, “Did you support the war on Iraq?” but “Do you support going to war with Iran, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously, while North Korea waits in the wings?” A vote for Bush means you do. This scenario is perfectly compatible with the Bush Doctrine.
Even those who supported the war on Iraq for humanitarian reasons recognize the strain it puts on our military, and the foolishness of trying to use military force to accomplish every foreign policy goal. Bush does not.
Let the Marxists support him. You can judge someone by the company he keeps.