Norm Geras approvingly quotes this passage from Pamela Bone:
The sound Tory view is that if we are not threatened we don't need to act. The left view, or at least of that part of the left that sees itself as internationalist, is that the world does not stand by while dictators murder and torture their citizens. Words like international solidarity and global unity come to mind.I make this point to give comfort to those members of the old left who supported the Iraq war (you'd be surprised how many of us there are). Because heaven knows, the war's opponents have been getting more than their share of comfort.
This "not stand by" is awfully tricky. It might require us to express solidarity, to publicize, to take ameliorative steps - or it might require us to do more and support military intervention. The main thing is that military intervention is not the only step one takes as an alternative to "standing by". And whether we support military intervention or not in any particular case will depend on a whole lot of other questions, especially questions about how much we can plausibly hope to achieve by it.
I believe that Norm agrees with me. I believe that partly because I have never seen him call for an attack on North Korea to liberate its people. I have never seen him call for such an attack, because he presumably knows - as I do - that it would have catastrophic results. We cannot intervene militarily, in spite of the fact that the North Korean government really does rival, and perhaps even surpass, the former Iraqi regime in its totalitarianism and its complete disregard for life.1. Of course, we can do more than stand by here: We can express solidarity, publicize, shame, aid and comfort survivors, and so on. But for now military intervention is a nonoption. And so we - and I take it, this includes Norm - have to say to millions of people: "We're terribly sorry, but there is, for now at least, nothing to be done for you when it comes to actually removing the regime from power which is the root of your suffering."
My suggestion all along has been that the invasion of Iraq was much closer in hopelessness to an invasion of North Korea than the pro-war left ever understood. I admit that in the case of Iraq the hopelessness of an invasion was a bit less obvious: North Korea's artillery power is harder to ignore than the prospect of a civil war resulting from a botched occupation. Still, the reasons for gloominess were awfully good.
Obviously Norm and the rest of the pro-war left knows that solidarity does not automatically imply support for military intervention, even in response to terrible evils (such as North Korea), and also that we are rarely faced with a simple choice between "standing by" and intervening militarily. But gosh, during the buildup to the war, this point often got lost. There was a whole lot of scorn and finger wagging directed at those of us who urged caution, who wanted to express solidarity with people in Iraq but who didn't feel that military intervention would lead in the end to a lasting advance in freedom for Iraqis. We wanted to say to Iraqis, "We're terribly sorry, but for now at least, a military intervention has to be off the table." That is a terrible thing to say, as terrible as it is to say to North Koreans. But it was the right thing to say, and for much the same reasons.
1. Norm very sensibly rejects the argument that the war on Iraq was unjustified simply because there are other bad regimes on which the U.S. is not making war. For in the world of 2003 the Iraqi regime was almost sui generis. Still, I think North Korea is, if anything, even worse, and so appropriate to mention here. And I am not arguing that the U.S. shouldn't go to war unless it is also willing to go to war with North Korea. Rather, I am arguing that of course the U.S. should not go to war with North Korea, in spite of its evil, and reflection on why that is so will help us to sort out our views on Iraq.
Posted by Chris at May 25, 2004 10:57 AM