HOME /
chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics.
The Dueling Orthodoxies of American DovesChatterbox proposes a new synthesis.
By Timothy NoahPosted Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2002, at 3:25 PM ETAmerican doves have lately been spouting two conflicting orthodoxies. The first is that the United States is not at war. The second is that the United States can't go to war with Iraq because that will interfere with the war on terrorism. The logical inconsistency of these two propositions is bound sooner or later to attract notice from the hawks. To repel this attack, and to clarify and define what Chatterbox considers the sensible muscular-dovish position, it's necessary to acknowledge that the first orthodoxy isn't true while the second, though mostly true, is in need of some tweaking.
Susan Sontag makes the "America isn't at war" argument in the Sept. 10 New York Times. Sontag writes that America's war against terrorism is a metaphorical war. Sontag, who previously wrote a book quarrelling with the use of illness as a metaphor, thinks that war makes a bad metaphor, too. Like previous wars on cancer, poverty, and drugs, a war on terrorism by definition can never end because cancer, poverty, drugs, and terrorism will always be with us. (Digression: Sontag is probably wrong to include cancer in this litany.) Real wars, Sontag argues, do end—even the war between Israel and the Palestinians will end one day, though obviously not soon. That's what justifies the havoc that war wreaks at home and abroad. Metaphorical wars, on the other hand, never end, which makes them unjustifiable. A war on terrorism that never ends fuels the Bush administration's propensity to label domestic dissent as beyond the pale and to spurn international alliances.
Sontag is right to be wary of "war" as a metaphor (though even she would probably carve out an exception for William James' famous essay, "The Moral Equivalent of War," which makes a stirring plea for civic commitment; less effectively, the phrase was later appropriated by President Jimmy Carter as an energy-crisis slogan). A war that never ends really isn't justifiable. But what's metaphoric about the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Although initial expectations were (thankfully) dashed that 9/11 would eclipse Antietam's 9/17 as the bloodiest day in American history, 9/11 remains the single deadliest massacre ever committed on American soil. The entity that committed that massacre wasn't a nation, but it controlled one (Afghanistan) at the time, and it continues to behave like a nation, with a leadership structure that's now scattered but still, presumably, in command. To review: Among those still unaccounted for are al-Qaida's leader, Osama Bin Laden; his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri; his chief of operations, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed; and his security chief, Saif al-Adel. (Military commander Muhammed Atef is believed dead, and operations chief Abu Zubaydah is in captivity.) According to U.S. News & World Report, the Pentagon believes one-third of al-Qaida's top 30 leaders have been captured or killed, but that's just another way of saying that two-thirds of al-Qaida's top leaders remain at large, presumably concentrated in Pakistan, vast areas of which al-Qaida controls today. James Risen and Dexter Filkins report in the Sept. 10 Times that small groups of al-Qaida fighters are starting to drift back into Afghanistan, which, like Pakistan, stands on the brink of anarchy. While U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies will no doubt be helpful in addressing all these problems, the U.S. military will be indispensable. We are, and will remain for some time, at war. To believe anything else is merely wishful thinking.
Once you acknowledge that the United States is at war, it's a simple matter to conclude (as have Brent Scowcroft and other officials from the first Bush administration) that this isn't the best time to launch a full-scale war with Iraq. Yes, Iraq is a menace to its Arab neighbors, but none of those neighbors will support a U.S. war against Iraq—not even Kuwait!—which means that whatever Arab cooperation we're getting in our pursuit of al-Qaida would evaporate. Yes, Saddam Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, some of which he's used before against fellow Iraqis, is alarming, but the threat from these weapons mustn't be confused with that from nuclear weapons. (See Chatterbox's Aug. 27 column, "Saddam Does Not Have 'Weapons of Mass Destruction.' ") And yes, the prospect that Saddam will get a nuclear warhead is worrisome, but not as worrisome as the prospect that al-Qaida will get one (as would occur, for instance, if it were to seize control of Pakistan).
The only part of Orthodoxy No. 2 that Chatterbox would quarrel with is the phrase "war on terrorism." As Nicholas Lemann observes in the Sept. 16 New Yorker, "the idea that declaring and waging war on terror was not the sole, inevitable, logical consequence of the attacks just isn't in circulation." (He means in Washington policy circles, which exclude Susan Sontag.) But it should be. We aren't in a war against terrorism. We're in a war against al-Qaida, a formulation that, strangely, even the "realist" and on-the-outs political scientists celebrated in Lemann's article decline to state flatly. They agree that we were in a war against al-Qaida, but insist that now "the pursuit of Al Qaida will be an intelligence and police operation, not a military one." Tell it to the Marines!
In sum: We are at war against al-Qaida, a virtual nation that remains a serious threat to the United States. (Indeed, the Bush administration raised the threat level today to "high" for the first time since last Sept. 11.) A new regime in Iraq would be wonderful, but going to war right now to achieve it would interfere with our ongoing war against al-Qaida. While we fight this war, civil liberties will be compromised and blood will be shed—hopefully, not to excess. But this war will end.
E-mail Timothy Noah at .
Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate. Notes From The Fray Editor:
It is extremely hard to read the Chatterbox Fray, even when the article merits some good argument. Below are a number of posts that might serve as a way into debate. Jim O'Brien argues we are fighting radical Islamists, not al-Qaida; Godels_Yodel defends Sontag's point about the slipperiness of the word "war"; John argues the U.S. has the military capability to fight two wars at once; Ricardo Grande argues there was a real war against al-Qaida (Sontag is wrong) but now it's over and the term is being abused (Sontag is right); artsyboy provides a new look at America's credibility games; and Lee, in a terrific long post (even edited) fights his way through the duelling orthodoxies of the hawks.
Remarks From The Fray:
It is true we are at war … Yet, I disagree with the enemy you identify: Al Quaeda [sp]. Certainly, we are at war with them, but not them alone. I believe the best description I've seen is that we are at war with radical and/or fundamental Islamists, of which Al Quaeda are one manifestation, as are the Ba'athist parties in Iraq and Syria, and as are the radical clerics in Iran, et al.
-- Jim O'Brien
(To reply, click here.)
Tim Noah seems to think the enemy, at this point at least, is Al-Qaeda alone-- and from there concludes that this is a "real" war, presumably one worthy of a litany of domestic sacrifices.
I propose a gedanken experiment: Let's say we heard tomorrow that every living member of Al-Qaeda-- hell, even all Al-Qaeda supporters, however tenuously linked-- had surrendered to authorities. In the space of a day, this organization ceases to exist. Let's further suppose that this fact is not in doubt, and that Ari Fleischer himself proclaims it to be true.
Are we now in peacetime? Does the President take the podium and declare that our national emergency is over? Does Ashcroft roll back all his spy legislation?
If you think the answer might not be "YES!" then I think the Sontag piece is worth your time.
-- Godels_Yodel
(To reply, click here.)
Chatterbox impressively eradicates [Sontag's] idea by pointing out that we are not in a metaphorical war against terrorism; instead, we are in a real war against al Qaeda. That's a good point, and I must confess that I had not thought about it in exactly that way before.
But then Chatterbox says: "Once you acknowledge that the United States is at war, it's a simple matter to conclude...that this isn't the best time to launch a full-scale war with Iraq." …
Really? Our two-million-man 350-billion-dollar-a-year military behemoth can't fight the scattered and tattered remnants of al-Qaida while taking on Iraq at the same time? And this is so glaringly obvious that all you have to do is make this bold assertion and you have arrived at "...the sensible muscular-dovish position?" In the absence of more compelling reasoning, your muscular dove is no match for even a scrawny little hawk!
-- John
(To reply, click here.)
I think what Chatterbox is missing is a realistic definition of war. He basically conflates the use of the military with the existence of war when he says that there is a war on Al-Qaeda. At this point, there is far less military conflict going on than can realistically be called a war. We just bombed Iraq a few days ago - are we at war with them? Nobody seems to think so. The military aspect of the war with Al-Qaeda really ended last December - what is going on now is simply mopping up. This may seem like nit-picking, but it goes to the heart of what Sontag was saying in her column. The War on Terrorism that Bush is talking about is an unwinnable, opportunistic attempt to create a foreign policy objective that justifies the curtailing of civil rights and the bloating of our defense budget.
-- Ricardo Grande
(To reply, click here.)
Susan Sontag's whole point (possibly not worth the space it was given, but what the heck, at least as good as the average times oped piece) was that we should be careful about what we do with words like "war." … The problem we have is that the term "police action" was used up in Korea, so we are faced with the reality of being the cops of the world without either a title or a job description. Will our model for World Cop be, perhaps, the Los Angeles police? Our motto, "don't make me get out of this car"?
-- artsyboy
(To reply, click here.)
The administration is taking two different directions in its response to this objection, and the two arguments, when considered together, are as much in conflict as the "conflict of dovish orthodoxy."
First, the administration says we fight two wars at once. These wars could be unrelated to each other, on opposite sides of the world, whatever. The weakness engendered by the appeasement strategy of the previous administration has been cleared away and we are ready to go. Our military can kick butt in two places at once, so we should go for it. Kill Saddam while we're still at war with al-Qaida …
The second justification is offered in case there's doubt about the first assertion, that we can fight two wars at once. The second sales pitch for war holds that we wouldn't really be fighting two wars at all, that getting Saddam would be merely an extension of our war on terrorism …
The weird thing about these two arguments is that, even though they contradict and undermine each other, they're probably both true enough that we could justify starting a war with Iraq. This is particularly true when you consider that we can justify belligerent military activity just about any time and any place we like.
It is true that we can fight two wars at once, particularly if the enemy is small and weak. Al-Qaida is pretty tough, but they are very small and they just got hit very hard. Iraq is big and well armed, but their leadership is incompetent and their morale is low from suffering through endless conflicts with Iran and the Western allies.
It's also true that Saddam is very likely to attempt some heinous terrorist act in the future. He already lobbed scuds at Israel in an attempt to turn other Arab states against us in the war over Kuwait. So, yes, we probably should take some kind of preemptive military action against Iraq, particularly if it looks they are close to attaining nuclear capability. The Israelis did it in 1980 and, although they protested for show, Saddams Arab neighbors breathed a sigh of relief.
I think the reason neither of the hawk arguments (as opposed to Mr. Noah's dove orthodoxies) has gained primacy is because they represent the tension between two struggling factions inside the administration.
The war on two fronts argument would be promoted by the super-hawks, none of whom have any military experience. These are the people who consider war as game theory (sorry, Robert Wright) and consider it ideologically crucial that America should demonstrate that it can conduct two wars at once. For this faction, the only satisfying experience will be two real, active wars, both fought openly and aggressively.
The other faction would be the careful hawks, probably represented by Colin Powell and other military officers who understand that all this happens with live ammunition. They have faith that we could fight two wars at once; they just don't want to if it's not necessary, and they see lots of other ways we can mess with Saddam's mind and keep him off balance, short of a real war. The careful hawks would prefer to extend the war on terrorism not just to Saddam, but to wherever circumstances dictate it should be extended. They're worried that we could get ourselves all hett up about Iraq just about the time it becomes necessary to put down an Islamic rebellion in Saudi Arabia and chase the Indians and Pakistanis away from each other in Kashmir.
I think the careful hawks are worried that the super-hawks might be just plain nuts. I can certainly see their point. The last time we fought two wars at once, one against Japan and the other against Germany, it was no small thing. Suffering and sacrifice were the rule, not the exception, and there were a few tense months in 1941 when the outcome was not the foregone conclusion it seems to be in hindsight. Of course, we had competent national leadership then, but don't get me started. What kind of people ardently advocate placing ourselves in similar peril today? Is it really such a glorious blow for freedom that we should march right in with smiles on our faces?
So, what is it, Mr. President? Should we fight two wars, or expand the war on terrorism? Are we at war, or do we need to start one to show we're serious? Which course and why, Mr. President?
-- Lee
(To reply, click here.)
(9/10)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Saletan: House Democrats Traded Abortion Rights for a Health Reform Bill
Most Fast Food Restaurants Thrived During the Recession. Not Arby's.
Did Anti-Communists Really End Communism? Two Historians Say No.
Dear Farhad: How Does Facebook Know I'm Gay?
Are Doctors Allowed To Say They're Sorry?
Hitchens: Let's Not Get Sentimental About Communism
Notes From The Fray Editor:
It is extremely hard to read the Chatterbox Fray, even when the article merits some good argument. Below are a number of posts that might serve as a way into debate. Jim O'Brien argues we are fighting radical Islamists, not al-Qaida; Godels_Yodel defends Sontag's point about the slipperiness of the word "war"; John argues the U.S. has the military capability to fight two wars at once; Ricardo Grande argues there was a real war against al-Qaida (Sontag is wrong) but now it's over and the term is being abused (Sontag is right); artsyboy provides a new look at America's credibility games; and Lee, in a terrific long post (even edited) fights his way through the duelling orthodoxies of the hawks.
Remarks From The Fray:
It is true we are at war … Yet, I disagree with the enemy you identify: Al Quaeda [sp]. Certainly, we are at war with them, but not them alone. I believe the best description I've seen is that we are at war with radical and/or fundamental Islamists, of which Al Quaeda are one manifestation, as are the Ba'athist parties in Iraq and Syria, and as are the radical clerics in Iran, et al.
-- Jim O'Brien
(To reply, click here.)
Tim Noah seems to think the enemy, at this point at least, is Al-Qaeda alone-- and from there concludes that this is a "real" war, presumably one worthy of a litany of domestic sacrifices.
I propose a gedanken experiment: Let's say we heard tomorrow that every living member of Al-Qaeda-- hell, even all Al-Qaeda supporters, however tenuously linked-- had surrendered to authorities. In the space of a day, this organization ceases to exist. Let's further suppose that this fact is not in doubt, and that Ari Fleischer himself proclaims it to be true.
Are we now in peacetime? Does the President take the podium and declare that our national emergency is over? Does Ashcroft roll back all his spy legislation?
If you think the answer might not be "YES!" then I think the Sontag piece is worth your time.
-- Godels_Yodel
(To reply, click here.)
Chatterbox impressively eradicates [Sontag's] idea by pointing out that we are not in a metaphorical war against terrorism; instead, we are in a real war against al Qaeda. That's a good point, and I must confess that I had not thought about it in exactly that way before.
But then Chatterbox says: "Once you acknowledge that the United States is at war, it's a simple matter to conclude...that this isn't the best time to launch a full-scale war with Iraq." …
Really? Our two-million-man 350-billion-dollar-a-year military behemoth can't fight the scattered and tattered remnants of al-Qaida while taking on Iraq at the same time? And this is so glaringly obvious that all you have to do is make this bold assertion and you have arrived at "...the sensible muscular-dovish position?" In the absence of more compelling reasoning, your muscular dove is no match for even a scrawny little hawk!
-- John
(To reply, click here.)
I think what Chatterbox is missing is a realistic definition of war. He basically conflates the use of the military with the existence of war when he says that there is a war on Al-Qaeda. At this point, there is far less military conflict going on than can realistically be called a war. We just bombed Iraq a few days ago - are we at war with them? Nobody seems to think so. The military aspect of the war with Al-Qaeda really ended last December - what is going on now is simply mopping up. This may seem like nit-picking, but it goes to the heart of what Sontag was saying in her column. The War on Terrorism that Bush is talking about is an unwinnable, opportunistic attempt to create a foreign policy objective that justifies the curtailing of civil rights and the bloating of our defense budget.
-- Ricardo Grande
(To reply, click here.)
Susan Sontag's whole point (possibly not worth the space it was given, but what the heck, at least as good as the average times oped piece) was that we should be careful about what we do with words like "war." … The problem we have is that the term "police action" was used up in Korea, so we are faced with the reality of being the cops of the world without either a title or a job description. Will our model for World Cop be, perhaps, the Los Angeles police? Our motto, "don't make me get out of this car"?
-- artsyboy
(To reply, click here.)
The administration is taking two different directions in its response to this objection, and the two arguments, when considered together, are as much in conflict as the "conflict of dovish orthodoxy."
First, the administration says we fight two wars at once. These wars could be unrelated to each other, on opposite sides of the world, whatever. The weakness engendered by the appeasement strategy of the previous administration has been cleared away and we are ready to go. Our military can kick butt in two places at once, so we should go for it. Kill Saddam while we're still at war with al-Qaida …
The second justification is offered in case there's doubt about the first assertion, that we can fight two wars at once. The second sales pitch for war holds that we wouldn't really be fighting two wars at all, that getting Saddam would be merely an extension of our war on terrorism …
The weird thing about these two arguments is that, even though they contradict and undermine each other, they're probably both true enough that we could justify starting a war with Iraq. This is particularly true when you consider that we can justify belligerent military activity just about any time and any place we like.
It is true that we can fight two wars at once, particularly if the enemy is small and weak. Al-Qaida is pretty tough, but they are very small and they just got hit very hard. Iraq is big and well armed, but their leadership is incompetent and their morale is low from suffering through endless conflicts with Iran and the Western allies.
It's also true that Saddam is very likely to attempt some heinous terrorist act in the future. He already lobbed scuds at Israel in an attempt to turn other Arab states against us in the war over Kuwait. So, yes, we probably should take some kind of preemptive military action against Iraq, particularly if it looks they are close to attaining nuclear capability. The Israelis did it in 1980 and, although they protested for show, Saddams Arab neighbors breathed a sigh of relief.
I think the reason neither of the hawk arguments (as opposed to Mr. Noah's dove orthodoxies) has gained primacy is because they represent the tension between two struggling factions inside the administration.
The war on two fronts argument would be promoted by the super-hawks, none of whom have any military experience. These are the people who consider war as game theory (sorry, Robert Wright) and consider it ideologically crucial that America should demonstrate that it can conduct two wars at once. For this faction, the only satisfying experience will be two real, active wars, both fought openly and aggressively.
The other faction would be the careful hawks, probably represented by Colin Powell and other military officers who understand that all this happens with live ammunition. They have faith that we could fight two wars at once; they just don't want to if it's not necessary, and they see lots of other ways we can mess with Saddam's mind and keep him off balance, short of a real war. The careful hawks would prefer to extend the war on terrorism not just to Saddam, but to wherever circumstances dictate it should be extended. They're worried that we could get ourselves all hett up about Iraq just about the time it becomes necessary to put down an Islamic rebellion in Saudi Arabia and chase the Indians and Pakistanis away from each other in Kashmir.
I think the careful hawks are worried that the super-hawks might be just plain nuts. I can certainly see their point. The last time we fought two wars at once, one against Japan and the other against Germany, it was no small thing. Suffering and sacrifice were the rule, not the exception, and there were a few tense months in 1941 when the outcome was not the foregone conclusion it seems to be in hindsight. Of course, we had competent national leadership then, but don't get me started. What kind of people ardently advocate placing ourselves in similar peril today? Is it really such a glorious blow for freedom that we should march right in with smiles on our faces?
So, what is it, Mr. President? Should we fight two wars, or expand the war on terrorism? Are we at war, or do we need to start one to show we're serious? Which course and why, Mr. President?
-- Lee
(To reply, click here.)
(9/10)