i sent your link to a rollins yahoo group- so that shold up the traffic for a day or two...

Far be it from me to beat the drums of war. As an early opponent of the war in Iraq, I feel a bit like I'm back-tracking here, but I must speak. In my humble opinion, the only thing happening in Iraq worth something as precious and monumental as the loss of an American life, of any life, is the freedom of the Iraqi people.

Don't get me wrong. I hate war, and I hate few things in this world as much as I hate deliberate human suffering. Having said that, these are a people that were horribly and seemingly irrevocably oppressed by a government the U.S. (we) helped install years ago. There are few things as precious as human freedom, and, as Thomas Jefferson said centuries ago, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Of course Jefferson, who said this from the safety of France at the time (when he learned of Shays' rebellion) was not facing an emminent demise. And despite the fact that the United States has been, in its short history both "patriot" and "tyrant," there are few things we ought to fight for more valuable than human freedom.

Do I agree with the way our President pursued the war? No. Do I believe that we chose the best course of action? No. But it is clear now that we are in it for the long haul, and despite my reservations, it seems clear that at least some good is coming from all this suffering and death: the creation of a free Iraqi state, where (hopefully) the people there will know the wonders of free thought and speech and action; where they will no longer fear the death and imprisonment that might await them at the hands of a vicious dictator. And though I hate to say this, at least in some small way the people of my generation, and those of the younger, will know what it is to sacrifice for those principles. It is most unfortunate that they have to die for the freedom of others, that they must give for another nation's people, but perhaps we as a country can use this as a grim reminder of the gifts that our forebearers gave to us so many years ago, not the least of which is the freedom under which I write this critique now.

Oh, and by the way, I am rediculously jealous that Skippy got meet Henry. How fucking cool is that?!?

Let me try to be clear: I think that Iraqi freedom is a great thing. I think the elections were truly historic. I don't argue that some good is coming out of the loss of life. I do argue that it's somehow worth it.

I won't pretend that I know what it's like to be in the military, or to have a loved one in active duty; so I don't know how they feel about all of this. But I can't in good conscience say that it's worth it that an American citizen be maimed or killed so that someone on the other side of the planet can now fear death from a roadside bomb instead of from their vile dictator.

I wish everyone could enjoy liberty. I wish everyone could enjoy peace and prosperity. Killing our enemies doesn't seem to be working toward advancing those objectives...

You make a good point. However, I would rather fear a bomb and be free to discuss it openly than fear a government and not be permitted to criticize it at all. And no, killing our enemies isn't exactly the perfect course of action, but to be crude about it, we had to kill some British folks to gain our liberty and so did the French. I find the cliche expression "Freedom isn't free" annoying and oversimplified, yet there is a kernal of truth within it. Will the U.S. be substantailly safer or more free with a free Iraq? No. But I bet the Iraqi people don't mind.

Well Elf I knew you would come around, now to work on Skippy.
My, My for a liberal you are very tribal Skippy, putting some lives ahead of others. You are going to get kicked out of Clintonville for that. I agree that killing your enimies is not the best way to solve conflicts, but it absolutely works. 460,000 Americans died and many Americans killed our enimies to stop Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini. Perhaps you would have lined up with Chamberlain as Nazi tanks rolled into Poland. I stand with Churchill.
I have personally thwarted violent actions with the credible threat to my 'enemies' of their imminent death. It works, or I would not be aggravating you with this.
So two examples one large and distant, one close and personal.

I don't know that I'm necessarily saying that American lives are somehow more valuable than Iraqi lives. I said that the loss of American lives in the pursuit of Iraqi freedom doesn't seem worth it, to me; especially since the reasons given for pursuing that freedom have flip-flopped so many times since the start of the engagement. If we said from day one, "We're committed to liberating the Iraqi people because it's the right thing to do!" and avoided all the bellicose WMD bullshit, we might be enjoying a very different discussion right now. How we would have managed the spread of liberty to other oppressed peoples would also come to bear on this discussion. But the administration is not terribly interested in spreading freedom, in reality; they're interested in protecting their interests. Spreading freedom is just sugar to help the American people swallow the pill.

The current administration certainly has no problems placing certain lives above others. Unborn fetuses have a greater right to life than convicted criminals. Iraqis have more a right to freedom than anyone in Darfor. Wealthy Americans have more a right to medical care than homeless Americans; and all Americans have a greater right to medical care than anyone with AIDS in Africa. I strongly disagree with all of those positions: if we want to be spread freedom, we ought to do everything in our power to live up the "Land of the free" epithet. Fighting terrorists is a zero-sum game.

I don't know with who I would have lined up, were I in a position to do so during World War II. I cannot evaluate that conflict without all of the historical knowledge that I have.

I greatly respect the commitment you've made, Matt, to your community and to your country. But I think the threat of violence against a single perpetrator is significantly different than the threat of violence against a country. In the latter case, individuals on both sides of the conflict who are not necessarily part of the problem are made to suffer -- civilians and military alike.

Some regular guy, not involved with policy decision or implementation, just trying to feed his family and make the best of the reality of his situation getting killed so that our president can proudly boast that he's a War President seems a real waste of life, whether that person was American or Iraqi.

Certainly the administration puts some lives ahead of others. All of us do. My point was only to illustrate that all of us have our priorities. It is interesting to hear you talk about American lives when reading things on your blog about our Global Vilage.
As to WMD, we will have a hard time hashing that out here. [better in person] but when British MI5, Isreali Mossad, CIA, and Egyptian Secret Service come in on that side, that would be hard to ignore.
I told TK, maybe before the invasion that WMD's may be a bit overblown and that the primary goal was to surround Iran.
I refuse to believe that any of our presidents from either party are borderline mass murderers.
By the way be careful not to render your opinions irrelevant. Give credit where it is do [as you see it of course]Otherwise you risk relegating yourself to the fringe left ruled by hate of our President. Many on the right did this when Bill Clinton was in office just because they did not like him. It is unbecomming on both ends of the spectrum.
I'll add this since you only know me a little bit. ANYTHING I write I mean with good natured respect for differing opinions.

Matt, I understand that your comments are not meant to be inflammatory. I'm quite grateful that intelligent conversation can be had without name-calling invective that attacks the person and not their ideas. You and I come from very different backgrounds, and have very different world views. I celebrate that difference, because it gives us the opportunity to learn from and grow with one another.

I also celebrate that we can find things in common: killing our enemies is probably not the best way to solve problems; and American presidents are probably not borderline mass murderers (my comments above re: boastful war president were not meant to imply that).

As for priorities and a global village: certainly competing priorities will always exist. I don't think I'm being inconsistent when I say that I want the world to demonstrably move forward on the path to peace and liberty and also questioning the value of loss of American lives for Iraqi freedom. It seems to my idealistic mind that we could secure global peace in many ways more constructive, and with a lot less killing.

It seems unconscionable to me that human beings kill one another en masse in order to pursue freedom and liberty; and that whole industries exist to improve the efficacy of that killing. I am deeply saddened that anyone can construct an equation where value of human life can be compared against a monetary profit. Similarly, I'm outraged that the well-being of the planet are trumped by industry's need to "compete" (the Kyoto treaty going into effect has been on the news, and I'm still soured by the U.S. withdrawl from it).

You and I are not at all far apart on the outcomes we want for EVERYONE, my friend. We just differ on the ways to get there. Looking forward to a sit down with you some day. Thanks for the dialogue.

Skippy I am interested in your comment, "It seems unconscionable to me that human beings kill one another en masse in order to pursue freedom and liberty;...." Without bringing Iraq into the fray for just a moment, how else does an oppressed people gain freedom? Certainly, the U.S. had other reasons to invade Iraq. The freedom of the Iraqi people was clearly not the primary issue, as I have said all along, but now that we are in a discussion of how one does or does not gain freedom, I am curious as to how else this would be done?

Throughout all of human history people have been lead/oppressed by monarchs, tyrants, or oligarchies. The only way large numbers of people within a nation have gained freedom/democracy has been through the often violent overthrow of the existing government. Of course, the Iraqi people have had the help of Americans, and that is due to the fact that the current administration wishes to secure other interests in the region, but it doesn't change the ultimate outcome. Yes, the U.S. is pursuing a foreign policy that is most beneficial to itself, just as all nations do, yet we are in the unique position of giving a people that have never had the joy of personal freedom before the chance to determine their own fate.

I am infinitely pissed that U.S. foreign policy is hypocritical, and all nation's foreign policies are self-serving, but here we have the chance to aid an oppressed people. And while I am reluctant to buy into the administration's current "freedom and democracy equal peace" rhetoric, there is truth at its core. Can we bring freedom and democracy to all people of this earth? No. Are we fair and equitable to our own citizens? Unfortunately no. These are issues to be addressed, certainly, but since we are in Iraq now, with no quick opportunity for safe withdrawl, why not work to provide them with the benefits of freedom enjoyed by other industrialized nations? I do think that installing a free, democratic, self-supporting goivernment in Iraq will, over time bring greater peace and stability to a region that desperately needs it.

Elfboy: you're right, freedom from oppression sometimes demands violent action; though I wonder whether non-violent actions of the right sorts can also bring the desired results (think Ghandi and King). I don't claim to have all the answers -- or even all the information -- but I suspect that we had a lot of options left to us in terms of diplomatic and economic sanctions against Saddam Hussein. Actual sanctions that were strongly enforced to achieve a specific aim, as opposed to the malleable sanctions of "oil for food" -- shouldn't we all be appalled that those in need are recipients of our good will only because in turn we get to save some money at the gas station? It seems that Corporate America is averse to doing what's right for human beings because it hurts the corporate person. I find that unconscionable, but that's a different conversation.

I guess the way I really feel is that it's unconscionable that human beings kill one another (en masse or otherwise) for any reason. I find it deeply depressing that individuals get so fixated on the accumulation of wealth, or power. That people commit actions with such finality as murder for something so transient is sickeningly stupid. That some are compelled to violence to try to pursue equality or justice -- or indeed freedom -- is simply wrong.