ok, so i know it's not nice to shoot at easy targets. we should pick on people our own size. etc., etc. but someone forwarded me this really detestable fred barnes article (the weekly standard; i suppose it figures) including the following reasons why the left's anti-war position is "bankrupt." following the barnes excerpt is a chunk of the somewhat irate email i sent to the forwarder (?!) in question.

barnes said:
" In ignoring the 25 million Iraqis who suffer under Saddam's autocratic rule, the left has stripped any moral dimension from the antiwar cause. And its arguments for opposing a war of liberation in Iraq are either uninformed or merely stupid. Here are a few of those arguments:

(1) War will mean thousands of civilian casualties. If there's anything Saddam has produced in his nearly 25 years of rule in Iraq, it's civilian casualties. He ordered the gassing of thousands of innocent Kurds. He had thousands of Shiites murdered. His war against Iran caused tens of thousands of civilian casualties, and his invasion of Kuwait was marked by the killing of thousands of Kuwaiti civilians. Saddam has personally ordered the execution of thousands of Iraqis. He has allowed thousands of Iraqi children to die from starvation or lack of medicine.

Compare that with the few hundred civilians killed in Afghanistan by the U.S. military. In fact, the American intervention saved hundreds of thousands who would have starved to death otherwise. And in the 1991 Gulf War relatively few Iraqi civilians were killed. In truth, a war that deposes Saddam in Iraq will save civilian lives, thousands of them.

(2) It's a war for Iraqi oil. There's an easy way to get all the oil in Iraq that President Bush or anyone else might desire--and it's not war. No, the easy way is to lift sanctions on Iraq and make a deal with Saddam. He's eager to sell the oil and make money. And the United States doesn't need Iraqi oil anyway, what with Russian oil production coming on line. At the moment, America's problem is the cutoff of oil from Venezuela. A war for oil would oust President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Of course there is no such war planned, nor is there one to cut the price of oil. The price favored by Bush and the domestic oil industry--and producers like Saudi Arabia--will be restored when Venezuela is pumping fully again, probably soon.

(3) War in Iraq will stir a new wave of terrorism. We've heard this one before. The Gulf War, it was warned, would arouse the Arab street and subject Americans to a wave of attacks. That didn't happen. When the United States went into Afghanistan and, worse, bombed during Ramadan, it was supposed to prompt a worldwide uprising of Muslims, and Muslim terrorists in particular, against America. Again, that didn't happen. So when the Arab leader most hated by other Arab leaders--a leader who's far more secular than Muslim, is removed, it's highly unlikely to cause more terrorism. Most likely, the result will be less.

(4) Give the inspectors more time. This was a common cry at Saturday's antiwar demonstrations. But of course those cries were entirely disingenuous. By definition, the "stop the war" protesters don't want war, no matter what the United Nations inspectors in Iraq happen upon. The demonstrators are playing Saddam's delaying game: Let the inspections continue until support in the United States for military action in Iraq dissolves and war is averted. Then Saddam survives. The inspections ploy is further proof the left has given up wars of national liberation against
oppressive dictators and is now in the business of saving oppressive dictators from wars of national liberation."

so *i* said, in part (sorry about the formatting here):

the fact that saddam is bad, combined with the outside chance
(and i think that, factually, the chances are indeed small) that america
will make things better rather than worse for average iraqis does *not*
mean that it would be a good idea for us to invade -- certainly not
unilaterally, and in my opinion probably not multilaterally, either. i am not
uninformed or stupid. neither is any thoughtful leftist. and i think all of
barnes's points are entirely debatable. forthwith:

1. barnes doesn't realize it (maybe he's stupid or uninformed?), but this
point is closely tied to (3). i believe that if we press saddam he will use
every weapon at his disposal, including all the lovely chemical and
biological agents he got from us in the '80's. i think it will be horrific.
after all, he's crazy and if we attack him, he's got nothing to lose. however: it's
not so much the short-term civilian casualties i'm worried about (though
obviously i'm worried about those too). i'm more worried about
america's place in the world, and the utter hatred that any invasion of
iraq will engender. there's no better way to ensure civilian casualties
than to inflame the causes of terrorists. barnes resorts to anecdotal
evidence from qualitatively different situations to "prove" his point here,
and fails miserably.

2. barnes can have this one. i don't much care for the oil argument. i do,
however, think that there are other economic reasons for this war that
the bush administration isn't telling us about. several come to mind:
bush friendliness to industry in general, including the "defense"
industry; camouflage during poor economic times...

4. the argument *against* giving inspectors more time since iraq has
not moved to attack the united states or anyone else is a poor one. it
goes like this: "but i wanna!" i know we're not much into moral
normativity in american social science these days, but i can't help but be
appalled at the eagerness with which hawks approach this war, which
is just by no standard i can think of. i am not a pacifist, and neither,
interestingly, are many of us on the left these days. but war is a uniquely
terrible situation that is harmful to all involved, and anyone who does not
seek to avoid war until there is no other option is either deluded or
absolutely morally bankrupt (thought i'd engage in some barnesian ad
hominem. like it?)