Okay, so I'm not a warmonger, but undoubtedly I'll be cast as one.

Since I suspect I will have visitors who haven't read my every previous post on the matter, let me lay out my own stance to avoid misunderstanding: I'm personally a bit of fence-straddler when it comes to Iraq. I hate the idea of war, but I'm not convinced that robust inspections will be supported, nor effective, so I'm not sure I'm seeing any effective alternative we're left with, and keep hoping to hear one. Saddam surrendering his scientists would have pleased me (and avoided war, I hoped), but that didn't pan out. Nonetheless, I keep hoping to see one, since I hate unnecessary war, and thus I read broadly from both pro- and anti-war blogs to see what both sides have to offer.

But I also feel free to rebut arguments, from either side, which don't appear to hold water. (That's how we find the best stance.) And thus this response to ThymeWise's recent post, "An Open Letter to the Warmongers"...

Labelling

You say... You're a peacenick, and anti-war.
I say... I'm not anti-war. I know that war has a time and a place. No one has yet convinced me that attacking Iraq is the proper course of action. I'm not a peacenik, but I do believe in trying to find peaceful resolutions to world issues. Is that so wrong?

First, I think we can both agree that most generalizations are false. But it seems to me you engage in the exact same sort of labelling ("I'm not a peacenik") you protest against here when you title your post: "An Open Letter to Warmongers". Did you really mean to only write to all five people in this country who desire war with everything that moves as a first resort? No, I suspect you mean those who are in favor of the use of force against Iraq, regardless of how they arrived at this stance.

Consider my situation, or at least one I'll adopt here for the sake of argument: "I'm not anti-war, I know that war has a time and a place. Yet no-one has yet convinced me of a better alternative than use of force against Iraq. I'm not a warmonger, and I do believe in trying to find peaceful resolutions to world issues, but I do believe we've tried them all here, and reached the limits with this particular dictator. Is that so wrong?"

Apparently, yes, such a person is a "warmonger". But from what I've seen, most of the people you'd label as "warmongers" or "chickenhawks" (Lileks, DenBeste, Insomnomaniac, etc.) claim just such a stance. Other than Frank, who I believe is actually joking (or I hope, anyway), I have yet to meet a "warblogger" with a difference stance.

But while, in my experience most war-supporters take the above stance, it is not apparently true of the entire anti-war movement. As far as I can see, there are a signficant number of very influential individuals out there who argue war is always wrong. So its reasonable to assume that the "warbloggers" are addressing these individuals, not you. I do. You probably should.

Trusssst in me.... Jussssst in me....

You say... I trust in our leaders. They have access to intelligence I don't have and they're making their decisions based on that. You don't know what they know, so you should shut up.
I say... Bully for you, but blind faith doesn't work for me. If it did, I would still be Catholic. It's my right, as an American citizen, to not trust my government and to demand that they give me proof before starting a war. One of the principles upon which this country was founded is distrust of government.

Nothing wrong with distrusting your leaders, nor trusting them. I agree its your right, and would fight to defend you for it.

On the other hand, I'd like to point out that our country was structured as a republic, not a democracy. The founding fathers distrusted leaders by giving us the chance to vote the bums out every several years. But they also distrusted you (and I) by allowing our leaders to act largely unfettered by voters in the interim; certain decisions, they felt, are not best made by a committee including all. Like it or not, that's our system of government.

Regarding intelligence: Most people understand that we should make decisions based on evidence, not just feelings. And most people understand that the really, really good evidence is, and must remain top secret, they understand they're not really going to have a chance to know what it is. So they look to people who they trust, who they think is able to "peek" at the same evidence, and see how they react. If they see a person who is normally a dove, like Colin Powell, suddenly do an about-face, or see bi-partisan support, they suspect those currently 'in the know' may be acting for good reasons. Of course, we're all free to ignore or pay attention to this sort of thing.

I understand a few people are saying war critics should shut up. (And vise-versa.) But -- and this is my personal feeling about the matter -- it seems to me that they're not saying they have no right to speak, but are rather (a) voicing their own emotional reaction, and/or (b) saying "Yes, I've heard you already, and responded. Either respond to my response or shut up -- stop repeating yourself."

Generally, though, I don't hear: "shut up". I hear pro-war people say that anti-war people are uninformed, living in an alternate reality, or that their arguments don't make sense or aren't responsive to the actual arguments being put forth by the pro-war types.

Questioning Our Leaders

You say... I'm a Patriot because I support the President!
I say... I'm a Patriot because I question the President.

There's nothing wrong with questioning a leader. But when the question is asked repeatedly, and the answer is repeatedly ignored, one begins to either look insincere or at least, being generous, hard of hearing. And not a serious person worth considering, either way. Again, I'm not necessarily addressing you, personally, but this is what many pro-war types see and are responding to.

Example: Protest: Bush hasn't made the case! Bush: Okay, the case is ... Protest: Bush hasn't made the case! Okay, perhaps he hasn't, but one's second protest should clearly show that the protestor actually heard what Bush said. Refute it. Show why Iraq is in complaince with 1441, or alternately why a UN resolution shouldn't be enforced, or how to better enforce it. Don't just repeat the same question again, as I've heard many do since the State of the Union.

I usually hear "warbloggers" question patriotism when US citizens say they hate our country, or that we're the worst of countries, not merely for disagreeing with the current presidential administration on a single point.

Finally, a word about criticism. There are two types of criticism, constructive (loving) criticism and destructive criticism. And there's a simple test for for sorting out which is which: Does the critic just take pot-shots (destructive) or do they offer concrete alternatives (constructive) or even just hints at how to find them?

Just to illustrate: If I say: "Your clothes are ugly" to someone, they'd feel put-down. But if I say something like: "I think solid colors might work better in a business environment than large polka-dots," then I'm still disagreeing, but clearly trying to help them as best as I can. And if I can't think of a better alternative, or even suggest how to find one, then what good am I doing by just putting them down? If I have nothing better to offer, then why open my mouth?

When I see people like LeCarre criticize the current American stance, saying: "I'm dead against Bush, but I would love to see Saddam's downfall -- just not on Bush's terms and not by his methods" then its reasonable to ask, well, what do you suggest? When no suggestion is forthcoming, there's no reason for us all to take such a person seriously -- their criticism appears to be destructive, not constructive.

Iraqi WMD

You say... Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and they're going to use them on us. Or sell them to terrorists!
I say... The danger of either of those things happening is slim until we go into Iraq, guns blazing, vowing to depose and capture Saddam Hussein. At that point, I'm sure that one or both of those things will happen, without a doubt, because he'll be in a position where he has nothing left to lose.

You're engaging in a subtle straw man fallacy above, when you say "use them on us or sell them to terrorists", conjuncting a widely admitted assertion with an specious one via "OR" to achieve a logically true statement with a false implication. Addressing the two assertions separately...

"sell them to terrorists": I don't think most people are worried about Iraq responding to a millitary attack by selling his bioweapons to terrorists. Its hard to hold a good auction while you're under fire. It seems to me the odds of selling WMD to terrorists is higher in peacetime than while under attack. Perhaps I'm odd; we'll just have to disagree on this one.

"use them on us" [during an attack]: I think most your opponents would agree with you; I also believe they're aware of this and have factored it into their analysis. They do not, in my experience, argue Saddam couldn't use such against us in war as you seem to imply. Rather, they ususally bring WMD up to show the contradictory stance of their critics who claim both that Iraq poses no WMD threat, and that he'll use such WMD against us, or argue that potential WMD capabilities mean we if we will ever attack, we should attack sooner than later since delay works in favor of the defender.

To imply that Saddam would have a low probability of using WMD if only we didn't attack him would seem to indicate to the reader you know little of Saddam's history. Your position would be stronger if you acknowledged Saddam's the kind of guy who will start trouble when none exists, rather than basing an argument on an obvious historical error reasonably well-versed individuals will immediately notice. Again, it causes them not to take your arguments seriously -- and some of us really want to agree with you. But you must actually be right, or at least more convincing.

It's the Oil, Stupid!

You say... It's not about oil!
I say... If you don't believe that oil plays a major role in the coming conflict, you have your head buried so far in the sand that you may never get out.

Again, I can't generalize, but in my experience most "warbloggers" don't claim its not about oil. They only protest when people say its all about oil.

Of course oil is involved. Oil debts are why Iraq invaded Kuwait in the first place. And every sane person acknowledges that, if we go to war, there will be some contention about the fate of Iraq's oil. But the "warblogger" protests it's not only about oil, pointing to other factors they feel are more important, at least in their analysis: This is unfinished business from the invasion of Kuwait; and about national security; and about moving a dangerous psycho away from the big fuse called Israel on the bomb of mideast stability. You may not agree with their analysis on these issues, but their assertion is only that it isn't only, or primarily about oil.

Another straw man, where you refute a different position than the one your opponents typically argue.

Human Rights

You say... Hussein is a bad man, and he tortures his own people. He's like Hitler.
I say... That's true. He is a bad man, and he does torture his own people. So do Tajikistan, China, North Korea, Indonesia, Sudan, and more South American countries than I can name. And that's just the beginning of the list. If Hussein's human rights atrocities are our reason for going to war, when will we be attacking those other countries? Are human rights issues a convenient excuse, or is the U.S. setting a precedent and planning for war without end in the years to come? Is either of those possibilities really acceptable?

I agree: Human rights aren't the main justification, but I don't think "warbloggers" claim they are. The main justifications are that (a) Hussein is a powerful, proven-unstable, irrational actor with a history of unprovoked aggression, and (b) the current situation is a continuance of the Gulf War surrender conditions.

Usually, I see "warbloggers" raise the issue of human rights in response to protests by the left which assert that war against Saddam is bad for his people, or violates the Iraqi peoples' right to self-determination. or would result in an even worse situation. I haven't heard them say this was the foremost reason for such.

Again, I can't address every "warblogger" out there, but from what I've read, you seem to be again refuting a different position than the one being argued. There's a difference between human rights being one factor or point of contention, and human rights being the main motivation. They argue the former (and usually in response to anti-war arguments), you refute the latter.

Comparisons to Hitler

As for him being like Hitler, that's insulting to the millions who died in Hitler's camps, including the six million Jews, not to mention the thirty-plus million Soviets -- citizens and soldiers -- who died due to his invasion

If you have a point here, then its even more true that it's insulting to use the same epithets for, say, Bush. Not saying you do, but you must acknowledge that the sentiment is rife among the anti-war crowd. Pot, meet kettle. (But I'd argue its even less justified in the latter case, meaning if frivolous comparison is a sin, anti-war protestors would be more, not less guilty of this.)

But I'm not so sure its an insult to millions of dead people to point out that a modern person shares traits with someone they fought against or were killed by. But since we can't interview them, I'll have to admit that's just my own personal feeling.

Iraqi Public Sentiment

You say... The Iraqi people want freedom. If we attack, they'll rise up against Hussein.
I say... That's what they did in Gulf War I, when we said we would assist. Guess what? We didn't assist; we left them hanging. Probably literally. Why would they trust us this time around?

Again, straw-man via combining two unrelated stances. Let's take them apart again...

First, of course the Iraqi people want freedom. (This is why many "warbloggers" disagree with arguments about our actions hurting the Iraqi people or violating their national will.) Since you don't disagree, can I take it you agree that most Iraqis would also like to remove the current regime?

Second: "They'll rise up against Hussein". Perhaps; who knows? Its an interesting point, but a bit of a side discussion. I doubt our millitary strategy would be based around a popular uprising. This isn't one of those points that would sway either party towards a war- vs. no-war stance.

Regarding our failure to support them last time: I agree with you completely, and am deeply ashamed of our (e.g. George Bush Sr's) failure on this point. Again, an interesting discussion, but not a make-or-break topic for most.

How Our Armed Forces Feel

You say... I have family in the military. I know what I'm talking about because they tell me things.
I say... Right. Unless your family members are high ranking, and breaking laws by sharing top secret info with you, you don't know anything more than what the rest of the country knows.

Moot point. If they're right, you're wrong, but like you say, who really knows? Like observed miracles, they've very convincing to the witness, but not so convincing secondhand.

As a side point, I also have noticed that most the people who were in the Gulf war seem to be for this one. For whatever that's worth.

The Arab Street

You say... Look at the way the Iraqis reacted when Columbia exploded! They deserve it!
I say... Attack someone for mocking you? Is that what you would teach your kid? If someone teases her, pop him one?

The disgust many people feel for the reaction of the Arab street should not be a factor in favor of a military response. I'm sure there are a few people out there who feel race or religion is a make-or-break reason for war, but overall, from my experience, you seem to be making yet another straw man argument.

The pro-war argument, as I understand it, goes like this: "You are saying we shouldn't attack Iraq because the 'Arab street' wouldn't like it. But these people are clearly our enemies, so why consider their opinion as though it were in our best interest?"

Refute, or even just address that argument and you'll have my attention. Until then, I think you're not listening. Or fear that you're deliberately not playing fair.

Democracy and the Domino Effect

You say... If Iraq becomes a democracy, it will set the stage for democracy throughout the Middle East.
I say... The Domino Theory didn't work for communism. Why would it work for democracy?

Again, a fair contention, but not the main point. We're not going to war to set up a democracy; if so we'd be attack every single dictatorship. See my arguments above about what I see the "warbloggers" main points as being.

But, admitting its un- or less-important: I personally think Islam is ultimately incompatible with democracy. Faithful Muslims must desire Sharia, not democracy. So I'd tend to side with you on this minor point. Democracy is a very precious and wonderful thing, hard to develop, and difficult to maintain.

My Country: Love It Or Leave It?

You say... If you don't like the way the country is being run, why don't you just move? Find a nice left wing/communist/socialist place to live!
I say... On the off chance you don't realize what a stupid thing that is to say, I'll respond to it. This country is designed so that if people don't like the way the country is running, they have a way to change it. It's all laid out in a little document called the Constitution of the United States of America . You may want to familiarize yourself with it.

Critics of the "I hate America" crowd also have the same right to free speech and disagreement you alluded to previously. From the first ammendment of the same document you link to. Odd, when the "I hate America" crowd talks, you defend their right to dissent. (As do I!) But when their critics respond, you charge the critics of being ignorant of the right to free speech?

Again, snobbery aside, I'm sure their critics are aware of their right to speech. Usually, they even explicitly or tacitly invoke this right as part of their retort:

Jill Hollywood, speaking on CNN: This is a horrible country. Its so oppressive here. All dissent is censored!
Mary Kansas: You dope, you don't know what censorship is. I'm hearing you talk about "no free speech" on my TV! Move to Iraq and try saying that!

In this example, Mary isn't arguing Jill has no right to speak or live here; Mary is arguing Jill's views are wrong and offering a suggestion for improving Jill's life based on Jill's own values. This is, in my experience, the typical situation in which this comes up. Do you disagree?

If not, it looks like you again either don't understand the usual "warblogger" argument, or like you deliberately misrepresent it in a form which makes it easier for you to refute it.

Is Afghanistan a Predictor?

You say... We'll bring peace and freedom to the Iraqi people. After the war, we'll build them up and make sure they have better lives.
I say... Take a look at Afghanistan right now, and then come back and say that again. With a straight face.

Is Afghanistan better or worse? I don't know. But that wasn't our concern: De-Talibanizing it was. If its better now, then its also true that we would have done the "worse" thing by avoiding war, and letting the previous government stand, had they handed over Osama and friends. If its worse now, then that's very sad to hear and I hope we each take actions to try to improve the situation. Since I hear reports both ways, I suspect, as your own commenters did, that things are just different.

But I have trouble seeing how things could be worse in Iraq than the present. I'm told 500,000+ have died under current UN sanctions. And that doesn't include political "crimes". I believe that the Iraqi people live in a condition of constant terror of torture and execution. Perhaps it could get worse. But I personally can't picture it, and you protestors haven't offered any explanation as to why it should. So I go with the most reasonable assumption. Give me a better reason, and I might agree. But simply posing a doubt as a question doesn't inform me: its all heat, no light.

An Appeal to Authority

You say... You have no idea what you're talking about. What makes you think you're qualified to pass any judgements on whether or not an attack on Iraq is warranted?
I say... Maybe I'm not qualified, but Norman Schwarzkopf seems to be qualified, and he's not convinced. General Zinni believes a war with Iraq is unwise. I'm absolutely certain they know a hell of a lot more about this than I do.

No, you're right, there are credible people on both sides of the coin. For every H. Norman there's a Colin Powell. And we should seriously consider the opinions of such important people, but we don't have to bow to them.

Who you listen to, and why you credit or discredit each, is an interesting dicussion, and one requiring a lot more detail than we have time for here. I agree with you, but ask you to remember that if you're just going to credit someone else and trust them it doesn't make your stance any better-reasoned than your opponents, who could do the exact same thing. "My dad can lick your dad" can work personally for someone, but its not the same thing as providing your own reasons.

My Conclusions

You make some good points above, but the places I agree most with you, or think you have the best points, are on the most tangential issues. You've provided a lot of good discussion-starters for interesting side topics.

But your piece needs some work to effectively work as a refutation to a "warmonger" supporting the current Bush stance. If you're trying to lead the troops who already agree with you in a cheer, or get your feelings out, good enough; I understand that. But as an appeal to a person who is "on the fence" and actually familliar with the pro-war stance, or as a refutation to an open-minded advocate of millitary action, it is ineffective. In many cases, rather than refute actual arguments being put forth by war advocates, you appear to repeatedly misunderstand, or (I hope not) deliberately mistate each argument.

If you want to really get at the meat of the pro-war movement -- at least the open-minded ones (there's no hope for those who have closed minds, on either side) -- a response addressing all or most of the following points would be very helpful:

1. Is Iraq in "material breach" of Resolution 1441? If not, justify your answer.
2. If in material breach, how do you feel about weakening the UN by allowing the resolution to have no consequence when violated? (Like previous resolutions?)
3. Should we wait (a little, a lot) more for war or just avoid it altogether?
4. If we should wait, then what until what happens? What trigger do you suggest?
5. If we should never go to war, then (a) what is your philosophical justification and (b) what do you suggest we do in the meantime?
6. If no war, then how do you reconcile the continued loss of innocent Iraqi life under the current UN sanctions? (Why do you think fewer people will die this way than in a war?)
7. Otherwise, if you lift sanctions, do you think Saddam will re-arm? Since we know he's been re-arming under sanctions, explain why this shouldn't be an even greater cause for concern?
8. If Saddam is left in power, why should I believe he won't do what he's done countless times before: Attempt to gain WMD and use them in warfare? And worse, why should I trust he won't ultimately try to pull the "war with Israel" trigger in order to go down in history as a great man and force his neighbors to support him (as Egypt did in 1967)?
9. What would you say to critics who claim that as Clinton's withdrawl from Somalia actually emboldened terrorist extremists, so also U.S. signs of weakness here would decrease, not increase national security?
10. What actions would you recommend for keeping Americans safe?

Providing reasonable, convincing answers to these kinds of questions and their follow-ups would go a long way towards bolstering your case for many of us; these are the very questions I ask myself in trying to sort this whole thing out.