OpinionJournal's Best of the Web writes:
The Scotsman has an explanation for the murder in Iraq of journalist Steven Vincent. See if you can finish this sentence:
An American journalist who was shot dead in Basra last week was executed by Shiite extremists who . . .
. . . had been worn down by grinding poverty?
. . . were angry over Israel's treatment of Palestinian Arabs?
. . . resented the presence in their country of foreign troops?
. . . sought to avenge the abuses at Abu Ghraib?
If you said any of the above, you're wrong. Here's the full sentence:
An American journalist who was shot dead in Basra last week was executed by Shiite extremists who knew he was intending to marry his Muslim interpreter, it has emerged.
That's right, Steven Vincent was killed to prevent him from intermarrying. Those Westerners who side with the "Iraqi resistance" against America and its allies are defending the equivalent of the murder of Emmett Till.
UPDATE: Some people interpreted the OpinionJournal item, and this one, as criticizing all opponents of the Iraq War. That's an interpretation that's in the mind of the interpreters -- I see no support for it in the text of the post.
The item is quite clearly a criticism of those Westerners who do endorse the Iraqi "resistance," or at least explain its actions in ways that lessen or eliminate the killers' culpability (poverty, supposed desire for "self-determination," supposedly justifiable anger at various American, Israeli, or other Western sins). That's the group the item identifies. It's the group against which the item's argument makes sense. The item doesn't criticize any broader group of Iraq War opponents.
Fortunately, the group being criticized is not a vast group. So? They're still worth condemning.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Westerners Who Support and Justify the Iraqi Resistance:
- Witch-Hunts:
- Statements Justifying the Bad Guys:
- Don't Let False Imputations of Bad Motives Stop Legitimate Arguments:
- Supporters of the Iraqi "Resistance":
- Defending the Bad Guys?:
- People Who Falsely Claim That Their Opponents Support the Bad Guys:
- Westerners Who Defend the Iraqi Insurgents:
- Murder of Steven Vincent:
Steven Vincent was married for 13 years. His widow posted a touching memorial outside their house, just a few short blocks from me. While I don't know a thing about their personal lives, the accusation that he was going to divorce her and marry his Iraqi translator is a hell of a thing to say about a dead man, if it turns out to be unfounded.
At the very least, this claim neccesitates similar questions about U.S. ties with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and the terrible things that happen in those countries.
That said, it is hard to think of a more horrid reason to kill a person. I simply don't understand how someone could think like that.
The tone and thrust of the post are mystifying, really. Does the Wall St. Journal, or Prof. Volokh, really believe that any significant portion of the American left views this sort of action by "Shiite extremists" favorably?
Who are these people, exactly? Any Democrats? I am always puzzled by these vague references.
Really? Michael Moore and his friends call them the equivalent of our Minutemen.
Um, Michael Moore, who call's them "minutemen," Noam Chomsky, Barbara Olshansky... should I keep going?
I was wrong.
Prof. Volokh, you should apologize.
Secondly, the "West" is a big place, and the human cesspool is of astonishing depth, so finding examples like Chomsky don't really count for much.
Swanson, because you disagree with people doesn't make them thoughtless hacks (in fact, very little posted on this site could ever be criticized as thoughtless). That you believe disagreement equals thoughtlesness speaks more of you than your barbs' targets.
"Was American journalist Steve Vincent killed in Basra as part of an honor killing? He was romantically involved with his Iraqi interpreter, who was shot 4 times. If her clan thought she was shaming them by appearing to be having an affair outside wedlock with an American male, they might well have decided to end it. In Mediterranean culture, a man's honor tends to be wrought up with his ability to protect his womenfolk from seduction by strange men. Where a woman of the family sleeps around, it brings enormous shame on her father, brothers and cousins, and it is not unknown for them to kill her. These sentiments and this sort of behavior tend to be rural and to hold among the uneducated, but are not unknown in urban areas. Vincent did not know anything serious about Middle Eastern culture and was aggressive about criticizing what he could see of it on the surface, and if he was behaving in the way the Telegraph article describes, he was acting in an extremely dangerous manner."
While perhaps a little callous, this doesn't even come close to claiming Vincent deserved to get murdered. Pointing out that a taboo exists and that breaking said taboo is extremly perilous is not the same as saying that the person deserves to get murdered. Your attack on Cole(who generally speaking, I am not a fan of) is unwarrented.
What exactly is disgusting about the Best of the Web post and how do you claim Eugene endorsed it? He just noted it and quoted from it. Mighty critical for a clerk it seems to me.
Peter:
What is the evidence you would point to to conclude Prof. Volokh is a "hack"? Something tells me you couldn't carry his attache' case. Or his laptop.
You can not be serious. Are you willfully obtuse or is it something else?
To be more specific about what Prof. Cole said about Vincent: I don't think he "defends" the murder but he "explains" it in a way that is disturbingly similar to possible exculpatory "explanations" of why Till's murderers killed him.
Essentially, what Cole said about Vincent's murder that (1) He was romantically involved with his female Iraqi interpreter, (2) Where an Iraqi woman sleeps around (especially with an American), it brings enormous shame on her family and in such cases honor killing is "not unknown" [nice understatement]. He concludes that "Vincent did not know anything serious about Middle Eastern culture" and that "if he was behaving in the way the Telegraph article describes, he was acting in an extremely dangerous manner."
All true, I am willing to grant (except as to allegation "1" about which I agree with Steve's comment). However, Cole's statement is only true in the same way that assertions that "if Emmett Till was acting in the way described [i.e., chatting up a white woman], he was acting in an extremely dangerous manner," evidencing that he "did not know anything serious about Southern culture" -- i.e., he should have known that his behavior would "bring enormous shame on her family" -- heck, on the entire racist community! -- and, besides, lynchings were "not unknown" in such cases.
In short, Cole's view on the Vincent affair strikes me as morally obtuse in a way that bears legitimate comparison to justifications of 1950s racism (again, let's stress that no analogy is perfect). I also find Cole's academic snobbery -- sniffing that Vincent didn't know anything "serious" about the Middle East, as though he were critiquing an unworthy tenure candidate rather than describing the victim of a vicious murder -- extremely unappealing.
I nonetheless agree with the majority of comments arguing that it is unfair to accuse all opponents of the Iraq war of support for honor killings, if that's what Vincent's murder was, just as it's unfair to characterize every proponent of limited federal government of being a "state's rights" segregationist and every criminal defense attorney of enthusiastic support for murder, rape and grand larceny.
To be more specific about what Prof. Cole said about Vincent: I don't think he "defends" the murder but he "explains" it in a way that is disturbingly similar to possible exculpatory "explanations" of why Till's murderers killed him.
Essentially, what Cole said about Vincent's murder that (1) He was romantically involved with his female Iraqi interpreter, (2) Where an Iraqi woman sleeps around (especially with an American), it brings enormous shame on her family and in such cases honor killing is "not unknown" [nice understatement]. He concludes that "Vincent did not know anything serious about Middle Eastern culture" and that "if he was behaving in the way the Telegraph article describes, he was acting in an extremely dangerous manner."
All true, I am willing to grant (except as to allegation "1" about which I agree with Steve's comment). However, Cole's statement is only true in the same way that assertions that "if Emmett Till was acting in the way described [i.e., chatting up a white woman], he was acting in an extremely dangerous manner," evidencing that he "did not know anything serious about Southern culture" -- i.e., he should have known that his behavior would "bring enormous shame on her family" -- heck, on the entire racist community! -- and, besides, lynchings were "not unknown" in such cases.
In short, Cole's view on the Vincent affair strikes me as morally obtuse in a way that bears legitimate comparison to justifications of 1950s racism (again, let's stress that no analogy is perfect). I also find Cole's academic snobbery -- sniffing that Vincent didn't know anything "serious" about the Middle East, as though he were critiquing an unworthy tenure candidate rather than describing the victim of a vicious murder -- extremely unappealing.
I nonetheless agree with the majority of comments arguing that it is unfair to accuse all opponents of the Iraq war of support for honor killings, if that's what Vincent's murder was, just as it's unfair to characterize every proponent of limited federal government of being a "state's rights" segregationist and every criminal defense attorney of enthusiastic support for murder, rape and grand larceny.
You sound like John McEnroe after he thought the chair made a bad call. I am serious, and I am not willfully obtuse. I guess it must be something else. But I AM too obtuse to know what that could be. Since you are so clearly acute, perhaps you could enlighten me?
Could it be that I think neither you nor Peter nor the greedy one are particularly penetrating critics of Eugene's excellent work on this blog.
Had you looked at the link, or read the post accurately, you could see that the entire post is a quote. There is no editorial comment whatever. From where I sit, that is a post without comment, certainly not an express endorsement. Whether it is an endorsement by implication merely because it is linked and quoted is not clear either. I think the endorsement is entirely in the imagination of the reader.
It appears that Delversi and dbadba have made the same assumption. It was Taranto, not Volokh that made the comparison with Emmett Till.
Neither is Jim Rhodes' defense of yours even remotely useful. Unless you are obliged to post certain things of the Wall Street Journal (which is *highly* unlikely) the custom, particularly your custom of posting arguments of other people (without comment) is an implict but direct support of it. That you could have cut out the last paragraph and still made a point is an even bigger indictment that you need to repudiate (honestly) your argument that those opposed to the Iraqi "invasion" are murderers or support the concept of murder.
I agree with several other posters: Professor Volokh needs to back up the assertion, denounce the message that he chose to highlight by placing it on his blog, or take a hit to his credibility (as well as to the level of dialog on his blog).
People on the Left "side with the 'Iraqi resistance' against America" as much as John Roberts and professor Volokh support anti-abortion terrorists.
If professor Volokh's post was fair, NARAL's anti-Roberts ad was right on target.
G. Bridgman, Look at Cole's implication.
X did Y.
If X were (Smarter/more educated/like me) X would have known not do do Y.
X was killed because of Y.
Tell me how that doesn't mean that X deserved what was coming to him because he was not (smarter/more educated/like me).
Do you think Cole would have written that if Vincent had been a critic of the war? I don't, but maybe he would have. Maybe you interpret it differently, but that doesn't make me thoughtless in the least.
Once again, thoughtlessness is not equal to "disagrees with me." I shall now be burned as a heretic, I'm sure.
I agree with Steve that there had better be some darned good evidence backing up the claim that the dead man was 1) having an affair; and 2) planned to divorce his wife.
It's reckless, tasteless, and shameless for the WSJ and professor Volokh to repeat the assertion when it appears to have no sourcing. Imagine how these stories are affecting his widow.
This post is out of character for Volokh and his blog. My guess is that we'll see an apology and an explanation by the end of the day.
Absent some independent sourcing (say, journalists who crossed paths with Vincent in Iraq), the WSJ should not have linked to or positively commented on the article.
This just shows how low the WSJ is willing to go to smear people on the Left. Does that paper have no pride?
In order to make a broad, unsubstantiated smear against unnamed war critics, the WSJ decided to slime the name of a dead conservative journalist and rub salt in the wounds of his widow. Good folks, those people at the WSJ.
If you oppose the war, I think that is a legitimate and choice. If you support the Iraqi resistance than you support the senseless murder of Americans, because that is the goal of the foreigners who are pouring into Iraq to blow themselves up in the name of Islam and the "Iraqi resistance". It is Orwellian doublespeak to claim that you support the resistance but not killing American soldiers.
Imagine if he had written:
I thought the WSJ was supposed to be a respectable paper. Sliming dead journalists to try to score a dishonest political point seems par for the course at the WSJ.
Nice save. But I think one can also reasonable infer that this post was meant to draw attention to a controversial matter uniquely presented which warrants some interest and critical discussion.
Those who use the Socratic method as a teaching tool often are masters of this techinque, aren't they? The case method in law school generally does not involve the study only of cases the teacher endorses. Certainly not in my law school experience (admittedly many years ago).
Whether my observation is accurate or not, critical discussion of the Taranto article was exactly what the post drew. I do not believe Eugene will apologize, nor do I believe he should.
Most of what I have heard, including this article and others that don't accept the honor-killing theory, suggests that Vincent's killers were Basra Shiites, possibly linked with the police and other parts of the Basra government. Vincent himself was writing a book on the presence of dubious/violent/extreme/criminal groups in the Basra government, funding their dangerous activities with money embezzled from American reconstruction contracts. (See his op-ed in the NYT the week of his death.)
In other words, these particular killers are no more "insurgents" or "resistance" than the El Salvadoran death squads from the 80's were "resistance." The Shia groups that Vincent attacked in his writing are bitter enemies of both the Sunni Iraqi nationalists and the Sunni foreign fighters that make up the Iraqi resistance.
Note carefully, flamers, that I am not defending either the Iraqi resistance or the Shiite death squads. I am trying to defend Vincent's life work -- he was dedicated to telling the world that in Iraq there are bad, dangerous, violent people in the government as well as in the anti-government resistance.
IMHO, the Best of the Web comment is completely wrong, but not because Emmitt Till is a bad analogy -- it is wrong in the same sense that it would be wrong to blame Hollywood liberals for supporting El Salvadoran death squads in the '80s. Wrong side, people. Check your facts and try again.
And as far as the motive for the murder goes -- I am dubious that a man who wrote in the New York Times that the Basra police were involved in death squads and assassination-for-hire rings would just coincidentally be killed a few days later for sleeping with an Iraqi woman. If a journalist in 1920's Chicago was murdered after publishing an expose on Al Capone, would you believe that he was shot by a jealous husband?
Apparently, the WSJ would, as long as it would help slime a political opponent.
As to the comments about whether Volokh meant to endorse the post or not, I think posting it without comment was an implicit endorsement. Maybe it was an unintentional implicit endorsement, but I'll let Volokh chime in for himself on that question.
Now that the war is a reality, 99.999999999% of americans who opposed the war do not want the "insurgents" to "win". they wish the whole never happened and they have a right to be bitter. where is the press conference announcing the seized WMD? you know the pentagon would love to have one, but they haven't. Does David Kay want the insurgents to win? we either made a huge intelligence error, or intelligence was manufactured (see Chalabi) to please the political bosses, or they knowingly lied to the american people to get into a war they thought was necessary but knew the country would not support unless in fear of a mushroom cloud.
the last reason seems most likely, and is completely defenseable. maybe this war is worth more to Volokh than telling the truth about war to the public in a democracy. some national security things arguably are best kept secret, but the accusing people who think differently of rooting for the "insurgents" killing americans shows the cowardice of one who runs from their convictions.
perhaps volokh knew that WMD wasnt the real reason to invade iraq, but that's what the country was told. the al queda ties arent a great case either. a shadowy network like that is similar to the kevin bacon game--anyone can be connected. we could probably use one intermediary and connect al queda to UCLA, perhaps even the law school there.
i absolutely believe many of the "insurgents" are horrible theofascist brainwashed sociopaths. but the point is why are we there fighting them? are we supposed to take the POTUS seriously at the state of the union? or are the educated classes to snicker over our martinis when we know it is empty rhetoric fashioned to trick mechanics in ohio into supporting a war that their children, and few, if any, children of people who write or read this blog.
i for one am of enlistable age. i do not want to risk my life unless i am being told what is going on or can see it for myself. I cannot see the purpose of this war. i dont support the insurgents but that doesnt mean i have to say bush is a saint. he and his people lied to start a war. it is pretty obvious, and those who cannot realize it are stuck in the clutches of cognitive dissonance (it doesnt mean your war is wrong, defend the lies, just try).
I take issue with this statement. I don’t think the Average anti-war American wants them to win, but a good deal of liberal ideologues would love to see the insurgents not only win, but completely massacre the American troops. They want to see it not because they want American soldiers to die, but they would just LOVE to use it as a tool against Republicans in future elections.
I get the impression they would much rather have the insurgents kill ten thousand American soldiers before '08 than have peace come to Iraq. After all, if peace came it might be good for the Republicans.
It's pretty much the same mindset of liberals here in NY before the '04 elections. They were hoping the economy would crash so it would hurt Bush. Who cares what the ill-effects of the crashing economy would be on the every day worker as long as it put a liberal in the White House?
I take issue with this statement. I don’t think the Average anti-war American wants them to win, but a good deal of liberal ideologues would love to see the insurgents not only win, but completely massacre the American troops. They want to see it not because they want American soldiers to die, but they would just LOVE to use it as a tool against Republicans in future elections.
FYI: in rational discourse, the ordinary way of "taking issue" with a proposition is not to simply state that the proposition is false, but actually to present some evidence to that effect.
We know what happened the last time this meme got firmly implanted in a superpower’s citizenry. Can those Republicans who remain assure me that they can keep their Radicals under control? I doubt it, myself.
From where? There have to be a few homicidal loons out there, but I haven't heard even one American liberal say that he or she hopes that more American soldiers die.
I regret my earlier attacks on Volokh. The WSJ post doesn't say that Vincent was married, so I think it's clear that Volokh, unlike the WSJ, was not intentionally slandering a dead man to make a political point. But in the future, I hope he becomes more skeptical about what he picks up from the WSJ.
(For the record, I remain a skeptical supporter of the war because replacing a murderous thug like Saddam with a democracy would do wonders for the region. But even many conservatives now admit that W has bungled the effort. I think that W's strategy very well might make matters worse in Iraq, but I hope events prove me wrong.)
As has been pointed out, "Westerners who side with the 'Iraqi resistance' against America and its allies" is not the same thing as "Westerners who oppose the war". Indeed, they are likely only a small subset of "Westerners who oppose the war". (It is clear to me that Michael Moore IS one of the Westerners who side with the Iraqi resistance, though. His "Minuteman" remark makes that point rather vivdly, since "Minutemen" has such a positive connotation; if he wanted to make the point that the Iraqi resistance was a bad group that, nevertheless would likely win, he could have chosen plenty of examples - such as, oh, the Viet Cong - without the positive connotation associated with "Minutemen".) But I guess if you feel the need to defend the honor of "Westerners who side with the 'Iraqi resistance' against America and its allies", more power to you.
As to the substance of the Taranto post, I agree with the commenters above that the killers of Mr. Vincent are most likely NOT associated with "the Iraqi resistance", since the killers were likely Basra Shiites and not Sunnis (who make up the vast majority of the resistance). Accordingly, the Taranto post itself is mistaken.
> the November '04 elections so that it would hurt
> Republicans, regardless of the consequences on the working
> class. My evidence for that is that I heard a great number
> of people say out loud that they hoped it would happen.
And I have heard "many" people say they vote Republican so that "niggers" [their term] can be put in their place and segregation restored. Where 'many' is a few dozen, anyway. Is that an official position of the Republican party? If I claim that it is an unspoken belief of a substantial percentage of the Republican base, would you disagree? How would you prove that? If it isn't, why aren't Republican candidates (such as the late Jesse Helms) repudiating such thoughts in loud, firm, and proud language (with no code words and no Confederate flag in the background)?
Alkali, Many people wanted to see the economy crash and burn before the November '04 elections so that it would hurt Republicans, regardless of the consequences on the working class. My evidence for that is that I heard a great number of people say out loud that they hoped it would happen.
I'll take your word that you heard that, though I heard no such thing. Have you actually heard anyone say that they support the Iraqi insurgency and hope a lot of American soldiers are killed?
A.S. writes:
It is clear to me that Michael Moore IS one of the Westerners who side with the Iraqi resistance, though. His "Minuteman" remark makes that point rather vivdly, since "Minutemen" has such a positive connotation; if he wanted to make the point that the Iraqi resistance was a bad group that, nevertheless would likely win, he could have chosen plenty of examples - such as, oh, the Viet Cong - without the positive connotation associated with "Minutemen".
I think that is a strong inference from one arguably poor word choice, given that Moore made a film that was mostly about why he thought the Iraq war was bad because it unnecessarily put U.S. troops in danger.
> that? Or are you making it up? Maybe you saw it on a T.V.
> show...
Seriously? No. I have heard a few hundred. But I spend a lot of time working in rural manufacturing facilities, and after a while the dudes there forget I am a city boy and talk to me openly. Dozens is the percentage of those hundreds I think are fairly serious (not just blowing smoke).
Jim Rhoads, it wasn't as if this was simply a piece of information, or a hypothetical. It was a political post, and given that Volokh made no comment after quoting it, the reasonable thing to do would be to assume he is endorsing it. There are a bunch of political viewpoints and selecting one to quote without comment is an obvious endorsement.
All I am saying is that there are Americans that want us to fail miserably in Iraq, and it's more than .001% of them. I don't think any mainstream liberals or mainstream Democrats feel that way, and it's by no means the official platform of the Democratic party. I'm sorry if my post could be taken to imply that.
However, I do think it's likely that many of the "Michael Moore liberal" types probably think that way. Those types of liberals are far from the mainstream and outside of the Democratic party, but there are plenty of them in this country, including some that have posted comments on this website.
I feel that I am just repeating myself over and over, so I'm not going to further post on this subject so as not to hijack the thread or spam too much.
Usually, of course, you add some editorializing, but this is of course the point of a blog. But like posting an article on a message board, it doesn't constitute any endorsement, it constiutes "hey, this is interesting, read this".
I condemn Republicans who drink puppy blood with breakfast. Fortunately, this is not a vast group. So? They're still worth condemning.
This belief is almost certainly false, since even anti-war liberals like me see our options as (1) win or (2) get out, either way preferably with the lowest casualties possible.
But I point this out because the "liberals" one hears excoriated are typically fantasy-figures, about as real as "the Jews" in Weimar Germany (probably less so, even). 48% of the country voted for Kerry---are they rooting for American deaths in battle?
I would caution those of good will to hesitate before discussing "liberals" or "conservatives" who "root for the insurgents" or "drink puppy blood," and ask, "can I think of any actual members of the set I'm describing?" You could even then go on to ask "if so, are they representative?" (In other words, we don't assume you're all in agreement with Pat Buchanan, and you don't assume we all agree with Michael Moore.)
They are close to the people who deposed the Baghdad mayor and
who are now installing in power - but lets not get facts in the way of a nice argument, shall we?
The WSJ post was reckless as to the facts and insensitive to the family of the deceased.
Worse, by smearing Vincent after his death, the WSJ helped the murdering terrorists achieve their goals--to kill Vincent and smear his reputation.
This Telegraph story written before has the soruce for the marriage story being Nour Weidi herself.
Telegraph story
How is any of this remotely connected to sympathy for the insurgency?
Telegraph story
II)This killing is an embarrassment for the British Government in general and the British Army in particular because a) Vincent was murdered ‘on their watch’ and b) he had just made detailed and angry criticisms of the British administration in Basra, notably that the British were permitting Iraqi police forces to be infiltrated by Shi’ite radicals, who were then killing political opponents- and Vincent himself appears to have been murdered by men in Iraqi police uniform.
Who, then, has a motive to smear the late Steven Vincent? To spell it out for the morons on the Right: the British Government. Given that the Scotsman and the Sunday Times, one anti-war and one pro, have run near-identical stories on Vincent, I would guess that press officers in either (or both) the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office have been ‘briefing’ that ‘that dumb Yank was shagging his translator and that’s why he got shot’. That’s how the British Civil Service (and senior military) play things: tough and, if need be, dirty.
II)This killing is an embarrassment for the British Government in general and the British Army in particular because a) Vincent was murdered ‘on their watch’ and b) he had just made detailed and angry criticisms of the British administration in Basra, notably that the British were permitting Iraqi police forces to be infiltrated by Shi’ite radicals, who were then killing political opponents- and Vincent himself appears to have been murdered by men in Iraqi police uniform.
Who, then, has a motive to smear the late Steven Vincent? To spell it out for the morons on the Right: the British Government. Given that the Scotsman and the Sunday Times, one anti-war and one pro, have run near-identical stories on Vincent, I would guess that press officers in either (or both) the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office have been ‘briefing’ that ‘that dumb Yank was shagging his translator and that’s why he got shot’. That’s how the British Civil Service (and senior military) play things: tough and, if need be, dirty.
Furthermore, "me people interpreted the OpinionJournal item, and this one, as criticizing all opponents of the Iraq War. That's an interpretation that's in the mind of the interpreters -- I see no support for it in the text of the post."
is a variation of the "I didn't mean that, but if the shoe fits...". It ignores the fact that such is the obvious reading, that such grouping of the rebels and their "supporters" (a group of people who have been labeled as such includes Senator Dick Durbin, Senator John Kerry, Senator Byrd, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan (whose sun died in the war) and others.
Glenn Reynolds declared that "many" democrats were "actively rooting for the other side"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4703309/
Hindenracker, who has called Dick Durbin and Jimmy Carter TRAITORS, famously made the same claim, as did Hugh Hewitt (who cowardly tried to say he only meant liberals, and that's really not that many people, same argument you seem to be making).
But the active (if uncoordinated) campaign of grouping those against the war with support of terrorists is clearly the purpose of the disputed quote, and arguing otherwise is at best an insincere defense and at worst an unapologetic furtherance of the lie.
you cant blame anti-war types for not having a good solution, because we cant turn back time. the pro-war side won the fight to start the war, but it is not going how they planned (think about everything cheney has ever said). the anti-war side has the right to say "i told you so" if they were right, right? or are we expected to shut up in the interest of protecting a false US self image (the outside image is shot, read the polls), and the reputations of those who call us traitors?
war is hell, and for the people who are fighting they arent really "winners" or "losers" they either survive, get killed, or get wounded. you could want the nazis to lose WWII, but still feel terrible about Dresden. Has anyone read "All Quiet on the Western Front". I believe it was written by a frenchman, who certainly did not want the German protagonists to "win" the WWI, but beautifully makes the reader sympathize with the german soldiers who do kill many frenchmen. that's what separates a good work of literature from a shouting match in a chat room.
there is a good chris rock joke about OJ. OJ came home to find his wife at the house he bought, driving the ferrari he bought, with a younger man who she was obviously cheating on him with. the joke is: "i don't think he should have done it, but i UNDERSTAND." OJ is more then likely a murderer (so says a civil court verdict). i dont support murder of cheating spouses, but clearly it is more "understandable" than a random shooting, like the Ohio highway sniper.
i dont "support" or "sympathize" with the organized leadership behind the insurgency in Iraq, and I doubt Michael Moore does either. But I understand why this insurgency exists, and I understand, and even sympathize with (not support) the human beings who are drawn into the insurgency by the wretchedness of their condition--pseudo religious brainwashing, need for money (they get paid), the young-stupid-invincible feeling that all young men have, and the fact that many have had relatives killed in the conflict. (remember we started the conflict based on very public lies--Colin Powell at UN for example--what was in those buildings after all, huh?).
after all bush said in 2002 and 2003, who expects iraqis to believe we invaded to bring them democracy as we now say? maybe bush would invade based only on his belief that democracy in the ME will beat al queda, regardless of WMD, but that's not what he said at the time. thanks to him, our credibility is hurt, in the objective sense.
so, let's recap, bush gives false reason for war. we invade a country, killing thousands of innocent civilians. it is understandable that they are not taking this too kindly, given their own perspective, nationalism (think about how you feel about america, some iraqis think they are the greatest too, they are human), and cultrual sense of honor and pride.
so i understand why lots of messed up iraqi kids are fighting, and in a way i sympathize in that i see many of them as sad (not evil) and wish they weren't fighting and this debacle had never happened. i still want them to miss when they aim at a US soldier. war is hell, and there is no good position now, since our leadership screwed up so badly.
But Volokh and others attacking liberal "sympathizers" seem like they are trying to lay the blame for the mess at those who did not support it in the first place. if liberals had just clapped lounder instead given comfort to the enemy by the exercise of their democratic rights of speecha and debate, we would have won--which means spreading "democracy" ironically enough!
if we do "lose" this war like we lost vietnam, michael moore wont be happy that americans died, but he probably will say "i told you so" because he did. he doesnt have to care about conservative's feelings. and i think all of us know there is some satisfaction at being right, even if you made a pessimistic prediction, especially when you are attacked so severely for that prediction. when conservative intellectuals attack some do-gooder govt regulation for being counterproductive, they dont want the air to get dirtier, or kids to get sicker, but if they turn out to be right, they have a right to crow about it, right?
Many people, including the WSJ, have previously (fallaciously) linked the anti-war position with a pro-saddam or pro-insurgent position.
Just as "some people" in President Bush's speeches during the campaign meant "John Kerry," "Those Westerners" in the WSJ means people who think it was a foolish mistake to go to war in Iraq over a non-existant threat.
Eugene Volokh "see[s] no support for [equating "those Westerners" with those who are anti-war] in the text of the post."
While Volokh's statement is true, as any good law professor should know, you may use parole evidence to define the terms of a document. Here, prior writtings by the WSJ crew demonstrate "those westerners" includes most people who are anti-war.
At the risk of drawing some flames and saying something a bit uncomfortable, I want to mention something else: the current anxiety about the verb "to explain".
To wit: in his subsequent clarification, Volokh notes that he is only criticizing those who "explain [the Iraqui resistance's] actions in ways that lessen or eliminate the killers' culpability (poverty, supposed desire for "self-determination," supposedly justifiable anger at various American, Israeli, or other Western sins)."
I'm reminded of the meme that circulated in late 2001 and 2002 that any effort to "explain" the actions of those who committed the atrocity at the World Trade Center would in effect be a kind of justification...only condemnation was appropriate.
Now, Volokh does not go quite so far, here: he only condemns those who "explain...in ways that lessen...". So far, I can only agree. After all, an "explanation" that lessens anyone's culpability for murder, terrorism, etc., is reprehensible. But then, Volokh continues by specifying the kind of "explanations" that might fit his category. For example, an explanation pointing to the insurgents' "supposed desire for self-determination" must be excluded.
Let's leave aside the adjective "supposed", which I think is primarily a rhetorical dodge. Is there any doubt that those engaged in the Iraqi resistance, those who use its murderous techniques (aimed mostly at other Iraqis, n.b.), want self-determination? That is, they want to determine what happens to Iraq...not Americans, not Iraqis who disagree with them, certainly not Kurds or Shiites (for the most part). So their desire for self-determination is real enough; the problem is that it is not legitimate, because it rejects other Iraqis' equal desire and right, because it seeks to establish their power to determine that all Iraqis must follow a repressive anti-modern version of Islam, etc.
But I'd like to go a step further: as far as I'm concerned, no "explanation" that looks at why certain people act in certain ways can bear, ultimately, on whether we judge their methods to be reprehensible or not. If you murder someone for the best of motives, I believe it is still murder according to law, right? The ends, according to most moral theories that I am familiar with, do no justify the means. The explanation of why someone behaves in a certain way should not have any relevance for our judgment of their actions, as a moral and legal question. However, it may well have an influence on how we respond, and how we act to forestall future acts of a similar kind.
Would Volokh really have us ignore the motivations of the Iraqi insurgents, or of Al-Quada associates worldwide? To treat them as blank slates whose intentions and circumstances are irrelevant to combatting them? That's simply absurd. We very much need to know why some Iraqis are willing to blow themselves up, and why some non-Iraqis are willing to travel to Iraq to fight against the American and other occupying forces, don't we? If we don't know why they are doing it, we're just cutting off our nose to spite our face.
So, we had better damn well look for "explanations", and these must be nature include any possible evidence, including poverty (though the evidence suggests that it's affluence in relation to poverty that matters, here), including the "desire for self-determination" (especially in illegitimate forms that deny the self-determinatin of others, such as women, liberal Iraqis, etc.), including anger at Israel and the United States (again, whether such anger could be justified is an entirely different and, in this context, largely irrelevant question), and so forth.
Again: examining ANY of these possible causes, or any others, DOES NOT LESSEN ANYONE's CULPABILITY. I'll be the first to condemn those (and they do exist) who say it does. But we can't "explain" at all unless we are willing to open our eyes and look at the evidence.
What I want to argue against, therefore, is Volokh's apparent presumption that _any_ "explanation" of the Iraqi insurgents that referred to the issues that he has unilaterally decided are illegitimate ipso facto lessens the insurgents' culpability.
There's a real, and difficult issue at stake here, and Volokh is justified in asking those who seek explanations to be very very careful -- something that has not always been the case. The field of inquiry that has done the most to illuminate the tensions and the anguish involved is Holocaust studies, where it is by now clear that efforts to "explain"--on the basis of empirical conditions or on the basis of the perceptions and understandings of the various perpetrators--are NOT justifications or excuses. A similar struggle about studies of Stalinism is still going on, I have the impression (though I am happy to be corrected). Volok's warning is fair insofar as anyone who does serious thinking based on the evidence about those cases--or about the one at stake here, where equally heinous crimes, though thankfully on a smaller scale, are being justfied by their perpetrators in terms of some higher good--has to wrestle with the genuine danger that "explanations" can leak over into "exuses." That is something all of us must guard against.
At the same time, simply declaring certain kinds of "explanations" off-limits is equally unhelpful, and that's what I think Volokh's statement implies.
To explain is not to excuse. A few -- but still too many -- commentators about the Iraqi situation on various fringes act as though it does. Volokh, by effectively endorsing their mistake in the process of capitalizing on it rhetorically, is not constructive in his 'defense' of his posting from the WSJ.
He then went to Iraq and wrote what terrible people the Iraqi men were because of their attitude to women... all the while banging his translator while his wife remained at home.
Given some of his writings where he threatens to punch Iraqi men for being rude to his translator is is hardly remarkable in the wild and lawless place the US invasion has created, an invasion he so actively supported, that he was killed.