Apologia pro causa mea

(I'm reproducing the e-mail that I sent to Jacques (akkuza.blogspot.com) It's pretty wide-ranging, but I thought that it might provoke comment, and hopefully a better understanding of what I believe and why I believe it)

Jacques;

First of all, happy birthday.

I apologise if this intrusion into your mailbox is unwelcome, but I thought that an e-mail would allow me to best express my views about the matter we've been discussing.

Before I say anything about Iraq, let me make a few things clear. I do not believe that George W. Bush or his Administration are infallible; I do think it fairly obvious, to any observer not partial to a particularly skewed point of view, that the discussion of Gulf War II and its aftermath is complex, and not one amenable to sloganeering; and moreover, I believe that serious errors have been committed in the prosecution of this war, to the extent that if I had known before what I know now, perhaps I might not have supported it.

To turn to Fallujah, let me say this: the operation in November, in all its particulars, was undertaken by a mixture of American and Iraqi forces, with the consent of the Iraqi Executive under the then-Iraqi Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi - so any blame, if blame must be allocated, should be divided. Secondly, let me concede that the operation in Fallujah was indeed barbarous (and here I am not referring to the allegations re chemical weapons) On the other hand, it was simply not tenable to allow the insurgents a 'home base' from which they could continue to plan and launch attacks with impunity. Something needed to be done - and this 'something' was made all the more difficult by the fact that the insurgency in that area often did its best to shield itself from attack by intermingling with the civilian population of that town - particularly in mosques and hospitals.

About this specific accusation: first, if the allegations can be proved, then I will be among the first to condemn the individuals involved. I don't, however, believe that they have been proved. The standard, when such serious charges are made, has to be beyond proving your case to the extent that a preponderance of the evidence points towards a certain view. I really do believe that before accusing a government of acting so outside the boundaries of decent human behaviour, one should attempt to establish the veracity of any claim beyond all reasonable doubt - and I don't believe that the proof, as you have laid it out and as it was presented in that documentary, meets such a requirement. Knowing what I do of warfare in general, and the Iraqi conflict in particular, I find it plausible to believe that the bodies in question could have been doctored post-facto for propoganda purposes.

None of this, of course, takes away from the fact the man in that picture was murdered, and the same can be said of many thousands of other civilians. I feel repulsion whenever I contemplate that reality (As an aside, my uncle on my mother's side lost the use of his eyes to an errant bomb exploding in his vicinity, so I will be the last person to glorify war.) Nevertheless, that does not prevent me from believing that it is sometimes necessary. The only way to keep your hands perfectly clean is pacifism - a posture I do not believe it is possible to adopt in the current international environment. The Western world has 'kept its hands clean' in the past (Bosnia) and present (the Sudan) - and at what human cost? But I digress...

I wasn't trying to justify American conduct, or even explain it, by alluding to the historical precedents of various European states. All that my recitation proved is that it is in the nature of each state to commit atrocities; that, large or small, no state is immune to abusing the power it holds over its citizens, and others. That is why I do not believe it possible to hold attitudes of moral superiority, or to talk of 'one world', as if only the members of this world held on to the virtues of humanity, while the rest are barbarians. If you've studied history at all, and I believe you have, one of its unavoidable lessons is that no culture, or civilization, is above dehumanizing its opponents. This is one aspect of the human condition that, I'm sure we can both agree, we ought to work to transcend - whether through international law, or education, arms-limitation treaties and the like.

But while this is so - while we are still, all of us, imperfect and lacking, (some more so than others) do you really believe that one can honestly condemn all supporters of the war, or even all Republicans in toto as somehow lacking in human decency, in the 'milk of human kindness'? How can you possiby hope to build the world you speak of if you just summarily dismiss people like that? Is it not possible for two people to honestly disagree about a subject without assuming the worst about each other's motives. You did not agree with the war, and I did. Can we not live without my saying that you would have been an appeaser in the '30s and me being accused of being a lackey of GWB?

Finally, let me say a few words about the title of your post - Stop America Now. If the stopping you are referring to has to do with prisoner abuse, that extrajudicial archipelago in Guantanamo Bay, and similar excesses, then I wholeheartedly agree with it. Somehow, though, I don't think that's all it means. I suspect that you would not be displeased if the Americans were somehow 'defeated' in Iraq - if they were forced to withdraw dishonorably. To which I would reply....cui bono? Who would gain from such events? Yes, a great number of people might experience satisfaction, might be able to say that they were right all along, but a withdrawal would have practical consequences. Potential rogue states would be encouraged to challenge the will of the international community in the belief that it would not take meaningful steps to counteract them. The United States would retreat into isolationism, ignoring its international obligations, and only intervening when its own vital national interests were concerned, if at all. This is to say nothing of the damage that a premature withdrawal would cause in Iraq itself, where the lack of an American presence would give free rein to sectarian violence. Is such a state of affairs really preferable to what is occurring now? I'm not so sure...

Like it or not, the U.S is generally a source of stability in the international system - a stability which redounds to the benefit of many nations, including Malta. I don\'t think that we live in the best of all possible worlds, in Panglossian terms, but I believe that a world that is ruled by what is essentially a benevolent hegemon is much preferable to a world where all states are roughly equal, and the pursuit of power takes on greater importance.

I hope this contributes towards establishing a higher level of understanding between us, and I look forward to hearing your response, if you do decide to respond to this.

Yours, sincerely