Confessions of a Bleeding Heart Warmonger

This is, unofficially, part of Hate Michael Moore Week--not because it is about disliking the monumentally rotund and unshaven filmmaker, but because it is related somewhat to his newest film. I was reading an article over at Reason this morning, and I came across Brian Doherty's piece on Fahrenheit 9/11.

Doherty doesn’t reside on the same side of the political fence as me, nor is really anywhere near Michael Moore. Still, he has been consistently opposed to the war in Iraq and extremely critical of the Bush administration, but from the big L Libertarian standpoint, not the left wing, anti-Starbucks and globalization standpoint. I was curious to see what he would do with the Moore film.

What he's written seems fair and reasonable to me--and his commentary on this acting as a sort of litmus test for political biases by revealing true colors on exposure seems remarkably accurate (and clever).

Since he is kind enough to reveal his biases, allow me to state mine for the record: I am and was a closet isolationist and moderate Republican before 9/11, and pro-Afghanistan invasion and pro-Iraq invasion following 9/11. I'm generally supportive of Bush (and still plan to vote for him), but have found his Presidency to this point to be both disappointing at times and inspirational at times. I am convinced, though, that the only way to minimize the risks of terrorism coming from the Middle East is to see change come to that region--political and social change reflecting the desire for some level of liberalization that lurks under the surface in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. In regards to this film and this conversation, these are my beliefs.

In Doherty's article, I came across something that makes quite a bit of sense to me, though.

Cavils about "balance" and "fairness" from war supporters regarding this movie are almost all bitter jokes—I'll take seriously complaints that this movie has too many bloody corpses, smiling pre-invasion Iraqis, and weeping mothers only from those whose pro-war discourse grapples seriously with the fact that there were/are any of those.

Works of art or journalism that are dedicatedly and fairly representative of the dizzyingly broad and complicated skein of reality are to be applauded and treasured. But they aren't the only kind that deserve to exist in discourse over public policy. Boldly staking out ground is also useful. Moore's movie sells itself as two-fisted goal-oriented agitprop, so it is only fair to judge it as such. (And even as such, it fails.) But it does deliver some truths about war that too much standard discourse elides: That it makes young men enthusiastic murderers—and then can make them disillusioned, cold, empty, and haunted. That what we did in Iraq—whatever else it did—destroyed the lives, hopes, homes, and loves of many, many ordinary people who used to walk down the streets of Baghdad smiling, laughing, and playing; that it left and continues to leave many mothers of both Iraqis and American soldiers bent over in grief and crying out to God for understanding that will never come.

Whatever Moore's other failures of journalism and art, that is both a specific factual truth and a deep spiritual truth about war that it is always appropriate to bring to the table, and one that any defender of this war, or any, should neither fear addressing, nor scoff at or belittle when it is brought to the fore.

I'm happy to mock Michael Moore, I'm happy to be dismissive of his lies and misdirection, but these are things that can't be brushed aside with a grin and a sarcastically partisan comment. No, these things deserve attention.

We should all see the results of those things we support since we do bear some of the moral burden of those things forever. That is, in supporting the war effort and in urging others to do the same, I have to accept that I supported an act that resulted in the deaths of soldiers and civilians, that left homes and buildings in ruins, that left injuries and hurts that will never heal. I supported something that left children without their fathers, wives without their husbands, and families with their beloved brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters. I put my (meager, at least in the metaphorical sense) weight behind military actions that have absolutely and utterly devastated lives.

And my heart aches at that. The thought of what is left in the wake of war is something that leaves me wanting to weep.

As a person who supported the war, it isn't at all unfair to throw that in my face and ask for a response. That doesn't mean that the war was unjustified or that any of my arguments for the effort are suddenly stripped of their power, but that it exists as one of those many factors in decision-making--in deciding whether a country should or shouldn't go to war.

I supported this war, in spite of an understanding that people would die and lives would be changed in horrific ways, because I believed that it would make the world a little bit better in the end. I believed that by helping to install a better government that respected rights to a level that most Middle Eastern countries do not, we would be helping to set the tone for a sea change in the politics that make up our relations with that part of the world. I had also hoped that it would make life better for Iraqis in the long run.

I still cling to those hopes, and, as a person who has long paid attention to the tone of journalism in the region, I think some of those hopes are still reasonable. The talk of change and introspection in outlets like Arab News are of a nature and regularity that do indicate a change in the region--or at least the fear that change must come if those nations are to live without the fear of a long-term and wide ranging war that most of them seem to realize they cannot win.

And life should be better for the Iraqis as a whole. What we've given them is a chance to build a government and a nation that will be prosperous and free. Whether that happens is an entirely different question--but with our continued help and support, I still remain optimistic.

If these goals are reached, then the war did help to make the world a better place; if not, then it was either the wrong thing to do or it was a lost opportunity. As with the Cold War, though, the final analysis will have to wait for years and there are more battles to be fought. Some of those battles will be fought with guns and soldiers, some will be fought with diplomatic pressure, some will be fought with accountants and frozen bank accounts.

There will be missteps, there will be successes, and there will be events that don't fall cleanly into either category--at least without the benefit of decades of hindsight.

I support this effort and still believe in the cause, but that doesn't shield me from the mental weight of what it is that I support.

And, no, there is nothing unfair about pressing me on the issue.

Read Doherty's review.

Posted by zombyboy at July 2, 2004 08:17 AM | TrackBack