Predictably, both pro- and anti-war opinion mongers have found much in the war to date to bolster their respective moral high grounds. But that which is predictable is also boring. More interesting is to wonder what it would take to engender a change of heart on either side. Any conviction worth having should be falsifiable. Popper’s theory of epistemology turned conventional wisdom on its head in its contribution to the scientific method: Theories are only useful to the extent they are falsifiable, i.e. can be disproved through empirical tests.Beliefs that can never be tested against empirical evidence are merely dogmatic.
So I have constructed a set of tests that I offer up for consideration by both sides of the debate. For example, if you are for the war, you should agree now to admit it was a mistake if most of the following scenarios take place:
Conversely, if you are against the war, you should agree now to admit you were mistaken if most of the following scenarios take place:
Update 25/03/03: Maybe not.
Feel free to suggest your own criteria. It is of course possible for scenarios from both sides to play out, but the litmus test, I think, will be the reception of US and UK troops as they enter Baghdad.
As far as military objectives are concerned, I think the war is going well for the US, even after today. Anybody who assumed the US and UK would suffer at most the odd flesh wound is placing unrealistic expectations on the coalition. Television coverage is riveting, and worth a post all to its own. Here in Sweden, CNN is on all the time, but another channel achieves balanced coverage by alternating between hours of Fox News and Al Jazeera. Both are blatantly partial, and bizarrely compelling.
But Iraq has the potential of turning into another Vietnam, with a nightmare scenario wherein the civilians are liberated against their will, and good intentions pave a path to hell. Gulf War One is widely considered to have been the war where the US decisively overcame its Vietnam War syndrome. But one hopes that the US military did not forget the lessons of Vietnam. Afghanistan is not a good comparison for the challenges facing the US and UK in Iraq: There are much larger population centers in Iraq, there is a trained, patriotic army defending them, and they have the morale boost of defending their homeland against foreign invaders. The coalition operates with the handicap of an unwillingness to inflict civilian casualties, yet with a likelihood of such casualties occurring and with the success of their mission depending to a large extent on their reception by this civilian population.
Confidence based on expectations of inviolability is the most brittle kind. And the morale of soldiers who are not absolutely convinced they must fight to save their families is the most vulnerable. For coalition troops, the coming days will test both their confidence and their morale.
Interesting that you suggest the litmus test could be the reception of U.S./U.K. troops in Baghdad.
I don’t think anyone would argue that Saddam is not a horrible person. I watched footage of the meeting after the palace coup that saw him steal power where he calmly read off the names of traitors in his party, including close friends, and had them taken outside to be killed. The jubilation of the Iraqi people will not magically turn this into a U.N-sanctioned war, or erase the precedent of a superpower disregarding world opinion and international law to further its own agenda. Mohandas K. Gandhi once stated that people would prefer their own bad government over the good government of an alien power.
Furthermore, this new invasion has eradicated any victories the United States has achieved in its attempts to overcome the Vietname War syndrome: Protecting against the threat of Communism, the U.S. learned that ten hired soldiers are, in the end, no match for one defending his home. And now, four decades later, fighting terrorism and its self-proclaimed “Axis of Evil,” the U.S. will learn that lesson again.
The end does not justify the means. I am against war completely. No circumstances will overshadow the illegal and immoral nature of this attack, or the undermining of the United Nations and the dangerous precedent now available to other aggressive nations like the U.S., and sway my decision in favour of it.
I’d also like to comment on your proposed litmus test – as in general I think that the urging for democracy and freedom in Iraqi is largely exaggerated. The Iraqi people, I think, simply have no concept of the word – they’ve never lived in democracy and probably can’t envision it – and thus I don’t think there’s any reason to think that they will be grateful. We shouldn’t expect or demand it, at any rate.
Even 50% of the russians, _today_, believe that Stalin brought good to the country. It won’t be easy to erase the old regime out of the Iraqi minds either, especially if the process towards democracy, freedom and better economics goes slow.
However, if we handle the aftermath in a good way, we can ask them in five to twenty years – when they know what we’re asking them about.
My 2 cents.
The Prime Minister of Australia being ousted from power due to the war- is enough to make most anti-war protestors pro war.
K
For the record (and until I get TrackBack to work with MemeFirst), there is a long comment thread about this post here.