I believe the phrase for those like Stein, however, is "fifth column."

I don't find that term particularly useful even when accurate. It is more rhetorical than descriptive.

You have focused only on the legitimate reasons for opposition to the war. This renders your analysis, ah, sorely incomplete.

Intellectually dishonest arguments are not worthwhile to explore philosophically, in my experience.

I don't really see how morally opposing the U.S. actions in Iraq requires "rooting" for the U.S. to fail. One can morally oppose our conduct in Iraq but simultaneously hope that as many U.S. troops survive as possible.

One can morally oppose our conduct in Iraq while nevertheless hope for the best consequences for U.S. forces in Iraq. I think you're conflating deontology and teleolgy.

If you oppose the war on moral grounds... if you believe that we were morally wrong for intervening, then morally speaking you *ought* to hope that we don't succeed. To hope we succeed is to be supporting that which you view as immoral and is at best inconsistent. I suppose that "My country right or wrong" may be a good stance to take from a self-interest standpoint, but it is a philosophical dead end.

It's the difference between opposing the process and opposing the ends. If you oppose the process (because you think sanctions would be better, because you don't think it'll work, whatever) then there's no issue. If you oppose the ends (because the status quo is preferable, because our motives are bad, whatever) then you hope they fail (or at least you should). If you hope they fail, of course, you're not supporting them.

To reiterate, if you oppose the war because you think it's a bad idea, then you can hope for success and still be morally consistent. If you oppose the war because you think that engaging in it is morally wrong, it seems quite inconsistent to me to root for success.

And on a sidenote, though Iraq is the most obvious example I'm trying to look at this abstractly. I was, for instance, opposed to the war in Kosovo. Everything I say applies as much to me as it does to anyone against the current conflict.

I have no idea what deontology and teleolgy mean. I'll have to look it up later.

The problem with this logic is that it still falls flat.

Joel Stein, at the end of the day, is arguably anti-American for his stance. He wishes to see us lose, on the basis that we are (supposedly) on the wrong moral side. He does not support the troops, because he wants to see them lose, and that necessitates a large number of deaths among them.

In this modern day and age, he is - put bluntly - what used to be called either a "fifth column" or "useful idiot." Someone who was on the inside with the opposition, but supported them.

There's a difference between "my country right or wrong" and "the decision of the majority is made, now it's my responsibility to do the best I can for my country and go along with it." The second part is where people like Joel Stein fail; his opinion is founded on his own desire to see the US fail, because he personally is politically opposed to those in power, and his moral failing is that he does not recognize his own civic responsibilities but instead keeps hammering a point that has already been decided.

The problem with your line of thinking, Mike, is that it doesn't care why someone opposes a particular course of action.

Opposing a war on moral grounds means that one cannot and indeed should not support the troops. Whether that's "anti-American" or not is utterly beside the point. If America is doing something immoral, then the "anti-American" side is the right one to take.

Joel Stein hasn't "failed" at anything. If he believes we're on the wrong side, then he's not rooting for us. That's about as simple as it gets. I may disagree strongly with his moral convictions and his view of the war and our role in it, but the logic is rock solid.

The difference between a maligned "useful idiot" and a benign "consciencious objector" is primarily a matter of point-of-view.

Alex,

"If you oppose the war on moral grounds... if you believe that we were morally wrong for intervening, then morally speaking you *ought* to hope that we don't succeed."

I'm sorry, I don't think this follows. You can believe it was not right action for us to intervene, but still hope that it would be ethically best if as many U.S. soldiers would survive as possible. I simply do not think the conclusion you urge follows from the premises.

"To hope we succeed is to be supporting that which you view as immoral and is at best inconsistent."

Not necessarily. You can believe that invading Iraq was morally inappropriate but that once we are there, it is morally appropriate to hope for quick, decisive success and withdrawal and a minimum of casualties. In fact, I think an argument can be made that the two are entirely consistent. If, for example, your moral opposition to the war was rooted in the fact that American soldiers will die, then, I tend to think you'd support any strategy that will get us out of Iraq as soon as is humanly possible. While such a moral evaluator might root for complete withdrawal as the best option, that does not preclude quick, decisive success as a goal which one might also morally support.

"I suppose that "My country right or wrong" may be a good stance to take from a self-interest standpoint, but it is a philosophical dead end."

I'm not really sure what this means, honestly.

"It's the difference between opposing the process and opposing the ends."

morality based on means = deontology. morality based on ends = teleology.

"If you oppose the ends (because the status quo is preferable, because our motives are bad, whatever) then you hope they fail (or at least you should)."

What ends are you asserting is being opposed here? There's lots of different ends one could posit. I'm not certain which you are referring to.

"If you oppose the war because you think that engaging in it is morally wrong, it seems quite inconsistent to me to root for success."

Sorry, I see no inconsistency whatsoever. And I'd like to pin down a little bit better what your criteria for success actually is, in the way you use the term.

Alex,

/I'm sorry, I don't think this follows. You can believe it was not right action for us to intervene, but still hope that it would be ethically best if as many U.S. soldiers would survive as possible. I simply do not think the conclusion you urge follows from the premises./

It depends, at least in part, on why not intervening was a bad idea. If we were morally wrong, it does follow to an extent that we should not succeed in what we were wrong to do in the first place.

"To hope we succeed is to be supporting that which you view as immoral and is at best inconsistent."

/Not necessarily. You can believe that invading Iraq was morally inappropriate but that once we are there, it is morally appropriate to hope for quick, decisive success and withdrawal and a minimum of casualties. In fact, I think an argument can be made that the two are entirely consistent. If, for example, your moral opposition to the war was rooted in the fact that American soldiers will die, then, I tend to think you'd support any strategy that will get us out of Iraq as soon as is humanly possible. While such a moral evaluator might root for complete withdrawal as the best option, that does not preclude quick, decisive success as a goal which one might also morally support./

You're right on this portion. It's a matter of semantics, I guess, but I don't consider those that say it was wrong to get involved but that we need to win as being "against the war" in the present tense. I am only considering those that believe that our continued involvement is morally wrong when I refer to those "against the war."

/What ends are you asserting is being opposed here? There's lots of different ends one could posit. I'm not certain which you are referring to./

The ends are what we set out to accomplish. The question is setting up a reasonably stable democracy more morally correct than having had to resort to using force against the wishes of the United Nations in a region where we have material interests is morally incorrect.

At this point we've already paid some of the cost (in blood, money, and prestige) and achieved some of the results (Hussein is out). So at this point we're looking at whether the balance of cost to be paid (finishing the job and the casualties and money it will take to do so) is worth the balance of reward (getting the democracy to the point that it is stable and self-sustaining).

That doesn't answer your question directly, but to say "a democratic Iraq" invites the question that we all want that... and there are different degrees of "wanting" something (as determined by willingness to pay a certain price for it) that fit into the equation.

/Sorry, I see no inconsistency whatsoever. And I'd like to pin down a little bit better what your criteria for success actually is, in the way you use the term./

Sometimes things make more sense in your head than they do to others when you explain them. You forget which steps and terms you take for granted that the other person may not. And you switch principles without explaining that you've done so. Sorry on that.

At this juncture, the question of supporting the war or not supporting the war is not a question of whether or not we should have invaded, it's whether we should try to carry it out. Is the ends (a reasonably stable Iraq with a democratically elected leader) worth fighting for (morally, primarily, though I suppose materially as well). If you don't believe that it is and if you think we should turn tail and run, then you're not supporting the troops (unless you can demonstrate that the troops *want* to go home, then everything changes). That's not to say that you hate the troops and hope they all die, but you are hoping they fail or are concluding that they have already failed, which falls well short of "support."

Alex,

"If we were morally wrong, it does follow to an extent that we should not succeed in what we were wrong to do in the first place."

I simply do not agree that this move necessarily follows. I see no reason why one cannot simultaneously assert that it was morally wrong to invade in the first place, but that the very fact of our presence there changes the moral calculus.

"I am only considering those that believe that our continued involvement is morally wrong when I refer to those 'against the war.'"

Can't those who wish for success in the war maintain that our continued involvement is morally wrong? You know me well enough (blogospherically speaking, of course) to know that I'm not a big fan of broad strokes in ethics. One who believes our involvement is morally wrong might wish for whatever events that would lead to the cessation of our intervention. If that includes quick, decisive, success, so be it. Being there, doing what we are doing is morally wrong. So let's do whatever we can to cease intervention ASAP. Immediate withdrawal might be morally best, but sometimes, what one feels is morally best is not always an attainable goal.

Aristotle talked a lot about this, under the notion of phronesis, or practical wisdom. We make the least worst decision. For a person who thinks continued involvement in the war is morally wrong, the least worst (practical) decision might be to win quickly and get the hell out. It's simply a less preferable alternative to what they'd wish for in an ideal world. Still, I just don't see the inconsistency.

"Is the ends (a reasonably stable Iraq with a democratically elected leader) worth fighting for (morally, primarily, though I suppose materially as well). If you don't believe that it is and if you think we should turn tail and run, then you're not supporting the troops (unless you can demonstrate that the troops *want* to go home, then everything changes)."

Why does thinking we should turn tail and run = not supporting the troops? Why can one not contend that calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces in Iraq is absolutely supporting the troops (they may not agree, but we are not discussing this from the troops' perspective, if I understand you correctly, and even if they disagree, that does not establish a contrary position is unreasonable)?

Asserting that we should leave Iraq immediately is, IMO, not equivalent to hoping that the troops fail in their democracy-building mission.

A lot of this is coming down to terminology. I define "support" and "anti-war" a lot more narrowly than you do. On the other hand, I have been saying "hope of failure" when at times I have meant "indifferent of success."

/I simply do not agree that this move necessarily follows. I see no reason why one cannot simultaneously assert that it was morally wrong to invade in the first place, but that the very fact of our presence there changes the moral calculus./

To be more clear: If you are against _the continuation of the war_, which is what I am referring to, then you cannot be supporting the troops because they are doing something you _continue_ to disagree with. I don't disagree that the calculus changes. The difference is that you are considering people that have made the transition of being against going to war towards being in favor of winning it as quickly as possible in the anti-war camp. I am, for the sake of this post (and the way I generally look at things), not considering them in that camp.

/Can't those who wish for success in the war maintain that our continued involvement is morally wrong? You know me well enough (blogospherically speaking, of course) to know that I'm not a big fan of broad strokes in ethics. One who believes our involvement is morally wrong might wish for whatever events that would lead to the cessation of our intervention. If that includes quick, decisive, success, so be it. Being there, doing what we are doing is morally wrong. So let's do whatever we can to cease intervention ASAP. Immediate withdrawal might be morally best, but sometimes, what one feels is morally best is not always an attainable goal./

Aahh, one of our chief philosophical differences. As you know, I haven't the aversion to broad strokes that you do. If you would rather they lose than go into overtime, I don't call that support. Nor do I consider it support that you don't want them to die. That doesn't mean you hate the troops or even oppose them, but it means, to me, that you don't support them. You support a quick resolution.

The question I would ask such a person is: Which is more important, getting? What people want ideally is not unimportant here. If you don't affirmatively care who wins, you don't support anybody. According to my binaryish view of the world, I suppose.

/Aristotle talked a lot about this, under the notion of phronesis, or practical wisdom. We make the least worst decision. For a person who thinks continued involvement in the war is morally wrong, the least worst (practical) decision might be to win quickly and get the hell out. It's simply a less preferable alternative to what they'd wish for in an ideal world. Still, I just don't see the inconsistency./

I think it's because we are applying the terms "support" and "anti-war" differently.

/Why does thinking we should turn tail and run = not supporting the troops? Why can one not contend that calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces in Iraq is absolutely supporting the troops (they may not agree, but we are not discussing this from the troops' perspective, if I understand you correctly, and even if they disagree, that does not establish a contrary position is unreasonable)?/

If the troops don't want to be there, then pulling them off the field can be considered supporting them. If they do want to win, pulling them off the field isn't supportive, in my estimation. I suppose you can take a paternalistic attitude that you know what's better for them better than they do. But since we are talking about the object of support (supporting the troops specifically, as opposed to the President or the war) their perspective matters (though perhaps not to the exclusion of everyone else).

/Asserting that we should leave Iraq immediately is, IMO, not equivalent to hoping that the troops fail in their democracy-building mission./

Sometimes you cede ground without even realizing it. Or I do. Or did, anyway. You're right that it's not necessarily hoping for them to fail and that stroke was perhaps overly broad. It depends more on why one thinks the war is immoral than that one necessarily does. It isn't supporting the troops, but not supporting the troops is not the same as opposing them as one can be indifferent (by, for instance, wanting a quick resolution first and foremost regardless of victor).

Hey Alex,

Well, I think we've pretty much exhausted this one, but I do have a much clearer idea on what you are saying than I did when we started, and a much better idea of exactly where and why we disagree (and for the record, I do not think you have a very binary view of the world, though we have different views on ethics).

As an aside, I'd just like to say how nice it is to be able to disagree respectfully. I just had to ban myself from a website I've been frequenting for some time (mostly conservative authors), because one dude got so mad at me he starting calling me names. If I want that, I can go to LGF or Free Republic.

Anyway, it's nice to be able to disagree respectfully.

I've all but stopped commenting on left-of-center blogs. The assumptions that liberals have about people that think like I do make two-way communication often impossible. I've no doubt that it's much the same the other direction. And with the staunch libertarians. And so on.

This has become a political blog again, I suppose, but I don't consider it a part of the political blogosphere anymore. That's a load off my shoulders.

I know you never accused me of being binaryish, but it's an allegation with a ring of truth to it. I am much more comfortable starting in black and white and inserting the gray in from there. It's how I logically think things through.

Witness my provocative 550 word columns for the Daily Cougar (black and white) and my much-more-than-550-word posts on the blog, which are infected with gray all over.

Others smarter (and dumber) than myself just don't think that way, which is fine. The way I figure it people like me need people who think like that, and vice-versa. One of the side effects of growing older and calming down, I think, has been an appreciation that not all ways of thinking are appropriate for all situations... which makes it good that people think differently. Even if I sometimes and verbal about how much it can frustrate me :).