The empty moralism of the anti-war left
Joe Ciricione joined Briahna Joy Gray on her podcast to discuss the war in Ukraine and the Congressional Progressive Caucus letter calling for negotiations between the United States and Russia. The podcast is subscribers only, but a clip and follow up talk by BJG are available on line.
BJG is a talented debater, but her arguments against support for Ukraine are an absurd, moralistic mess. My rough transcript from the clip above:
There are gangs that have overtaken Haiti, there are the cholera pandemic that was started by the U.N., UN members raped Haitians, a third of Pakistan was underwater due to climate crisis, should we go to invade China because Uigurs are in concentration camps? . . .
Until you can articulate to me what the rationale is behind where America intervenes and where it doesn’t, and give me some kind of moral accounting that makes me believe it is actually about moral commitment and realizing how much of our money and our resources in the richest country in the world can go to saving lives and increasing quality of life for the most people as opposed to a strategic military intervention for territory, resources and political control. If you can articulate to me why this truly the most deserving humanitarian case on the planet, as opposed to a continuation of these cold war policies we want our economic system, our oppressive by the way economic system, to maintain global dominance then I can start to entertain a conversation about what our intervention should be how long and how much. But there is nowhere in the entire public sphere that that conversation is actually happening and nowhere close to a rationalization that’s been presented.
From the follow up talk:
We’re leftists, we obviously know and believe that the Democratic Party is controlled by warmongers. The deep state knows no D or R party affiliation. This is not even a controversial statement. . . .
Joe struggled to answer one fundamental question: What assurances are there that US aid is motivated by a humanitarian drive towards peace rather than military adventurism . . . Libya . . . Afghanistan . . . Iraq . . . I think it’s a reasonable question. Russia has violated international law by invading Ukraine, but given America’s past behavior what assurances can experts like Joe give us that the US’s role here isn’t pretextual . . . I think it’s a necessary question given that America regularly ignores humanitarian causes like the genocide in Rwanda or Bosnia and since our own president and state department officials keep saying that our goal is to weaken Russia, a goal that is not quite the same as protecting Ukrainian people or borders . . . the fundamental question, why save these women, these children, but not these ones . . . why and to what extent American should play the world’s policeman, and if it does adopt the role of global cop, why are we only choosing to police certain neighborhoods?
This is all just childish moralism. Sure, the United States has too often been a bad actor in international affairs. It intervenes when it shouldn’t (Iraq), and it sits on its hands when it should intervene (Rwanda, Bosnia). But what does this have to do with whether we should support Ukraine in its fight against Russian occupation and genocide?
Why does it matter what is motivating our support for Ukraine? In truth, there is no single motivation for supporting Ukraine. I support Ukraine for humanitarian reasons, and also for strategic reasons (mostly to avoid the instability and incentives for nuclear proliferation that an easy Russian victory would produce; I consider weakening Russia to be good but a secondary consideration). But I don’t really care very much why others support Ukraine. I’m looking for allies, not moral purity. (Of course, if there was some reason to think that bad motives would lead to a disastrous peace, that might make me reconsider my support, but I do not see this as a substantial risk in this case. The peace could be disastrous, but not because we are acting from bad motives.) Too many progressives are more interested in moral purity than finding allies and building a coalition that can win elections and get things done.
A few other points:
BJG takes it for granted that leftists “know and believe” the Democrats are warmongers. This kind of identity-based reasoning about a complicated foreign policy question – rather than evaluating the case for supporting Ukraine on the merits – is a recipe for bad decision making. It is easy, though!
BJG may be troubled by the fact that we are intervening to protect Europeans, when we left Syrians, Uigurs, Bosnians, Rwandans to their fate. (She doesn’t come out and say the part about Europeans in the clips I listened to, but it’s a common complaint and a natural interpretation of her remarks.) At least in some cases there are good reasons we might help Ukraine and not others. To take the obvious case, there is a very good reason not to attack China to protect the Uigurs, viz., China has nuclear weapons. There may also be economic motives to help Ukraine that were not present in other cases. But let’s say that we would not be aiding the Ukrainians if they were non-European. This double standard would indeed be wrong, but it doesn’t mean we should leave the Ukrainians to their fate. (For the record, I suspect that we would aid the Ukrainians even if they were non-European. But regardless, the notion that we cannot aid Ukraine if we would have wrongly not aided them if they had not been European is absurd – two wrongs do not make a right – as is BJG’s insistence that we need to answer unanswerable questions about counterfactuals and motivations before deciding whether to do the right thing in this case.)
Based on other clips not transcribed:
BJG seems to think that money spent in Ukraine should be spent here at home. But there is no reason to think that this is possible. Republicans did not say “we will support either a child tax credit or aid for Ukraine”.
BJG seems to resent higher gas prices being paid by Americans. But does she really believe that we shouldn’t even put sanctions on Russia for its invasion?
BJG seems to think that support for Ukraine is bad for Ukrainians, because Russia will ultimately prevail (we are encouraging them to “fight to the last Ukrainian”). This is paternalistic and reflects a serious misunderstanding of the situation on the ground. There are no guarantees in war, but there is a good chance that Ukraine will retake all of its territory outside of Crimea, and a reasonable chance they will take Crimea as well if the United States and Europe support this (my guess is that we won’t, but we’ll see).
Finally, a couple of points about rhetoric and debate.
BJG is a talented debater, but she is more interested in vindicating her vision of leftism than arriving at the right policy choice. She shifts the burden of proof to Ciricione (“until you can articulate to me”), and frames the issue in a way that there is no way he can possibly meet it. BJG arguably engages in a Gish Gallop, flinging out multiple arguments that are impossible for a debate partner to refute. I tried to respond to many of her points above, but this is impossible in a debate. The right response in a debate is to declare that foreign policy is messy and not based on clear moral principles, that failing to help Ukraine will not undo the invasion of Iraq or save the Uigurs from persecution, and that in this case the reasons for helping Ukraine are very strong.
There is also the concern that, if successful in Ukraine, Russia will continue to expand its borders. Minimal resistance to their invasions of Georgia and Crimea suggest that is what happened with Ukraine. Such continued expansion efforts are highly likely to lead to a world war which concerns progressives as well as the rest of us. Also there is the concern that China may invade Taiwan if Russia succeeds in Ukraine. Some of us consider a nuclear war to be the ultimate immorality.
Ah , dusting off the old ‘domino theory’ that was used in Vietnam. No points for originality.
Because the domino theory was wrong in Vietnam doesn’t mean it’s wrong here. I assume you noted the prior actions in Georgia and Crimea. There was nothing similar in Vietnam. Originality or lack of it is irrelevant.
Joe Ciricione joined Briahna Joy Gray on her podcast to discuss the war in Ukraine and the Congressional Progressive Caucus letter calling for negotiations between the United States and Russia. The podcast is subscribers only, but a clip and follow up talk by BJG are available on line.
BJG is a talented debater, but her arguments against support for Ukraine are an absurd, moralistic mess. My rough transcript from the clip above:
“There are gangs that have overtaken Haiti, there are the cholera pandemic that was started by the U.N., UN members raped Haitians, a third of Pakistan was underwater due to climate crisis, should we go to invade China because Uigurs are in concentration camps?. . .Until you can articulate to me what the rationale is behind where America intervenes and where it doesn’t, and give me some kind of moral accounting that makes me believe it is actually about moral commitment and realizing how much of our money and our resources in the richest country in the world can go to saving lives and increasing quality of life for the most people as opposed to a strategic military intervention for territory, resources and political control. If you can articulate to me why this truly the most deserving humanitarian case on the planet, as opposed to a continuation of these cold war policies we want our economic system, our oppressive by the way economic system, to maintain global dominance then I can start to entertain a conversation about what our intervention should be how long and how much. But there is nowhere in the entire public sphere that that conversation is actually happening and nowhere close to a rationalization that’s been presented.”
From the follow up talk:
“We’re leftists, we obviously know and believe that the Democratic Party is controlled by warmongers. The deep state knows no D or R party affiliation. This is not even a controversial statement. .. .Joe struggled to answer one fundamental question: What assurances are there that US aid is motivated by a humanitarian drive towards peace rather than military adventurism . . .. . . why and to what extent American should play the world’s policeman, and if it does adopt the role of global cop, why are we only choosing to police certain neighborhoods?”
Libya . . . Afghanistan . . . Iraq . . . I think it’s a reasonable question.Russia has violated international law by invading Ukraine, but given America’s past behavior what assurances can experts like Joe give us that the US’s role here isn’t pretextual . .. I think it’s a necessary question given that America regularly ignores humanitarian causes like the genocide in Rwanda or Bosnia and since our own president and state department officials keep saying that our goal is to weaken Russia,a goal that is not quite the same as protecting Ukrainian people or borders . . .the fundamental question, why save these women, these children, but not these onesEverything stuck in my opinion is a non sequitur. This about Ukraine and should the US support Ukraine. The rest is for a different discussion as there are different actors involved.
I am not fighting this war. You are not fighting this war. She is not fighting this war. Should we be fighting this war beyond supplies or should we let the Ukrainians fight it. I vote for the later. They are doing damn well doing it too.
The Marine Corp sent every 155mm Howitzer they had in inventory. They are going to Himars instead. Not a smart idea in my opinion. 155s are manual. Himars are not.
Western Europe should have and should want a huge buffer between them and Russia. That buffer is Ukraine. I have heard of and seen the energy efficiency of Europe. Just like the US being dependent on Asian, etc. manufacturers, they are finding out a decency on Russia is not working out.
Finally, how many Americans have died in this war? Zero, I believe. The better argument is “guns or butter.” Which one should we pick?
The guns or butter argument is just regurgitation to distract. This is an argument that conservatives make, not leftists. There is plenty of money to do both, unless you give it all to the rich instead.
Lend lease is in a way a gift to the rich, but it’s mostly a balance sheet game.
Jeremy:
May be the wrong statement on my part. Give them the damn weapons. For once we are aligned with someone who will fight without our troops. Give them the food too.
I have no problem letting them have the weapons. Eurasianist policy goals imply that Putin won’t stop at Ukraine, and the country that’s next after Moldova would be a NATO ally. The best way by far to avoid that eventuality or to reduce the commitment we would need to make when Russia gets around to the Baltics is to allow the very capable Ukrainians to erode Russia’s forces.
The Pakistan donor conference is coming up. We’ll see if there is a congress in place in the US that will allow us to step up for that cause. Haiti is a continuously sticky situation that we are eventually going to be heavily involved in again, much to the chagrin of the locals and probably the same “leftists,” who are allegedly bothered that we don’t exercise power there. Over 200 years, Haiti has managed to be a failed state more often than not with or without the help of the United States because of continuous corruption and natural disasters.
Arming Ukraine is in line with our strategic needs, doesn’t cost us much because so many of the resources were already committed to the Afghans or mothballs, and falls into the category of “things that congress will vote for.” Moreover, the Europeans are bearing most of the cost of the war continuing in terms of refugees and negative economic externalities. It’s a win-win-win unless we all die in a nuclear holocaust.
Of course, as far as the US & Nato are concerned, we/they are handling this as a ‘proxy war’, which for all practical purposes is just like any other war, and in this case large scale even.
It should remind us of WW2, with Russia standing in for Germany.
This can easily become ‘de-stabilizing’. We seem to be saying to them ‘Don’t do that.’ Keep it ‘stable’, that is. Which mainly means (for us): No Nukes. Given that this is for them, a war they intend to win, anything can happen really. Which is not good for us.
Some remarks above suggest that’s ok with you guys. Just so you realize, this is basically the Neo-Con point of view that carried us through our experiences of the first 20 years of this century in Iraq and Afghanistan. With no nukes being used however. So it can be done?
It must be noted that, implicitly, this perhaps seem to US neo-cons like getting even with Russia for our proxy war in Afghanistan particularly. First act was Russia’s failed war there, which led more or less directly to the end of the USSR. Led to large losses in Russian forces. The 2nd act was our 20-year war there, after 9/11, in which Russia apparently had to support the forces that defeated them there previously (?). Mainly affected Afghan people, but also US & Nato soldiers, but not Russians.
Note: we mainly won that war, early on, until we decided to drag it out since we hadn’t yet found Bin Laden, and after we got him we had to keep going until we lost.
Now it’s act 3. The finale? Large Russian losses, devastation & large civilian losses in Ukraine, not so long ago a major part of the USSR.
As the Brits say, Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires.
That hasn’t been said of Ukraine, yet.
Also, note that Russia’s war with Afghanistan, a major USSR defeat had covert US involvement, with armaments provided to local forces. Lots of Stinger shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles as I recall – very effective against Russian helicopters.
“The game-changing ability of the Stinger missile has been documented in past wars as well. In fact, the weapon was used to deadly effect by the Afghan Mujahideen against invading Soviet troops during the second half of the 1980s.” (from out on the web)
However, US & Nato troops are not in the fighting. Many are at the ready.
Pentagon announces deployments
Pentagon – May 2022
… Defense Lloyd J. Austin III has ordered the deployment of around 10,500 personnel in the coming months to replace Army units ordered to the region in advance of, and in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. …
… these forces are not going to Ukraine, but are there to ensure the defense of NATO countries. …
… the 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team of the 101st Airborne Division will deploy approximately 4,200 soldiers to replace the 3rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team of Fort Bragg, North Carolina’s 82nd Airborne Division in Poland.
In addition, the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team of the 1st Cavalry Division, based at Fort Hood, Texas, will deploy approximately 4,200 soldiers to replace the 1st Armored Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division in Germany. …
That is “a ‘proxy war’, which for all practical purposes is just like any other war” except that “that our soldiers are not actually engaged” in combat, yet. They are nearby however, with a lot of other Nato forces, and “at the ready.”
The Phoney War (French: Drôle de guerre; German: Sitzkrieg) was an eight-month period at the start of World War II, during which there was only one limited military land operation on the Western Front, when French troops invaded Germany‘s Saar district. Nazi Germany carried out the invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939; the Phoney period began with the declaration of war by the United Kingdom and France against Nazi Germany on 3 September 1939, after which little actual warfare occurred, and ended with the German invasion of France and the Low Countries on 10 May 1940. Although there was no large-scale military action by Britain and France, they did begin some economic warfare, especially with the naval blockade, and shut down German surface raiders. They created elaborate plans for numerous large-scale operations designed to cripple the German war effort. … (Wikipedia)
What we currently have is arguably a variation on the Sitzkrieg of WW2 between the German invasion of Poland in Sep, 1939 and their invasion of countries to their west in May, 1940. (There other invasions carried out by Germany in this period, in Scandinavia.)
Well, just like ‘just like any other modern war’ that our soldiers are not actually engaged in other than logistically. This is an evolution of ‘cold war’ that just snuck up on us.
I am reminded that some years back, a logistics & supply general from the US Army, a ROTC grad from my alma mater RPI, was killed by an Afghan soldier who was actually with the Taliban, on his first overseas assignment.
The Search for Missing Russian Soldiers
NY Times – Nov 4
Russian families searching for loved ones say the system for finding missing soldiers is as disorganized as Vladimir Putin’s military effort, which has been marked by dysfunction from the beginning.
… The scale is staggering. The Pentagon in late summer estimated that 70,000 to 80,000 Russian soldiers have been killed and wounded, with many others missing.
But their fate has remained a mystery for many of their loved ones back home, who say the system for finding missing soldiers is as disorganized as Russia’s military effort, which has been marked by dysfunction from the beginning. …
Russia Sends Ill-Trained Draftees Into Combat Amid Losses, Analysts Say
Ukraine’s military and Western analysts say Russian forces are making fruitless attacks in eastern Ukraine and taking heavy losses after a hastily arranged draft added over 300,000 troops.
Russia is funneling newly drafted conscripts with little training to the front line in Ukraine’s east, while mounting intensified but ineffective attacks and suffering heavy casualties, according to the Ukrainian military and Western analysts.
Grisly videos of Russian infantry in poorly prepared positions being struck by artillery have partly supported those assertions, as has reporting in Russian news media of mobilized soldiers telling relatives about high casualty rates. The videos, filmed by Ukrainian drones, have not been independently verified, and their exact locations could not be determined.
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia announced on Friday that the draft he ordered on Sept. 21, a chaotic effort that swept up some men who should have been exempt, had added 318,000 troops to Russia’s military, with 49,000 of them already in combat. But he did not acknowledge the widespread complaints of inadequate training and equipment, with some soldiers being killed within days of deployment. …
Where are the Progressives who used to be so adamantly opposed to the Neo-con ‘warmongers’ of the 9/11 era?
They are urging the government to pressure Ukraine into negotiations.
Progressives aligned with the GOP will appreciate the importance of ending Dem control of Congress, such as it is.
Republican gains in Congress would pressure Biden on Ukraine.
NY Times – Nov 6
A Republican takeover of the House or Senate in the midterm elections next week could complicate the Biden administration’s efforts to defend Ukraine, slow the confirmation of key U.S. ambassadors and lead to public interrogations of officials who were involved in the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan last year.
Congress has more leverage over domestic affairs than over foreign policy, thanks to the president’s broad powers as commander in chief. But Democrats are bracing for a far more complicated — and, they fear, more politicized — national security environment if Republicans control legislative calendars, committee chairmanships and spending power.
Most worrisome for the Biden administration is the prospect that Republicans might slow the torrent of money and weapons to Ukraine that began before Russia invaded in February. Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader, said last month that a Republican-led House would be unwilling to approve “blank check” assistance for Ukraine.
Congress has approved $60 billion in aid for Ukraine since the war began, with no explicit conditions. But some Republicans, encouraged by prominent conservatives like the Fox News host Tucker Carlson, are increasingly questioning the price tag of U.S. aid to the country. …
“A Republican takeover of the House or Senate in the midterm elections next week could … lead to public interrogations of officials who were involved in the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan last year.”
It’s about time…
Trump’s post-election military orders
Washington Post – Oct 13
It could be that the Washington Post paywall has been lifted.