Stardate 20021009.1338

(On Screen): Some people who seek to understand something try to look at what it is, in order to gain comprehension. Others seek to prove that their preconceptions are correct, and seek confirming evidence while discarding anything contradictory. They may not even realize that they're doing it; it's an intellectual trap that's easy to fall into. I fear I've just help feed someone's preconceptions, and by doing so have deeply deceived him, or perhaps permitted him to deceive himself.

Josh Koenig and I have exchanged several cordial letters over the last few days, and one of those letters in part inspired my large post from yesterday. I attempted to demonstrate that people who advocate fighting a war in Iraq aren't doing so because they think that war is anything to be desired, but rather because it's less undesirable than the alternatives. In part, he writes as follows:

However, there are people who have very well thought out and developed rationales for going to war. They still have fear at their core reason, "we can't afford not to," but they've thought through the thing. They've thought all the way through the air raids and the bloody march of occupation, all the way through reconstruction, and all the way through a more or less permanent military presence in Iraq. They've thought through all of this, and they see this course of action as our only possible avenue to safety.

These are people like Steven C. Den Beste, who's been kind enough to exchange some emails with me, who came out and boldly said we need to be imperial for our own safety. A Pax Americana is our only hope.

I didn't say that. More on that later.

Steven tells me he hates war, but at the same time devotes more than 4,500 words to stories of brutality, sacrifice and heroism. He revels in it, I daresay. I don't think he loves seeing people killed any more than I do, though I doubt neither of us has witnessed such an event up close and personal. I don't think he sees war as a great football contest. However, it seems clear that duty and honor are quite romantic notions to him, and that this romanticism plays a part in his rationale for war.

Steven is a prolific and talented writer who is strongly committed to his point of view, but I believe he is wrong. He knows an awful lot about the recent history of warfare, but seems to understand considerably less about this history of nations. He seems to think an American Empire would be different from other empires in the past, that our colonialism would be better than the rest of the world's, that our power is above corruption. I disagree. When I think about this conflict, I see it setting a course for the next 100 years. How these events play out will in large part determine the course of the 21st Century.

And having decided that I do actually advocate American Imperialism he proceeds to build an immense rhetorical castle in the air none of which is relevant, since I do not think there should be an American empire.

Steven says he's not pro-war. He says, "Nobody sane is pro-war. I'm anti-passivity. I'm anti-let-them-kill-us-with-impunity. I'm anti-American-city-being-nuked." This reveals a dangerous characterization, a misunderstanding that people who are for peace are advocating a do-nothing stance. If this characterization of the anti-war faction takes hold, then there is truly little hope for peace.

As an alternative to "doing nothing," talk is put forth of empire, empire which will surely crumble, empire which will surely become corrupt, and empire which will surely be the bearer of some misery around the world. This is what all empires throughout history have done. People talk of building this empire to avenge the deaths of 2,800 civilians and to prevent similar attacks (though even the CIA admits that war will likely provoke more terrorism), and I say, "it's not worth it." It's not worth destroying our nation in some vain pursuit of complete and total safety.

And on and on, all based on the assumption that I think there should be an American empire. In the course of our correspondence, I pointed him to the two immense articles I wrote last week describing who our enemy is and what we'll need to do in order to attain victory over it. In the second article I wrote that I felt we needed to occupy Iraq, in great part because of the psychological effect it would have on the governments and people in the neighboring countries, so that we could then encourage a slow process of cultural change in those nations. After reading that second article Josh wrote:

I've read your second article, and I'm glad you had the balls to paint your argument as a new imperialism. I could debate you on the fine points (e.g. your understanding of Japanese cultural history could use some deepening), but that's not really worth either of our time.

My fundamental belief is that a Pax Americana is not a Good Thing for the world. Yours is that it's what the world needs.

No, I'm afraid that it isn't. In the course of this, it becomes clear that Josh and I use certain words to mean different things. Later I'll discuss how we use "fear"