A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq | 
 enlarge | Creator: Thomas Cushman
Publisher: University of California Press
Category: Book
List Price: $22.95
Buy Used: $4.05
You Save: $18.90 (82%)
New (15) Used (24) from $4.05
Rating:  4 reviews
Sales Rank: 528066
Media: Paperback
Edition: 1
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 384
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1
Dimensions (in): 8.9 x 5.9 x 1
ISBN: 0520245555
Dewey Decimal Number: 956.704431
EAN: 9780520245556
ASIN: 0520245555
Publication Date: July 11, 2005
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Superb, crisp, clean, unread paperback with very light shelfwear to the covers and publisher's mark to one edge - GREAT!
| |
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Current debate over the motives, ideological justifications, and outcomes of the war with Iraq have been strident and polarizing. A Matter of Principle is the first volume gathering critical voices from around the world to offer an alternative perspective on the prevailing pro-war and anti-war positions. The contribu-tors--political figures, public intellectuals, scholars, church leaders, and activists--represent the most powerful views of liberal internationalism. Offering alternative positions that challenge the status quo of both the left and the right, these essays claim that, in spite of the inconsistent justifications provided by the United States and its allies and the conflict-ridden process of social reconstruction, the war in Iraq has been morally justifiable on the grounds that Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant, a flagrant violator of human rights, a force of global instability and terror, and a threat to world peace.
The authors discuss the limitations of the current system of global governance, which tolerates gross violations of human rights and which has failed to prevent genocide in places such as Bosnia and Rwanda. They also underscore the need for reform in international institutions and international law. At the same time, these essays do not necessarily attempt to apologize for the mistakes, errors, and deceptions in the way the Bush administration has handled the war. Disputing the idea that the only true liberal position on the war is to be against it, this volume charts an invaluable third course, a path determined by a strong liberal commitment to human rights, solidarity with the oppressed, and a firm stand against fascism, totalitarianism, and tyranny.
|
| Customer Reviews:
This book blew my mind December 31, 2005
10 out of 11 found this review helpful
The idea of a book full of arguments for the war in Iraq from liberal authors seemed so interesting that I immediately ordered it and started reading it as soon as I had finished my book of conservative authors not so happy about the war.
Seeing the way liberals had reacted to Iraq was one of the biggest reasons why I have started calling myself moderate instead of liberal. I'm not trying to imply that the word liberal is monolithic by any means, but seeing the way so many different types of liberals were so strongly opposed to this war (many times out of pure hatred of George W. Bush and nothing else), really made me take serious look at what I thought.
Some of the articles in this book are a bit dense, and the average reader might not be able to get through them, but there are numerous other brilliant articles in this book that make a very strong case for their arguments. Put simply, the main point of this book is that a perfectly logical case can be made in favor of invading Iraq from a humanitarian perspective.
The authors in this book are not fans of Bush in any way, but yet they still make the case that getting rid of Saddam Hussein is a good thing. One of the contributors, Adam Michnik, put it best when he said "I believe you can be an enemy of Saddam Hussein even if Donald Rumsfeld is also an enemy of Saddam Hussein."
Throughout the book, the authors pose tough questions such as "If Bush really did lie about the weapons (and knew that none were in Iraq), why did the U.S. not arrange to plant the weapons after the invasion? A simple, but ironclad point in my opinion. The authors also tackle many of the liberal points used to argue against the war. Michael Moore is mentioned several times and because of this book, I am firmly cemented in my view that Moore has about as many positive contributions to make to the political world as Ann Coulter (which would be next to none).
Something I found particularly interesting was that a lot of what was said could be found coming from the right, but the point here is that the talk of liberating the Iraqi people from these authors are genuine. Hearing someone like Sean Hannity making these arguments isn't convincing because he's only for liberating another country if a Republican President is the one doing it. You never hear Hannity-types making the liberation argument in any other case.
I sincerely hope that anyone calling themselves a liberal that is opposed to the war in Iraq reads this book. It really challenges liberals to look at Iraq from the humanitarian perspective and I would venture to say that if you're a Michael Moore fan or a Noam Chomsky fan that could make it through this book and not have second thoughts, you're no different than the Republicans and conservatives you accuse of being blinded by ideology.
A powerful and important book November 12, 2005
13 out of 16 found this review helpful
Irrespective of whether it leaves you believing that the Iraq war was just, this book is a fresh and valuable perspective. It explores important and critical arguments of a sophistication and depth that the lightweights and bigots of the contemporary media simply ignore (whether through bias or ineptitude).
Read the introduction here:
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10415/cushman.pdf
...and another example of the books chapters is here:
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi04/berman.htm
Highly recommended.
Voices of the Decent Left September 24, 2005
15 out of 21 found this review helpful
With the exception of Roger Scruton, all of the contributors to this thought-provoking book come from the left of the political spectrum. It is most refreshing to see that there are still rational people on that side and that the strident, hateful and juvenile shrieking that one encounters in the media are not the only voices of the left.
Part One: Reconsidering Regime Change, contains contributions by the brilliant Christopher Hitchens, Jeffrey Herf, Jan Narveson and Mitchell Cohen. These essays state the case for the overthrow of the sadistic Saddam whilst discussing the liberal and humanitarian case for the liberation.
The next section, Philosophical Arguments, includes a reflection on national interest and international law by the conservative Roger Scruton, an essay on a just war against criminal regimes by Mehdi Mozaffari, and moral arguments on sovereignty, agency and consequences by Daniel Kofman.
Critiques Of The Left is the third section. This contains the most interesting dissection of leftist positions and thoroughly undermines the fallacy created by the mass media that liberals and leftists were unanimously against the war. My personal favourite essays in this group include Pages From A Daily Journal Of Argument by Norman Geras, Ethical Correctness And The Decline Of The Left by Jonathan Re and A Friendly Drink In A Time Of War by Paul Berman, a liberal.
In European Dimensions, people like John Lloyd, Michel Taubmann and Anders Jerichow reveal that many prominent European intellectuals, including Vaclav Havel, supported the war on liberal-humanitarian grounds.
Part Five: Solidarity, contains an interview between the compiler Thomas Cushman and the Polish intellectual Adam Michnik. There are also moving essays by Timorese leader Jose Ramos-Horta, Johann Hari, Pamela Bone and Ann Clwyd. It is quite clear that unlike the rest of the Left, these authors have genuine compassion for the weak and the oppressed. An important point made here is that indifference to the plight of the oppressed means abdication of the duty to protect them.
The volume concludes with Liberal Statesmanship that contains Prime Minister Tony Blair's full statement to the House of Commons on 18th March 2003 and another speech of his titled The Threat Of Global Terrorism. They are both eloquent arguments for the liberation of Iraq that are rooted in principle and morality.
This valuable book demolishes many myths perpetuated by the academic and media elites and more importantly, exposes their malignant mindsets to some extent. For example, Johan Hari points out how Anti-Americanism has become a religion and how leftists ignore the crimes of sundry third world dictators. It is made clear that the anti-war camp really did not care about Saddam's victims. Then again, this is nothing new - leftists of the past also tried to suppress knowledge of Stalin's atrocities and those of Pol Pot.
Another lie that is exposed is the myth of American unilateralism. Forty Eight countries had joined the Coalition by March 2003 and in Europe, states like the Netherlands, Italy, Hungary, Denmark, Poland, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Croatia and Macedonia strongly allied themselves with the USA. Many Asian states supported it too, including Australia, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and the Philippines. That puts the myth of unilateralism to rest.
In his introduction, Cushman mentions the relentless campaign of hatred and disinformation against Israel by the United Nations and the travesty of a UN Human Rights body that that includes representatives of cruel totalitarian states like Libya, Sudan and Zimbabwe.
He also mentions the shady motives behind the anti-war position of France, Germany and Russia. These essays were written and the book compiled before the full extent of the UN Oil For Food graft became widely known, but this scandal of the century only confirms the hypocrisy of the leadership of the aforementioned countries.
The book is not flawless. Some of the writing is perhaps too self-critical and as a Reaganite, I obviously disagree with many contributors on a range of other issues. But they are brave people who are willing to stand up for their convictions in a hostile environment. I regard the George Galloway/Michael Moore Moonbat Left as one would a hairy spider, but these authors are rational and decent. Their concern for the wretched of the earth is genuine. Their hearts are in the right place.
I also recommend A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq by Christopher Hitchens, Unholy Alliance and The Anti Chomsky Reader by David Horowitz, The Force Of Reason by Oriana Fallaci plus everything written by the wonderful Norman Geras.
an important corrective July 18, 2005
39 out of 41 found this review helpful
The essays in this book about the Iraq War and international law are for the most part in clear and accessible English and do not rely on theories that are left unexplained in the body of the essay itself. For that reason I would recommend this collection to people who are interested only in the development of international law and mores and who are not much concerned with the Iraq War.
For those who are interested in the Iraq War, this collection is, I feel, indispensable. Not because the authors agree (they do not) but because the debate in this volume has about it a quality that has been largely absent from the Iraq debate: candor. Thus while the authors disagree on fundamental issues such as:
*was the war in Iraq, on balance, justified;
*did the governments that lead us to war lie or act in good faith;
*was the suffering of the Iraqi people alone sufficient justification for war; and
*do we have what it takes to see this war through
they do so without simplifying the arguments and without assuming that the Iraqi people agree with their positions.
For as profound as their disagreements are, the authors agree that:
*Saddam's regime was genocidal;
*leaving Saddam in place was not costless either (and most immediately) to the Iraqi people or (eventually) to the West; and
*the Bush administration has terribly botched the occupation, thereby endangering the whole enterprise.
And finally these authors point out that when in a public policy debate, the liberals sound like Henry Kissinger while the conservatives echo John Rawls, the political landscape is out of joint.
This is the sort of debate liberals like myself had every right to expect in the days and months preceding the Iraq invasion. We did not get it (for reasons addressed in this volume). We get it here; in this collection of essays. I highly recommend it.
|
|
|
