Philosophy.Com

I'm not sure how the language of contradictions and dialectics is going to help here. Contradictions occur within a given body of thought. Between competing bodies, it is not surprising that force carries the day. I don't think that English-speaking democracies quite fit Hegel's notion of perfect politics, but I think he would understand this war as part of the end of history, i.e., the inevitable spread of freedom throughout the world. Hegel's notion of the cunning of reason does not demand that the liberators be pure. Nor does his notion of history convey the sense that progress can happen in any way other than conflict. Indeed, I believe most of us are much more sensitive to violence than Hegel was.

(I assume you are talking of contradiction and dialectics as Hegelian terms. If you are using more Marxist notions, my comments might not apply.)

Eddie,
I've been thinking about your comments.

Let us say that the US is fighting a war in Iraq to liberate the oppressed people from a brutal tyrant. Thats the political consciousness of Rumsfeld. When embodied in practice the war needs to be quick, sharp and clean with lots of humanitarian aid moving up the highway.

Let us also say that the war is going to involve urban warfare and a tough fight for Baghdad. They is their fire power--planes, tanks, helicopters, men, missiles etc to batter their way into the city and take it. When embodied in practice thats smashing your way into a city destroying lots of things on the way. Thats the messy on-the-ground military consciousness of Franks.

The two forms of consciousness sit very uncomfortably together--in contradiction. The development of the tension is something like this.

The more the military one dominates than the more it undercuts the moral purpose of war. The whole purpose of the military one is to liberate Iraq and enable the flowering of democracy. Yet the US is increasingly seen by the Iraqi's as invaders and occupiers. The Americans realize tha the Iraqi people dont want to be liberated by them and ask what in the hell are we doing this for?-putting our bodies on line for these people. Disillusionment sets in on the US side.

None of this bodes well for the US administration of the country post Saddam.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I guess I would respond to one point in particular:

"The whole purpose of the military one is to liberate Iraq and enable the flowering of democracy."

This is true, in a sense, but also misleading. No conservative administration would go to war simply for the sake of others. (In our political tradition, such a thing is closer to Woodrow Wilson's progressive movement, which conservatives abhor.) This war is primarily about U.S. security after 9/11. Conspiracy theorists may think differently, but if you look at Bush's presidential campaign you find that he was dead set against the U.S. operating in various U.N. peacekeeping enterprises. His current position is thus an adaptation, and a noble one to my mind.

Basically, the security issue comes down to this: either we increase the policing of ourselves internally or we develop institutions abroad that will better police themselves. We are doing both, but we still have a very negative response to internal policing (immigration restrictions, tighter border patrols, greater surveillance, lower barriers for search and seizure, ethnic profiling, etc.)

So the Bush administration is pursuing more the second path. There are a number of hopes involved: removing Saddam will remove a danger to the U.S. and a destabilizing force in the Mideast; an Iraqi democracy would do a better job monitoring terrorist elements; an Iraqi democracy would inspire similar democracies in the region; the threat of regime change would get the other Mideastern countries to crack down on terrorist elements operating within their borders; and it would give the U.S. military a base of operations. (The last point has not been stated, but I would guess that the U.S. and others will maintain a military presence for quite awhile, analogous to the U.S. military presence in Germany and Japan.)

I don't think Bush is being dishonest in talking about bringing democracy to Iraq. We do value democracy in itself, and we believe that our relationship to democracies is superior to other regimes. (Of course, the democracies we get along with best have a shared tradition with us. Democracy is no panacea.) But this is not primarily a humanitarian venture, so I'm not sure that the contradiction you see is quite there. I don't think we will turn nasty in this conflict, but we can do so without sacrificing all of our objectives in this venture.

Eddie,
I don't disagree about the national interest/geopolitical considerations in the Middle East. I have argued on my public opinion weblog that they apply to the US and help to explain its military interventionin the region; but they do not apply to Australia and so Australia, as a small regional power in the Asia Pacific region should not be involved in a military capacity in the Middle East.

But I do see the US understanding of its role in world affairs as being deeply divided: between global cop policing criminals, rogue states and terrorists on the one hand; and, on the other hand, between its internationalism, manifest destiny, and bringing liberal democracry to the rest of the world.

The war and the way it will necessarily be conducted will heighten this tension; as will the fallout in the region amongst Arab nation states and the Arab street from the US being a military occuper for a number of years. Its the peace that will cause the greatest turmoil bn between the two American conceptions of the US as a global superpower.

"...but they do not apply to Australia and so Australia, as a small regional power in the Asia Pacific region should not be involved in a military capacity in the Middle East."

This would be true only if Australia is not threatened by the rogues of the Middle East, as you put it. I agree that the U.S. is probably their primary target, but the explosion in Bali would suggest that they do not limit themselves in that way. Besides, Australia benefits, as do all of the "Western" powers, from a strong U.S.

"But I do see the US understanding of its role in world affairs as being deeply divided: between global cop policing criminals, rogue states and terrorists on the one hand; and, on the other hand, between its internationalism, manifest destiny, and bringing liberal democracry to the rest of the world."

I don't think most citizens of the U.S. experience this tension, because I think there is a deep and abiding tendency towards isolation in the public at large. We save manifest destiny for the big speeches. The tension your pointing toward boils down, I believe, to the difficulty of introducing reform to the Middle East. If it turns into a constant fight, I doubt we have the spirit for it, and our larger objectives will probably go unmet.