A Polite Political Disagreement Between Friends

A few years ago, a British journalist (I think it was Jonathan Freedland, though I could be wrong about that) suggested that the internet was increasingly becoming the province of "point-scoring males" whose very sarcastic tone, combined with their unwillingness to engage in the give-and-take of polite discourse, was stifling the very exchange of information that the internet is suppose to support. In other words, rather aggressive folks who use ruthless, somewhat brutal language were taking over the internet and discouraging more sensible folks from taking part in productive, civilized discussions.

I think that the above opinion was largely correct then and I think it's largely correct now. This is why I try (and admittedly sometimes fail) to disagree with others over the internet in a relatively polite manner. In other words, I think one can make one's points clear without being rude.

I write this because I have a relatively long-standing disagreement with a friend about the reasons behind the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. (And, yes, that event still matters, in a historical context as well as a present-tense context.) He does not think that oil was a big factor in the decision to go to war, whereas I think it played a very significant role in the decision--though I do not think it was the only reason why the invasion occurred.

Our disagreement continues to this day, but, at the risk of sounding self-congratulatory, I believe that it has remained polite and point-oriented (as opposed to hyperbole-oriented) throughout its duration. In fact, I've found that I'm more likely to take his points into consideration because of the respectful, thoughtful manner in which he words them, and I hope the same is the case from his standpoint.

At any rate, what follows is my recent response to his viewpoints regarding Iraq, oil, and the 2003 invasion. I don't think it's appropriate to quote his words, because I haven't secured his permission to do so, but let it suffice to say that he stands by his view of the situation, which I described above. So, the following two paragraphs represent my viewpoint (when I write "we," by the way, I mean the U.S. government and many Americans in general, but I do NOT mean every American, or this one):

"I believe that when it comes to Iraq and oil, intentions and reality are two separate things. We went into Iraq in part because of oil (though we told ourselves it was 'fully' to 'liberate Iraq'); things just didn't work out well, because we refused to study history prior to heading in. We wrapped ourselves in anthemic words like 'freedom' and called those who disagreed with the policy 'unpatriotic,' and we willfully ignored the realities of the region. We were caught up in fuzzy romantic fantasies of 'Democracy,' which are good if they have at their foundation a sense of history, etc., but are often disasterous if there is little beyond the chest-thumping and sloganeering.

"Perhaps we won't be quite as childishly simplistic about this stuff in the future. I think that hiring Barack Obama to be our nation's chief executive is a good step toward us becoming a bit more sophisticated about foreign policy; he, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton will most likely steer us further in the direction of realistic gradualism in our foreign policy. That is, romantic sloganeering will most likely give way to a closer examination of the evidence insofar as U.S. foreign policy, and the advancement of U.S. interests, is concerned. The extent to which this happens is at this point anybody's guess (and there are bound to be setbacks, which is also a part of reality), so we'll have to wait and see."