Across at Explananda Chris Young, in response to this post of mine, suggests reasons for doubting that Bush and Blair are due credit for the positive results of invading Iraq. Chris does so by offering two examples. Thus:
Suppose I maliciously shove John, and he accidentally falls into the path of Jane, putting her attempted bank robbery [assumed to be morally wrong - NG] to an end. In that case we're not likely to heap praise on me for stopping Jane but blame me for maliciously shoving John.In the second example, even though the intention of the agent is assumed to be good, his track-record isn't - very much the contrary - leading Chris to conclude about one fortuitously good outcome:
Everyone can see that I've finally managed to do something right [he being the agent in question - NG], no one regrets it, and everyone can see that my intentions have been good all along. But given my track-record it would be reckless to praise me: praise at this point might encourage and empower me to "help" even more people, and it's probably best for everyone, or almost everyone, in the long run if I just stop trying.The trouble with these examples is that they're not going to persuade anyone who thinks they don't apply, or don't apply sufficiently closely, to the case at hand - the Iraq war.
And they don't persuade me precisely for that reason. As to the first of the two examples, it's not remotely credible that getting rid of the Baathist regime wasn't a central part of the intention behind the invasion of Iraq. And I don't believe, either, that a democratization of the country wasn't also part of that intention. (These two posts from early this year address the point.)
To Chris's second example I will merely say that he and others may think there are sound 'tactical' reasons for not praising those (Bush, Blair etc.) who got rid of Saddam and opened the way to democratic elections in Iraq - in order not to encourage them in other (reckless?) ventures. But, even leaving aside here the counter-thought that encouraging people for positive outcomes they have brought about is not always a bad idea, my own concern in the post Chris engages with was whether any historical and moral credit is due to the coalition that put an end to a cruel and pernicious regime. And, pending a persuasive argument that there was a better way (on which see here), I stand by the judgement that it is. That isn't to say, of course, that there are not also matters for criticism or blame, but opponents of the war need no convincing on this score.
