"Working from home"
My first day at the new job, and the blizzard has me working from home. That gives me time to get to something I meant to get to earlier, but the whole transition thing has taken its toll. One of the things I meant to get to was the "cross blog" event from NZ Bear and the No-war Blog. Basically, the deal is 5 questions to be answered by the anti-war and pro-war sides. I guess, as sides go, I am pro-war, so here are my answers:
1. Attacking Iraq has been publicly called a "pre-emption" of a threat from Saddam Hussein's regime, whose sins include launching regional wars of aggression. Do you think there is a clear and reliable difference between pre-emptive and aggressive warfare, and if so, what is it?
Yes, there is a clear difference, but it is not necessarily reliable. That is because diplomacy and statecraft are mostly functions of words, spoken and written. And people can manipulate words, and those who deal dishonestly with the world will use words dishonestly.
In an honest world, the existence of a threat and intent to make good on that threat, and that threat cannot be prevented or defeated through non-miltary means would be justification for preemption that is not simple aggression.
Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was quite clearly a “war of aggression.” Kuwait posed no threat, express or implied, on the country of Iraq. Hussein, though, might have made such a claim – as his election by 100% of the Iraqi electorate shows, he does not place any value in the truthfulness of his pronouncements. In countries where the tyrannies in charge lie regularly, it is no surprise that the citizens expect that the words of the US government are similarly lies.
But it is important to not make the mistake that just because in this case we must pursue a pre-emptive war, that in every case we must pursue it.
2. What do you feel are the prospects that an invasion of Iraq will succeed in a) maintaining it as a stable entity and b) in turning it into a democracy? Are there any precedents in the past 50 years that influence your answer?
a) Well, if as a stable entity, you mean one nation as a single geographic boundary, in the short term (5 years or so), I suspect that there will be no changes. However, like Yugoslavia, a few years after the removal of a strongman, self-determination may lead to disintegration into its component parts.
b) I think that we will have success in turning it into a democracy. Afghanistan is an example of that success. Latin America is an example, also. The US did not occupy countries in Latin America, but we have supported democracy there over communism and other autocracies, and we have been hugely successful. The last time the US forced a regime change followed by military occupation (and we didn’t even do that in Afghanistan) was Japan and Germany in WWII, outside the 50 year window, but that is the last time we did it. Both of those have been hugely successful – we do not fear having to go to war with either.
3. How successful do you think the military operations and "regime change" in Afghanistan have been in achieving their stated objectives? Does this example affect your feelings about war in Iraq in any way?
The campaign in Afghanistan has achieved the primary goals of disrupting the core of al Qaida and its state sponsors, the Taliban. Yes, there are still al Qaida, and there are still Taliban, but AQ is not operating open training camps, doesn’t operate with the national support of Afghanistan.
The “anti-war” folks claimed that Afghanistan would be a quagmire, and lead to more terrorism and hatred of America in the Arab world. All of these predictions were wrong. I don’t know that our success in Afghanistan makes that much of a difference on my opinion on Iraq, though if we were in a quagmire there, it would have an effect on our ability to take on Iraq.
4. As a basis for war, the Bush Administration accuses Iraq of trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, nuclear), supporting terrorism, and brutalizing their own people. Since Iraq is not the only country engaged in these actions, under what circumstances should the US go to war with other such nations, in addition to going to war with Iraq?
The President has identified, in the National Security Strategy, the most dangerous thing America currently faces – the intersection of radicalism and technology. In short, terrorists with nuclear weapons are the single most destabilizing situation we face. Nations that are supporting terrorists and trying to achieve nuclear weapons are approaching an unacceptable danger level. That’s why Iraq, which has yet to acquire nuclear weapons, is a greater danger than North Korea, which has, probably. Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons, would move to the front of the list if Musharraf hadn’t gotten smart. I expressed this in graphical format in this post.
Here is the chart:
Generally, in a “War on Terror,” we will have to confront every state actor who supports terrorism – yes, including Saudi Arabia. But Iraq is at the front of the list because they are closest to the nexus.
5. The Bush Administration has issued numerous allegations about the threat represented by Iraq, many of which have been criticized in some quarters as hearsay, speculation or misstatements. Which of the Administration's allegations do you feel stand up best to those criticisms?
1) Iraqi involvement with terrorists of global scope. Iraq makes no secret of its support of terrorists. It is quite proud of its support of Hamas (which is a fundamentalist Islamic organization, which puts the lie to the idea that the fundamentalists and Hussein are natural enemies). Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, terrorists who attacked US interests in the 80’s, found homes in Baghdad. So did Abdul Rahman Yasin, who participated in the 1993 bombing of the WTC.
2) Iraqi involvement with WMD, particularly nuclear weapons. Read this interview with Khidir Hamza. That’s really all you need to know.
But Hans Blix was quite clear, also – Hussein has not accounted for WMD that we know that he has produced. To think that he does not currently possess them is to believe that he destroyed those weapons, but chose not to tell the UN, despite the fact that this most likely would have led to the elimination of the UN sanctions against Iraq. I don’t see this as very likely. Plus, many anti-war arguments recognize that Iraq does have WMD – they warn that war will force Hussein to use them.
 posted by blaster at 02:16 PM | Comments (0)
|
pittspilot
Tom Ridge gets no respect. He has a deadly serious job. People really are trying to kill Americans. All of us, if they can. But just enough to make the rest cower in fear will do. So while he and the Department of Homeland Security were first lambasted for their secrecy, and their failure to tell people what to do beyond "live your lives as normal." Then they made some suggestions on emergency preparedness, and people made fun of that. And then they launched 