16th Mar 2003
So Let’s Have a War Already
What I should really be doing today, on this most beautiful day NY has seen
in many months, is working on overdue client assignments. But here, on perhaps
the literal
eve of war, I figure I should have the courage of my convictions, such that
they are, and for better or worse state publicly my regrettable support for
a war to depose of Saddam. So here is my mother of all rants. I doubt I’m going to change anyone’s opinions at
this point, as I don’t pretend to be any great thinker on matters of international
politics, and I’m sure this posting will not endear me to my many friends
who are in the anti-war camp. In fact, I’m quite sure I’ll regret this in the morning. But I feel a responsibility to state my position,
or else what is the point of pretending I have opinions worth reading on this
blog. So it’s come to this: I’m a war blogger at last.
For the record, let me say first of all I genuinely dislike President Bush.
Lest anyone have any doubts, I’ve intentionally left on display here on this
blog for many months the picture of a T-Shirt proclaiming "I Still Hate
George Bush." His stance on the environment, the economy, tax cuts, the blurring of religion and government and many other of his
policies make me sick. I do agree he’s done terrible damage to international
relations with his ham-handed approach to this whole situation, and I relish
the opportunity to vote against him in the next national elections regardless
of what nimrod the Democrats put up to contest him.
All that said, I still think he’s right on the question of Saddam. I may be
naive, but I do believe Saddam is a serious threat to the stability of that
region, to the U.S., to the world and, not least, to his own citizens, who seem most
neglected by all those who oppose war. Moreover, if the U.N. stands for anything
today, I don’t see how it can possibly reconcile appeasing him more than it
already has for too many years.
Opponents of the war apparently see the long list of reasons
that the Bush Administration advances for war as evidence that it does not have
any single reason to justify its stance and is simply hell bent on taking the
guy out. I, on the other hand, interpret that long list as simply more than
enough justification to get rid of the guy. In short, I do buy many of the administration’s
arguments while none of the arguments from the anti-war camp succeed in swaying
me as they’re supposed to, given that I’ve been a life-long liberal to date
(the date specifically would be 9/11/01). Therefore, I frame this argument in
favor of war by addressing many of what I hear as the anti-war camp’s "best
reasons" for opposing it:
-
We should respect Iraq’s sovereignty. Saddam’s rule of that country
hardly demonstrates respect for his own country’s sovereignty, much less that of Kuwait, Iran, Israel or Saudi Arabia,
or the U.N. for that matter. He has squandered any claim to respect
of sovereignty he might have had. I wrote six months ago about a drunken neighbor when I was a kid who more than once threatened the neighborhood with his arsenal of guns when he went on a bender. I was only too happy when the police came to get rid of him. Although they actually succeeded in talking him out, they were there in flack jackets, and I wouldn’t have been sorry to see them kick in his door to do it. He had lost the right to be treated in a good neighborly fashion. -
World public opinion is against it. As a professional researcher,
I can assure you that public opinion is a poor gauge of what is right and
true. I really wonder if European public opinion in 1938 about whether Jews
were human beings or not would have supported Hitler’s view, or, for that
matter, whether the majority of Americans in the late 1800s would have deemed
blacks as more than half persons, at best. Thankfully, leadership is not about doing
what is popular, it’s about doing what is right. Let history be the judge. -
We should give the U.N. weapons inspectors more time. More time
for what? How is it that so many can ignore the fact that the weapons
inspectors are not
there to play hide and seek? They are there to confirm that Saddam is
actively and enthusiastically disarming, which, despite crumpling a handful
of missles, he clearly is not. He’s playing the U.N. for fools, as he has
done for years, and I really don’t see the point in taking it up the ass
any longer for the sake of delaying the inevitable. More to the point, there
is no question that Saddam would not be cooperating at all, and for that
matter no other members of the world community would have put the issue
of renewed inspections on the table at all had it not been for the U.S.’s
clear willingness to advance the very credible threat of force to make him
comply. If the French et al had their way, we’d be blithely halfway into
the fifth year of no inspectors and no attention to the real threat Saddam’s
regime represents. -
The US is acting unilaterally. This one really pisses me off, as
it’s so obviously untrue. Granted, we do not have unanimous world support for
a war, but Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Britain, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, South Korea, Turkey and Uzbekistan are all publicly on board. What are
they, chopped liver? I wonder what all those countries think about being
considered non-entities by headline writers around the world. The truth
is, world opinion is divided, pretty much down the middle, as far as I can
tell, but to say we’re going it alone is just blatantly false. -
The U.N. should be the forum to solve this. We should get allies behind
us first. So what the hell are they waiting for? This is a catch 22.
Public opinion in France and everywhere else says that were the U.N. to
get behind the war effort, then the majority of all those countries would
agree to support the war. So…all that’s lacking is France et al supporting
U.N. action. And they accuse the Bush administration of circular logic? No one can argue the U.S. hasn’t tried to rally its
allies. Granted, our approach to diplomacy could have been more diplomatic,
but we’ve been at it for months. At what point do we give up trying? (Tomorrow,
apparently.) What is most galling is that those balking in the U.N. are
not willing to call a spade a spade. On paper (1441), they have given Saddam
one last chance to actively and fully disarm, but it’s clear to all (including Hans Blix) he is
not doing so. Yet rather than coming out and clearly saying that what the opponents of war
prefer to do is appease this ruthless dictator because they don’t have the
balls to deal with him, they are pretending to be giving him the benefit
of the doubt, pretending that inspections are "working" (towards
what end?). That is the voice of authority and leadership that should command
the world’s respect? No, it is not the U.S. that is dividing the world against
itself, it is the gutless prevaricators
within U.N. who are doing so. Besides, in the 200+ wars the world has
witnessed in the last 50 years or so, only three had U.N. blessing, namely Korea
(1950), Iraq (1991) and Afghanistan (2001). Notably, those do not include
Kosovo, Bosnia or Somalia, where, in each case, it was the U.S. that stuck
its neck out to attempt to prevent genocide that it had no direct stake
in. And, at the rist of sanctimony, let’s not forget WWII, where the U.S.
sacrificed thousands of lives to preserve the democracy in Europe that now
gives France and Germany the freedom to snub their noses at us today. -
Saddam hasn’t done anything reckless in 12 years. Yes, but the only
reason he hasn’t succeeded in his ambitions of Kurdish genocide or regional domination is thanks
to the no-fly zone enforced by the U.S. and England that are so unpopular
with peaceniks in the free world. There’s that word again: genocide. I love
how the media keeps referring to Saddam gassing "his own people."
Actually, from his point of view, the Kurds he was gassing are not
"his own people." That’s exactly the point. Left to his own devices,
it would be genocide, pure and simple. -
Saddam has no active nuclear program. With all due respect to Muhammad
al-Baradei, we really don’t know that. Let’s not forget that in 1991, Saddam’s
nuclear program was much
further developed than international intelligence agencies or the International
Atomic Energy Agency had imagined. He is a master of cat and mouse. We’re
never going to know for sure how far along he is until we can gain unfettered
access to the place, and that is clearly not going to happen in today’s inspection environment.
Besides, even without nukes, the large stores of chemical and biological
weapons he is widely believed to be hiding are good enough for me to constitute
a clear and present danger to the world. -
Al Qaeda wouldn’t collaborate with Saddam because they’re religious
zealots and he’s a secular tyrant. Gimme a break. Al Qaeda demonstrated
clearly in their planning for September 11th they’ll do whatever it takes to
smite their enemy, even if that means suffering through lapdances in the strip
clubs of the Great Satan. If they can buy box cutters in our Wal-Marts,
I’m sure they could suck it up to borrow a few kilos of anthrax from Saddam.
And as for Saddam, if his prior support of religious terrorists (e.g., paying
off widows of Hamas suicide bombers) were not enough, how about his latest threat to retaliate against an attack "wherever there is
sky, land or water." -
France has the moral high ground and is giving voice to world opinion.
Hey, I’ve been to France several times and love the place and its people,
but in this debate, France can suck my weener. Please remind me of one time in the 20th Century
when France demonstrated moral authority. How about inviting
Mugabe for champagne in Paris last month while the
rest of the world is ratcheting up sanctions against that bastard? That
was a nice move. France is perhaps the only democracy with a worse record
than us when it comes to coddling dictators, notably including Saddam (then and now). -
Bush is arrogant. Yes he is. And rather stupid, too. And…so what? This
isn’t charm school, it’s a test of right or wrong. This is a bad
time to be arguing about style over substance. France is willing to sacrifice
unity in the Western world and reward a vicious despot in order to teach
us boorish Americans a lesson in manners? I mean, what really matters here?
Don’t the Iraqi people deserve better? France’s only interest in this whole
thing is its ego, pretending they’re still a world power. They know perfectly
well we’re going to do this with or without them (I recently heard someone
quip that going to war without France by our side is like going hunting
without an accordion), yet they’ve decided it would be in the world’s
best interest to let us bear the burden alone while they make us look as
bad as possible in the process. What makes me so sad is that this is
the right thing to do — Saddam is a danger to all around him and he
no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt; and even if you don’t believe
that, the bottom line is it’s going to happen regardless, as there is no
practical way Bush could back down at this point anyway (what message would
that send to Saddam and his ilk if Bush did so at this point?) — and therefore
it would be so much better for the whole world in the long run if our "allies"
presented a united front with us. You can’t convince me that France (and
by France I really mean by proxy all those objecting in the Security Council)
honestly has the best interest of the Iraqi people or even world security
at heart. No, I think they just want 15 minutes of glory in having stood
up to "the big bully," regardless of whether what the supposed bully is
proposing in this case is right or not. So, from now on it’s every man for
himself? That’s just great. The truth is, we can take care of ourselves,
if that’s what it’s going to come down to. But if the next plane does fly
into the Eiffel Tower, packed with anthrax, bon chance, bebe. We’ll see
how helpful good manners are for you then. -
It’s too bad Clinton is no longer president, because he was charming
and smart. My opinion on Clinton: what a tragic waste of potential.
All those brains and yet he failed to really recognize the opportunity he
had to profoundly shape the world order in the obvious power vacuum of the
post-Cold War. Nothing makes me angrier than thinking he was perfectly well
aware of the growing discontent in the Third World and mounting threat of
terrorism, watching as thousands marched through Bin Laden’s training camps
in Afghanistan and yet, instead of recasting the role of the CIA and using his ample charms
and intelligence to try to lead the direction for the New World Order — or
even just keep tabs on who Bin Laden was training — he spent his time gloating
about the bubble economy, hand-holding in Northern Ireland, befriending
North Korea while they schemed behind our backs, morphing his party into
Republicans Lite, and getting blow jobs under the desk. What a sorry self-aggrandizing
ass he turned out to be. I’m so glad I voted for Nader in ‘96. -
What about North Korea? Aren’t they the greater immediate threat? Sure,
but the problem is North Korea already has nukes, which makes holding
them to account for it a lot more complicated. And I can’t understand how it makes
me a hawk to think so, but I do subscribe to the principle that you don’t
reward their aggression by negotiating with them on their terms. As long
as we refuse to let them dictate the agenda, the ball is still in our court.
I can’t say I really know what the best course of action is there (although
I do like the Chuck
Barris idea), but frankly I think that the whole North Korea crisis
is that much more reason why we should act now with Saddam instead
of waiting till we’re in the same situation with him as with Mr Il (a more aptly name crackpot I can’t think of, though I do like that Saddam Hussein sounds so much like So Damn Insane). -
Bush is rushing to war. Going to war with Iraq has been this administration’s
agenda for well over a year (actually, since he first came into office). The inspectors have been in Iraq again for
nearly six months. That’s a rush? Remind me not to call your fire department. How long should we wait? Another 12 years? -
If we go after Iraq today, who’s next? Who indeed. Just because we can’t go after all
the evil doers in the world (and, yes, I’m using that phrase ironically)
doesn’t mean we shouldn’t confront any of them. We’re all guilty of coddling
dictators too long in this world. I love that according to the peaceniks
we can’t win for losing: in supporting the Saudis and other evil bastards,
we’re collaborating to suppress innocent civilians in those countries, yet when we impose
sanctions on Iraq because its bastard is especially evil, then we’re starving babies to death. What exactly is the consistent
position we’re supposed to be abiding by? Should we do business with dictators or not? Or, like France, should we do so and just try to keep a low profile about it? If attacking Iraq is making all
the other tyrants around the world right now soil their drawers, terrific.
Realistically, we’re going to pick our battles. But, in my opinion (as I’ve
suppose made tediously clear by now), this is one worth fighting. -
Our foreign policy created all these monsters in the first place.
Maybe. Well, us, together with France, Germany, England and the rest, anyway.
But that is supposed to be a good reason why we shouldn’t realize the errors
of our ways and try to right our own wrongs now? -
We should solve the Palestinian problem first. Yeah, like that’s
a realistic answer. The Palestinian problem has been there for 100 years or
so. It will still be waiting for us in a few months. Besides, if mighty Clinton was no match for it, you actually think Bush is going to figure it out? That said, he seems already to have gone farther towards a commitment to a Palestinian state than I remember Clinton ever doing. -
War is hell. No shit. So is life under Saddam. Besides, better them
than us. I was a pacifist when I was 18, but I’ve lived long enough to realize
sometimes you have to do unto other before they do unto you. Yes, many Americans
will die in this war, and many more Iraqis, and I’m sad for both cases, but not as many Iraqis will die in a war as would
continue to suffer and die under the sanctions and Saddam’s dictatorship for another 10 years. More to the point,
I’d much rather we bring it to them than wait for Saddam to bring it to
us. There are no good options here. It’s a crass analogy, but to my mind
it’s like ripping off a BandAid: it’s going to hurt like hell for a little
bit, but better to endure that short pain now than let the wound fester
any longer. -
Going to war in the Middle East is just going to fuel more terrorism.
If September 11th taught us anything it is that we don’t have to provoke
terrorists for them to attack us. I live in NYC (i.e., likely to be ground
zero yet again for future terrorist ambitions). I’m not saying that makes me as
brave as signing up to serve on the front lines, but I don’t think that
cowering in fear from a possible terrorist backlash is the responsible way
to face the threats of the new millennium. It’s so hackneyed as to almost have lost all meaning, but in that case the terrorists truly would have won. In all likelihood, war with Iraq will help Bin Laden recruit more angry young men to his cause, but it will also doubtless do more
to raise the hopes of dissidents and everyday misserable wretches living
under the thumb of wicked dictators in that part of the world and elsewhere
than would sticking our heads in the sand like so many “allies” recommend. -
It may all go horribly wrong. Yes, that’s a real risk. But honestly
I believe it’s much more likely to go (more or less) the way the Pentagon predicts:
swift U.S. victory. So much so that I’ve decided to go on record here supporting it, come what may.
Iraqi soldiers are already tripping
over themselves to surrender right now. It’s a risk worth taking. Frankly,
the status quo in the Middle East is so screwed up today, I say let’s go
ahead and stir things up and see what happens when the dust settles. Obviously,
we can’t predict exactly how it’s going play out, but I really believe whatever
comes next for Iraq can’t be worse than Saddam. At this point, better the devil we don’t
know. Chances are it will not be a flowering of democracy there over night, if ever,
but any measure of freedom that may result will be an improvement.
And let’s just imagine that, like in Afghanistan, the citizens there actually
do feel liberated and some measure of gratitude after all is done. Is that such an extreme fantasy?
I don’t think so. And I, for one, look very forward to seeing what the French
are going to have to say for themselves to the Iraqi people then.
For the last year and a half (do the math), one quote has guided my thinking
in this regard above all else, and I know you’ve all heard it several times already by now, but it bears repeating: Edmund Burke’s
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."
Vive la resistance!
Leave a Reply