|
BURNINGBIRD
|
|
a node at the edge
|
|
August 08, 2002
 I Beg to Differ -- on Iraq
In an earlier posting, I criticized Glenn Reynolds for his debating tactics. I said that he was using his influence to control the flow of discourse, and I stand by this statement. In fact I stand by it quite strongly. However, though he may control the flow of discourse, the debates rage unimpeded. Earlier today, Doc wrote: Glenn is right to say the arguments against the war, from the New York Times to the feeble peaceblogging movement (which isn't one, since it seems to consist at the moment of a few reluctant volunteers), are late to the game and go lame when they stoop to name-calling. While I don't agree with Doc that peaceblogging is that scarce, or that reluctant, or even that late to the game, I do agree with Doc that name calling isn't accepted debating technique. However, I'm not sure what debating techniques are allowed in this particular forum, or who is making the rules for same. Still, I will attempt to enter the fray with what I hope will be an acceptable argument, if rebuttal is considered an acceptable debating tactic. Specifically, in this particular post, I'll refute arguments postulated by Eric Olsen, saving refutation of other's opinions for other postings. Eric Olsen responded to my earlier posting questioning his assertions. Firstly, he credited Doc for bringing a new community to the discussion about Iraq, example member of which I assume he means me. Though our paths have not crossed, I hasten to assure Eric that I'm more than aware of the warblogger discussions, about Iraq and other issues, and have been for many months. My involvement today was based more on enough interest being generated to overcome my natural disinclination to get involved in these debates, not from the fact that I was only today introduced to these issues. However as that may be, Eric counters my posting with a clarification of his viewpoint, primarily consisting of the fact the US and Israel aren't fighting a war of retribution, but one of prevention. In Eric's view, to be effective the war must be extended to other countries, principally Saudi Arabia (using the appropriate name for the country since this is addressed to a wider audience), to 'root out' the Islamist virus. Eric at that point feels that no further argument is necessary to explain aggressive behavior on the part of the US and Israel against these other countries, including, one assumes Iraq and Saudi Arabia. He then continues into a discussion about taking a decisive action in irradicating this 'virus': What is more humane, a protracted struggle or a quick, decisive one? That is the question, the answer to which more and more political bloggers are saying "get it done now and be over with it for the sake of all involved, including those led to believe that their struggle can somehow, someway be won." This cruel hope is what needs to be crushed, to be rooted out for the sake of the West (including Israel), and for the sake of a billion Muslims worldwide. To summarize your viewpoint, Eric, You are suggesting that the US enters a country that is not currently in an aggressive posture with either ourselves or our allies, overthrow the legal government of said country, and replace it with one of our own choosing. When you strip away the allegorical content, that is what you are suggesting. Not only for Saudi Arabia, but also Iraq, and possibly other countries. Eric, I don't believe you've sufficiently proved out your argument that an invasion of Saudi Arabia, and we assume Iraq, must be a given. You've mentioned this Islamist (please provide definition of Islamist for general audience) virus with an epicenter in Saudi Arabia, yet from my understanding of the politial situation in Suadi Arabia, the ruling family is trying, with great effort, to prevent this same Islamist element from gaining more influence within the country. In fact, in my opinion, this is most likely one of the main reasons why Saudi Arabia has not come out more strongly against 'terrorism' -- the ruling family's hold is tenuous at best. Any agreement with us is going to make their position even more tenuous. If anything, we should be helping the Saudis, not trying to invade the country and disrupt the delicately balanced political environment. I don't agree with the Saudis on many of the ruling elite's social measures, particularly those associated with women. However, these issues are incidental to this debate, and I enter them only to clarify that I support the political position of the Saudis without necessarily supporting the Saudis personally. Bluntly, a Middle East with Saudi Arabia in turmoil is a much less stable environment, and a larger danger to Israel and the US then the current political situation. As for invading Iraq, I have no recourse but to fall back on law when discussing why we can't invade Iraq. According to international law, we have no evidence to support our accusations about Iraq creating new weapons of mass destruction, nor do we have evidence of Iraq's involvement with Al-Queda, or with the Palestinians. There is no immediate threat from Iraq, other than the possibility, however good this possibility may seem, that Iraq is funding terrorism and developing biological and chemical weapons in violation of UN security rulings. Without immediate threat, we have no legal basis for an invasion. I could continue with other reasons why we can't legally invade Iraq. As a personal summation, though, I did want to add that no matter how much we believe that Saddam Hussein is planning heinous actions, and no matter how sure we are that he's financing terrorism, if we act in violation of international law (law that we have relied on in the past), then we have become, in efft, the world's worst nightmare -- a US no longer bound and constrained by law. If we have no legal basis for an invasion, we have no strategic basis either. If we invade Iraq, we will do so without the support of any ally in that area (except Israel). This means that the invasion must be managed without the support of many of our current military installations in the region. In addition, the bonds between the differing Arab countries, loose bonds at the best of times, will strengthen and we will, most likely, see other countries in the region 'side' with Iraq, even though traditionally they may not agree with Hussein. At this point we would, literally, be an invading army surrounded by enemies, in a land that we don't know, separated by great distances from a base of support. All of this without the support of most of the world, including many strong allies. As an example of our experience with invasion into a country in the Middle East, let's examine our intervention in Afghanistan. Though our intervention there was in conjunction with an ongoing struggle, with nominal approval of the people in the region, it has been less than successful. In fact, we are still rooting out Al-Queda members, and the political situation in the country runs from fragile to fragile, week after week. And this despite the facts that the invasion of Afghanistan occurred with help and support from surrounding countries, and with at least tepid approval from most of our allies. Now we're more or less permanently committed to the region because if we leave in the forseeable future, chances are the country will destablize -- as happened to give the Taliban power in Afghanistan in the first place. Eric, there's a reason why the military has been against the invasion of Iraq. From a purely dispassionate viewpoint, there is no advantage to the US or to Israel to invade Irag now. Strategically, we won't win. We might bomb the hell out of the country, but we won't win. We might kill Saddam Hussein, or capture him, but we won't win. All we'll do is kill a whole lot of people, massively damage the country, destablize the region, create a whole group of new enemies, force more people into the underground as terrorists, and build yet more reason to fight a new battle, this one taken to the streets and the buildings and the churches and the schools of the US. Ultimately, when you seek to defeat and humiliate a foe using superior force, he will use any means -- any means -- to fight back. He does not become malleable. Strategically, there is no short-term or long-term advantage to the US or to Israel to invading Iraq in violation of international law, and without support of allies. As much as many of you despise the UN, our best approach, at this time and with our current knowledge of the situation in the Middle East, is to work with the UN security council.
Posted by Bb at August 08, 2002 12:02 AM Comments
Thanks for the argument! If I keep following up on these things I may have to get my own blog. re International Law: probably parting with Glenn Reynolds and Eric Olsen's viewpoints here but law which allows treatment of despots, tyrants and criminals as equals can be damned. By legitimizing their rule the advocates of appeasment share some of the blood of the tyrants victims. There is no such thing as a right to tyranny. Proof of WMD development: you would have to go very far afield to find someone who doesn't believe Sadam is doing everything to obtain a nuclear ability. When the proof will either consist of a Marine standing over a captured nuke or when one is going off in New York, lower standards of evidence should suffice. As to crushing defeat failing to cause a political change (malleabillity) history is pretty clear that the failure to achieve such victory is what enables resistance. A better question to ask is will victory in Iraq invigorate the Islamic world to fight elsewhere or will it lead to change to more democratic Westernized states. Posted by: Chris Sandvick on August 8, 2002 01:03 AMWell said Shelley. Posted by: Michael Webb on August 8, 2002 03:47 AMQuestion for Chris: Chris, who ARE you man? YOU could buy a nuke if you went to the Autumn gray market auction on the gulf and had your chump change together. Everybody has got nukes. There is no WMD argument. Repeat after me: everybody has a nuke. And then this nonsense about "advocates of appeasement." Who the hell is an advocate of appeasement? Anyone who thinks that war is a failure of diplomacy? Anyone who would prefer the rule of law to the rule of fang and claw? Setting up straw man arguments like "there is no such thing as a right to tyranny" is laughable. Your defense of war belies the statement. If war is an option and the strong prevail, then how are we the people to be assured in any given situation that the strong don't also happen to be... ooops... the tyrants? You can see how when the argument turns on war versus peace, instead of on war versus anti-war your gingerbread house of rationalizations and contrived arguments starts to crumble like a cookie in a glass of milk. Are you sure you can't handle the concept of peace blogging? It seems so much more productive and true than anti-warblogging. Posted by: fp on August 8, 2002 05:10 PMwait... add on. I forgot. Maybe God is on our side? Posted by: fp on August 8, 2002 05:18 PMRe: Alan Good question. Answer: Of course not. Nation states are not individuals and do not have individual rights. While analogies of current international law being co-written by the criminals are amusing they are besides the point. A tyranny such Iraq is not the rightful government of its people. To use the concept of LAW to prevent their liberation is obscene. I say again there is no right to tyranny. There is no freedom to enslave. Self-determination does not include a right to dictatorship. Posted by: Chris Sandvick on August 8, 2002 05:27 PMChris, you say the existing government in Iraq is not the rightful government. However, there are many in Iraq who would disagree with you. Are you saying that governments are only rightful if they match the US-based electoral process? As for the international laws, these were created long before Hussein was in the picture. The thing about a law is that it must be applied equally, or it's fundamentally flawed as a law. We can't pick and choose when we enforce or disregard a law. Makes us as bad as the so-called enemy. Posted by: Bb aka Shelley on August 8, 2002 05:45 PMBrilliantly put, Bb. Though the worrying point is that the US (government, etc.) *already* considers itself "no longer bound and constrained by [international] law", and operates on a myth of 'might makes right'. Examples include Kyoto, the recent issue of the international criminal court, and vast numbers of one-sided 'free trade agreements'. I'm told that Zia Sardar's new book "Why do people hate America?" is well worth reading (hasn't got here to Australia yet). Sardar is a much-respected British philosopher/writer: he points to some of the 'base-myths' of the creation of the US, which, he demonstrates, are based on dispossession and violence, as played out over and over again in US movies. A disturbing read - and possibly an appropriately humbling one, if the warbloggers had the courage to face the necessary humuliation within _themselves_ at this point... Oh well... Posted by: Tom Graves on August 8, 2002 05:45 PMfp: You're flat out wrong on the availbility of nukes. I can't think of any organization, even loopy ones, that make that argument. War is a failure of diplomacy. It is what happens when diplomacy no longer functions. Diplomacy no longer functions with Iraq. It has been used as a tool to buy time for when Sadam can get enough nukes to make an attempt to unseat him too costly to attempt. The Soviet Union wasn't contained because it was a legal state, while it murdered 25 million people, but because it could end the world if it so chose. The only term I can think of than appeasment for allowing Sadam to get the same is sheer madness. Posted by: Chris Sandvick on August 8, 2002 05:55 PMre: Shelley Also a good question! Absolutely not, there is a range of government models that stem from consent of the governed of which the US is an example. But I'm not much interested in what the ruling class of a dictatorship thinks. Of course they support the system as is. They benefit from the blood and starvation of others. Shelley: if that law required that you were unable to stop your neighbor from killing his children, building a bomb that could blow up your house, and plotting to kill you at the first opportunity would you give a damn whether or not it was applied equitably? I suggest that taking away your right to self-defense and the defense of those that are being oppressed is far far more serious flaw. Posted by: Chris Sandvick on August 8, 2002 06:19 PMI don't have time for a history lesson on the breakdown of diplomacy with Iraq: who won't come to the table and why. Read your newspapers from 1998 and see who needs to make appropriate overtures. Regarding nuclear availability... read this from Time.com 17 nations have have active nuke programs. An additional 10 have biological weapons that fall into the WMD category. Besides these 27 there are 8 more that have chemical weapons that qualify as WMDs. Of this set of 35 countries known to have active WMD programs, many have programs in all three categories. Many of these countries function in an ethical framework that we find perplexing, especially as it relates to property and bribes for favors. Regardless of the chaos in the soviet union at the fall and the inventory control issues across Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and the Ukraine... pretend that's all under control and the only wild cards you have to deal with are countries like Algeria, the Sudan, Iran, North Korea, China... assume also that only authorized officialdom in these countries have control of the inventory, how hard do you think it would be to make a phone call, drop off a bag of cash, and pick up a nuke on your way home to dinner? (file under name-calling: "Naive" Posted by: fp on August 9, 2002 11:24 AMfp: re Iraqi diplomatic ventures. Talk about naive! "Ok send weapons inspectors but we control where they can look and when." That article is silent on your Nuclear Arms bazaar fp. Unsubstatiated rumors don't cut it. Everybody from the UN to FAS thinks Iraq is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Prove to me their wrong. Posted by: Chris Sandvick on August 9, 2002 01:48 PMYou don't get it. They're probably right. They're counted in the 17 nations that have nuke programs. So what. Anybody can buy a nuke. Do your own research on the gray market. Bye. Posted by: fp on August 9, 2002 10:31 PMShelley: First, you're certainly welcome to the debate. When Glenn speaks of name-callers, he refers specifically to Warbloggerwatch and its dominant style of personal attacks, chosen not by prominence or indeed by arrogance or moral turpitude of their "warmongering" but basically ripping apart individuals -- including personal details of their lives beyond blogging -- who deign to engage them in debate, while remaining (several of them) safely behind a veil of anonymity. That's what Glenn's referring to; sorry you came in late and didn't know this. Second, about his dominance of the debate (at least in the blog world, which is only a small part of the debate, and arguably more or probably less influential than it deserves), was it wrong for Walter Cronkite to use his pulpit of America's most-watched news anchor (which meant something in those days) to say on his broadcast, "The Vietnam War is not winnable"? Every person is entitled to the platform they have, especially if they've built it by earning every 2x4, as Glenn has. The solution to that prominence is not to complain, but to offer your own words from your own platform. In a democracy, even if some elections are nearly 50% vs. 50%, usually people gravitate toward one view or another. It can be frustrating to be in the minority, but the political process always offers another opportunity. Just keep plugging along; your words will get noticed if they are worthy of attention. If not, concentrate on the minds you can reach, and realize you're only one person. As for arguments against the war, take note of Unqualified Offerings
http://www.highclearing.com/ all of whom have been putting forth strongly argued blogging from different points of political view, but all with important skepticism about an Iraq invasion, particularly issues like the casus belli and international law. They may not get noticed by Glenn very often, but they are out there doing their part and should not be discounted. I don't know that any but Demosthenes would choose the title peaceblogger, but if you're seeing only arguments "for" the war, you may not be looking in the right places! Posted by: Dan Hartung on August 12, 2002 01:04 AMPost a comment
|