September 25, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:The only problem with Doug
The only problem with Doug Turnbull is that he doesn't post often enough. Well, here's an excellent piece deconstructing another simplistic type of anti-war argument.
Incidentally, Jim Henley is ribbing me about the "simplistic terms of a morality play" line in this post. Well, I never gloried in being simplistic as some Republicans did, but I also think that we're referring to two different things. A situation may be complex, and it may require sophisticated analysis, but that doesn't imply that the answer is also complex. In this case, I think it is valuable to make complex analysis, but that doesn't mean we're going to get a sophisticated answer. Ultimately, we're going to do one of three fairly simple things:
We're going to invade, or institute an inspections regime so thorough that it will constitute a military invasion.We're going to stay with variations on the status quo: ineffective inspections, limited by the most of the same qualifications that made them ineffective last round, and sanctions.
We're going to pull back to the kind of mild interference-running we use on Iran.
Opponents will say I'm sneaky to load working inspections in there with the invasion. Well, right now that's where the UN is putting them -- off the table, to be achieved only if we bully them into it. And I've written before that a regime that would really work would involve thousands and thousands of soldiers there to support massive simultaneous inspection, and prevent the shell games and the petty degrading of our capabilities that Saddaam used so successfully last time around. And that many troops in-country will render Saddaam unable to engage in the kind of brutal repression of his people that keeps him in power. Which means he's not going to go for it. So in my mind, it's in that group. But fine, take it out; make it four. None of these are complex solutions. They are, basically: use overwhelming force to get what we want; do nothing; or give up. The kind of elegant diplomatic solutions we all wish would solve this problem only work when there are complex baskets of things that the various parties want. We want, basically, one thing: Saddaam never, ever gets WMD. This is inconsistent with Saddaam's goals, which are: continue breathing, stay in power, increase that power. He sees WMD as crucial to at least 2 of those goals. There's no horse-trading, no brilliant orchestration of competing interests to reveal a previously unthought of solution, that is going to reconcile those sets of goals. I mean, I guess we could offer to invade Iran for him if he gives up his WMD, but isn't that Sending the Wrong Message to the Children?
Vedrine was complaining that the US was seeking simplistic answers. My problem with the anti-war crowd isn't that their answers are simple; it's that their arguments are.
Posted by Jane Galt at September 25, 2002 10:01 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links