September 22, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:I just realized one of
I just realized one of the things that really, really, bothers me about a lot of the anti-war arguments; it's the huge number of people who want to cast this in the simplistic terms of a morality play.
"If we take pre-emptive action against Iraq, how can we protest when others do the same?"
You're kidding, right? We are not their parents. The United States is not going to conduct its foreign policy on the level of setting a good example and hoping others follow. These are the same people who refuse to believe that over-generous welfare policies will not result in social decay because they somehow fail to apprehend the huge threat-power that enforces norm in reciprocal-morality social systems, and thus believe that you can build a working system with all carrot, no stick. Unfortunately, they also often raise their children this way, and worse, take those children to public places I frequent. But I digress.
If you are really under the impression that the reason that people listen when the US talks is our immense moral power -- well, why do you spend so much time screaming about how George Bush is just like Hitler, and if he'd just hold still while I paste on this little fake mustache, everyone would see it? Also, I'm afraid you're not quite emotionally old enough to be allowed out on the street without someone to hold your hand, much less be permitted to enter a voting booth.
"How can we risk going to war when we're not completely certain Saddaam poses a threat?"
Because the threat Saddaam potentially poses is not The Utter Destruction of the West Chipton Charity Fete's Frozen Lemonade Stand. Unfortunately, the risk is that he will seize and control a plurality of the world's oil supply by using WMD as a deterrent, or hand WMD to groups whose links cannot be directly traced back to him. And before you say that this is not true, let me point out that since you are the same person who, when a WMD attack of uncertain provenance happens on American soil, will be staunchly against launching some smack-ass on Hussein without firm proof of a connection, I find it hard to take this seriously. Since committing in advance to do exactly that is the only way to credibly deter such a handoff.
"It's wrong to enter a war without getting multilateral support".
So something that is morally wrong becomes morally right if enough mandarins appointed by third-world dictators vote okay?
"Why can't we try more diplomatic avenues?"
What do you think we've been doing for the last ten years?
"But Saddaam had legitimate grievances against the inspections -- they were spying!"
We made a deal with Saddaam: allow unfettered access of inspectors, or we invade. The agreement did not say "Except if they want to go into special, secret places like Presidential Palaces." The entire point of inspections is going into special, secret places. If Saddaam didn't like that, he was free to choose Plan B -- and whoops! He has.
"But how can we attack Iraq and leave [horrible regime of choice] in place?"
Repeat after me: other nations are not our children. We do not have to treat all of them the same so they won't know we love Australia best. Saddaam is getting taken out because Saddaam with WMD will, first of all, destabilize the Middle East far, far more than anything we do there, and second of all, make a probably successful ploy to seize control of a majority of the region's oil supplies and thereby render himself untouchable. I'm sorry it isn't Making the World Safe For Democracy, but then, the wars that were supposed to do that did not, on the evidence of the last 50 years, do a very good job. Maybe Making the World Safe From Horrible Dictators With Chemical or Nuclear Weapons is the best we can do right now.
Also, you may note that North Korea has invited us to inspect. They're not stupid. So we are setting a good example.
"How can we attack Iraq unless we're prepared to give the whole place a makeover -- more like, say, Sweden with Pita Bread?"
First of all, I'm not sure they eat pita in Iraq; all Arabs aren't alike, you racist pig. Second of all, Sweden's not doing so hot right now. And third of all, I'll say it again: we are not responsible for making sure they grow up to be solid world citizens, although if we can do it, I'm all for trying. What we are responsible for is making sure that they do not amass sufficient power to wreak havoc on their neighbors or American citizens, or both.
There are good arguments for holding back from Iraq. I, too, am worried about the shape of the world to come. But telling me that we have to conduct our foreign policy on the same set of rules as kindergarten -- well, it would be nice if we were all that civilized, and I am all for beating our swords into plowshares, but only after we've beaten the bad guys into a pulp. These arguments are just silly. For one thing, kindergarteners do not have munitions. And for another, most dictators have already learned not to eat paste.
Update Wow, record time to angry email. Listen, I am well aware that many anti-war arguments are not simplistic. I have continuing dialogue with intelligent anti-war people like Jim and Jim. We are assessing risks differently -- they rate the risks of action higher, the risks of inaction lower, than I do. Eventually, we'll know who's right. But there are people who are making these kind of simplistic arguments. I ran across one in the Fray the other day, whose prescription was -- yes, you guessed it -- ratifying Kyoto, freeing up trade, and doing an all-out grovel to the UN. These things leave me speechless. At some level, can people really believe that Atta et. al drove a plane into a building because of concerns about carbon emissions and textile tariffs?
Posted by Jane Galt at September 22, 2002 7:40 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links