Asymmetrical Information

Many of president Bush’s critics will never believe him regardless of the evidence. They will simply dismiss it as lying propaganda produced by the CIA or some other alleged nefarious organization. A conspiracy theorist will always find a justification to continue to hold onto their myths. Has anybody ever heard the name of Oliver Stone?

The President has already convinced most of the reasonable folks who truly do demand further evidence. What about the others? The hell with them! They are mostly fruitcake ideologues who are not worthy of any more of our precious time. These folks should be treated as the immature children that they are.

Depending on how much info the Israelis want to share with the US, this recent development might help us out a lot.

The problem, though, is that removing Saddam has ultimately less to do with reactionary "well, no sh*t, Sherlock" aspects such as biochematomics and terrorist ties than it does with beginning the siege against dictatorship and its appendages - one of which is our immediate threat, terrorism.

In another sense: when we limit the debate of Iraq to "he's a bad guy" or "he's got really awful tips on his missiles," the argument is quite vulnerable to the opposing viewpoints of "why now?" or "why Saddam?". Ergo, trotting up to the UN on Wednesday with photos of Saddam dancing naked with al Qaeda leaders to I Can't Get No Satisfaction won't flip any wigs. Either nations understand the danger of dictatorship, period, and recognize that alone to be the deeply embedded source of mentalities culminating in al Qaeda, or nations are either despots themselves or friends with despots; they have no interest in a new world order.

When, however, we include the sociopolitical ambition of reshaping the Middle East through democracy and thereby undercutting the allure of hateful extremism and terrorism, such "evidence" as provided by the Bush administration is merely icing on the cake, the ideology supporting an Iraq offensive having already been clearly established.

All of this begs the question: the United States alone is capable of beginning, sustaining and rebuilding following this offensive. Moreover, history can show again and again how most nations are endlessly tepid will wait, if but silently, for a leader with conviction to simply step forward and act. Why are worries focused on being popular rather than being right?

Er, if I understand rightly, if we could show that Saddam is directly allied with Al Qaeda (which would include nekkid dancing), we don't need no stinkin' Security Council, because that's a private affair. Even if others join the fun.

Now that the UN has gone this far, any objections of "Why now?" or "Why Saddam?" in the face of hard evidence would effectively kill the UN. There will still be whiners, but those who can't bring themselves to trust the judgment of the US in these matters will have to either go along, or admit that the UN is worthless. I think it is worthless, but other reasonable people still put stock in it.

Kaplan sounds as if he is the one with his fingers in his ears, singing, "La la la. I can't hear you." He lost my confidence about the time he said we'd never divulge our true imaging resolution. Guess it never occurred to him that we can degrade the resolution to whatever we think will make our case. The other specific objections are just as poor.

It is the reliance on the "and they won't believe us anyway" that is troubling. That, as they say in the classroom, in unfalsifiable ... unless of course they do believe us. So why not give then the chance? Angie Schultz has a good start on it. Why not go in with what Powell thinks is a reasonably convincing case, containing at least something that has not already been objected to beyond "So what? Don't believe you anyway." Take questions. Calculate what is needed to overcome (or undermine) objections. Go back with a higher level of evidence. Wear 'em down.

Now, how many people have to be in that room? I know we are trying to convince the world, and we should, but is is a somewhat different matter to convince Security Council members. Not happy about Syria? Don't shoe 'em the good stuff. Syria doesn't have a veto. It's bad manners to show to some but not to all, but it is also bad manners to go to war "on behalf of the world" when much of the world objects. Yes, there will be a considerable risk of losing intelligence sources, but there is a middle ground. Going in claiming "they don't like us anyway" is a bit small minded, as is clinging too closely to sources, when we are talking about going to war. Heck, we plan to blow up some of those sources of intelligence and make others irrelevant, anyway. See Wesley Clark's piece in September's Washington Monthly for why we should try really hard to win friends and influence Security Council members.

The technical intelligence is secondary to the real issue (as opposed to the issues focused on by the near psychotic anti-Bush or anti-American entities) at play in this debate; whether the status quo in the Middle East, or even a slow change in the status quo, is tolerable. I don't believe it is, since the region is a swamp of despots with effective control of the world's energy supply, and therefore large sums of money. The region thus breeds vectors which threaten the world's prosperity, along with threatening innocent civilians with slaughter on a massive scale. Having Saddam Hussein receive the full Mussolini treatment would be instructive to extreme elements within the House of Saud that being veiwed as an enemy of the U.S. can have extraordinarily unpleasant results, and thus lead to a fundmental change in that despotic regime, in terms of their funding anti-American ideology,if nothing else. Such a rapid change in the status quo may help the pro-Western elements in Iran as well, in their struggle against theocratic fascists. None of this guaranteed, of course, and the it is a perilous strategy to pursue. The alternative, however, is to make do with the staus quo, which I believe guarantees disaster.

Going in claiming "they don't like us anyway" is a bit small minded, as is clinging too closely to sources, when we are talking about going to war.

Oh, by all means, we should provide United Nations members every last chance to prove themselves willing to act on the international law they declare. Much to our advantage, every negotiation point blown by either Saddam or his appeasors is one more pound of moral authority the United States can wield when we call their bluff.

But here's my problem: opponents of military action will, true to form, seek to hinge the case to depose Saddam on the evidence. That, rather than additional rationale, the acceptance of the intelligence will be considered integral to the case. This will most likely materialize as an attempt to shift the burden of proof. It's another hurdle for appeasors to set and shuttle about as opportunity provides. America can't let this feint occur, so the evidence must be emphasized as a gratuity - or, if State can play its hand well, redundant.

Well, this thread is starting to resemble an echo chamber--can we quit wasting time invade that damn country now!! And David, always good to see you demean not only the arguments, but the people you disagree with.

No one denies that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons; we sold them to him. But those weapons simply are not a threat to the US. Not only has he absolutely no delivery system; but he is a secular ruler--he is not into Islamic martyrdom. He knows that if any of those weapons were used against the US, nothing would prevent his instant demise.

It is the nuclear weapons that are the key. Building a nuclear program requires resources that would be fairly easy to evidence without betraying secret sources. This is the evidence that is not forthcoming.

MIchael, are you sure you want democracy in the ME? Don't forget, democracies generally enact policies that are in their best interest. The reason the US has historically backed tinhorn dictators (including Saddam when it was in our interest) is that they are easier to control, easier to get them to sell out their people to accomodate OUR interests. That being said, are we capable of installing democracy in that region. Quite doubtful considering the resources that would have to come from the US. BTW, anyone keeping up on how we are accomplishing that task in Afghanistan? No, chances are we will guard the oil field while allowing some US sycophant dictator to rule, his stipend being the blood of the Iraqi people. This would destabalize the area, and further fuel and anti-American jihad. Bottom line, our security would, in fact, suffer from an invasion of Iraq. Lastly, history has also shown what patience and wise diplomacy can accomplish (see the USSR and East Germany).

Will, you are hinting at the crux here: what is the best resolution that would boost US securty?You are unhappy with the status quo, fair enough, your point about the uncertainties of invasion that resonates loudly: are we sure this will help???? Any resolution in the ME would necassarily involve some solution of the Palastine/Isreali conflict. I suggest we start there.

Will Allen has it right, the problem the French and Germans have isn't a lack of evidence that Saddam is a dangerous person. Their problem is that they prefer to keep the staus quo in the Middle East (hey, nobody's killing them. Yet.). Plus they'd really hate to see the US demonstratively assert even more power in the world, since their long-term goal is to establish a Franco-German dominated Europe as a rival superpower to the US. No amount of evidence about Saddam's weapons programs will alleviate the problems they have with the war. The best that we could hope is that enough evidence might make continued opposition to the war untenable because of public opinion, but frankly, if the Blix report hasn't already done that, there's not really much hope of it. It's too easy to dismiss "evidence" as speculation or fabrication. Especially now that we've given them enough time to get the steam up in the anti-war boiler.

And speaking of the anti-war crowd, they are just that: anti-war. Not pro-peace or pro-responsibility or pro-civilian life, but anti-war (at least war fought by the US). Nothing will convince them war is justified. These are the same people who opposed Afghanistan in the immediate wake of Sept. 11th.

All in all, Powell's mission is probably a waste of time. But, is suppose we owe it to ourselves to give the UN - our creation after all - one last chance to act responsibly. I don't hold out much hope - those folks there don't seem to know what "one last chance" means.

TonyB writes:

No one denies that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons; we sold them to him. But those weapons simply are not a threat to the US. Not only has he absolutely no delivery system; but he is a secular ruler--he is not into Islamic martyrdom. He knows that if any of those weapons were used against the US, nothing would prevent his instant demise.

First of all, the US did not sell chemical weapons to Iraq. We sold some chemicals which were "dual-use" and could be made into chemical weapons. This is an important distinction that is deliberately ignored by those more interested in distraction than discussion. Secondly, claiming that Saddam has no delivery system is another deception. Saddam has no military delivery system for chemical or biological weapons, but terrorist uses of these require no sophisticated delivery systems. Lastly, Saddam has shown that he is willing to work with islamic fundamentalists despite the fact that his regime was once nominally secular. He has supported several fundamentalist terrorist groups with arms and funding including Hezbollah and Hamas.

Tony,

I'm glad "No one denies that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons; we sold them to him." Except, um, I think the Iraqis are denying it. And in effect the French and Germans are denying it, since 1441 says Iraq must completely disarm of all WMD, and that include chem and bio weapons.

You may be right about the US' ability to install a democracy in Iraq, after we invade. We certainly don't have much experience in doing so. But I'm surprised at the argument you (and others) make about stability. If our invasion is going to cause so much instability, what do you think will happen if we don't invade, when Saddam finally dies and our army is _not_ there to pick up the pieces? By all reports, Saddam's sons are not very stable themselves.

If we do succeed in building a democracy in Iraq, I think you're right that it may not be very pro-US (look at Germany! :-) ). However, democracies tend to not start wars, so we could expect a somewhat more peaceful ME as a result. An Iraq that is getting rich from trade with Kuwait is unlikely to invade it. (If we can discourage the Saudis and other countries from the continuous drumbeat of anti-Western and anti-Israeli propaganda, things could get really peaceful.)

"Any resolution in the ME would necassarily involve some solution of the Palastine/Isreali conflict. I suggest we start there."

The Palestinian situation has got next to nothing to do with increasing the prospects of peace in the Middle East. How will that ever alleviate the inferiority complex of the Islamic militants? Moreover, these folks could care less if the Palestinians live or die. They are merely a convenient excuse to criticize the Jews. Make no mistake about it: the success of the Jews in the very tiny state of Israel highlights the backwardness and hopelessness of Wahhabism.

One of the most important reasons to invade Iraq is to intimidate the radical Muslims. These totalitarians only respect power. Ultimately, we must either kill or jail these fanatics. They have crossed the existential line of Nihilism, and now are unable of ever again pursuing the typical bourgeoisie lifestyle. It might also behoove a few people to read Eric Hoffer’s seminal work, The True Believer.

"Lastly, Saddam has shown that he is willing to work with islamic fundamentalists despite the fact that his regime was once nominally secular"

Michael Ledeen in his recent The War Against the Terror Masters also notes that these thugs form alliances with their ideological opposites that are peculiar to say the least. Logical consistency is apparently not a highly held value. The Ayatollah Khomeini was a radical Islamic cleric who didn't hesitate to ally "himself with anyone who could advance his cause: from Sunni terrorists like Arafat to Marxists unbelievers like the the leaders of the PFLP, and even deviants from the Islamic tradition like Hafez al-Assad." The author contends that it is foolhardy to suggest "that members of different sects and or traditions cannot work together in a common enterprise." On the contrary, terrorist leaders readily embrace the concept that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This is especially true when their common foe is the United States and the other centers of Western Civilization. Tomorrow they probably will return to killing each other, but today there are infidels to be murdered.

Certainty is hard to come by in this world, so if a lack of certainty is the argument against changing the status quo, one has implicitly endorsed the status quo until the end of time. In this instance, the status quo has proved disastrous, and will become increasingly disastrous as time goes on. The suggestion that a "solution" be found to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict as a fist step would be humorous, if not for the subject matter. Gee, why didn't anybody think of that before? News Flash: Substantial elements, if not outright majorities, of these populations do not desire a "solution" that doesn't involve the destruction of the opposing entity. At the present time, the only lasting "solution" to this conflict is for one entity to be destroyed. This isn't an endorsement of that course of action, but merely a recognition that proposing that a peaceful "solution" be found to the conflict is to propose exactly nothing. In fact, it is the widely-held Palestinian hope that one day Israel might be destroyed that is the largest roadblock to that solution, and cutting off oil money to the Palestinians, and thereby annihilating any hope that they have of destroying Israel, would make it easier for Israel to completely marginalize their extreme entities. Stringing up Saddam, and then forcing the House of Saud to either change or be destroyed, would improve the chances of a Palestinian/Israeli "solution".

The notion that people against another Iraq war will never be convinced that it is justified is idiotic. I'm "anti-war" or whatever you want to call it, but that decision is for this specific war based on all of the current information. Most of the other people against this war feel the same way. Sure there are radical elements that would oppose any war no matter what, but there are also those who want war all the time for no good reason. You don't have to go much farther than your average poll that states support for war jumps from 20% to 80% with UN backing (or whatever the numbers are today).

Frankly, I just don't trust this administration. Now, I don't need to personally see the evidence, but it would be nice if they actually showed it to anyone and managed to convince them. I don't think the information needs to be made public, or to all of the UN equally. I'd be happy if they would show the evidence to a few key leaders in private, plus maybe some of the Congressional opposition. Let our elected leaders make some informed decisions, and cut the "trust us" crap.

We need the support of the world in any effort to oust Saddam. Not necessarily for the military actions themselves, but for the aftermath.

And we won't gain any "respect" from radical Muslims by crushing anybody. These extremists are the people that truly will never stop and never be convinced. The only way to stop them is by finding them and physically stopping them. For this we do need the cooperation of friendly nations, and Iraq is more of a distraction than anything.

Michael, are you sure you want democracy in the ME?

Yes. Beginning in the Middle East, the only path to world peace - a goal shared by all good people - is the absence of dictatorship.

Are you sure, Tony, that the freedoms of Arabs, Persians and North Africans aren't worth the monetary and human sacrifice of Americans and allies? If you don't want democracy, you're obviously a proponent for continued oppression. If this is not the case, please explain the discrepancy.

The reason the US has historically backed tinhorn dictators (including Saddam when it was in our interest) is that they are easier to control, easier to get them to sell out their people to accomodate OUR interests.

Welcome to realpolitik. Unfortunately, that argument is incredibly weak: how do past actions, if dreadful mistakes committed in a different political landscape, nullify the West's ability to right their situation and cease propping up the illusion of "benevolent dictatorship"? How is America condemned to continue supporting despots? Wouldn't Saddam's removal be an excellent step in this new direction?

That being said, are we capable of installing democracy in that region. Quite doubtful considering the resources that would have to come from the US.

Baseless. Studying the occupation and democratization of Germany and Japan whose populations, unlike Iraq, were generally unwilling to change, Iraq is very much within Western scope. You mention Afghanistan as an allusion to failure: it's been hardly one year, and the transitional government has not yet been replaced by one elected. And since when is Afghanistan separate from the rest of the Middle East Culture of Death? Arab mercenary terrorists populated ranks of Taliban, and are still being imported into Afghanistan from virtually every corner of the infested Middle East; here we have cleared one branch of a hornet-smitten tree, and you're surprised to be stung?

No, chances are we will guard the oil field while allowing some US sycophant dictator to rule, his stipend being the blood of the Iraqi people.

If that did happen, you'd be correct. But I believe it won't - and, unfortunately, the only decision to make on that observation is subjective. Either we believe the Bush administration to be serious about planting the seeds of elected government or we don't.

Any resolution in the ME would necassarily involve some solution of the Palastine/Isreali conflict. I suggest we start there.

Yes, but the wrong way 'round. The West Bank Arabs are a symptom of the culture of hate; not a cause. They certainly have no enticing places to go; Arab states refuse them, and really, how is one autocracy different from the next? A free Jordan, or a free Syria, or even a free Egypt would draw thousands, eager to begin a self-determined life. And what's all this about maps excluding Israel? Or the bit about "driving Jews into the sea"? The Middle East, unchallenged today, celebrates the hatred of Jews. How can one negotiate in the face of that? Only when this sentiment can be dissuaded through force and political change - when Arabs recognize the right for Israel and Jews themselves to exist - will any possiblity for peaceful resolution arise. In a more local sense, creating a state called "Palestine" involves teaching those who would wish it as their home that the expressed slaughter of innocents is not a path to independent governance; nor is following the leadership of an undisputable terrorist like Yasser Arafat.

Lastly, history has also shown what patience and wise diplomacy can accomplish (see the USSR and East Germany).

Ah, but herein lies a misunderstanding: military use is not the best choice for every liberation. A perfect example is Iran, whose population has been holding pro-America, pro-democracy and pro-Western riots and rallies for months, notably after 9/11/01. All they would need is political and military support; with an armed potential nowhere near that of Saddam, Iran's mullahs could easily be removed without military force.

Robin, you will have to explain to me why the duel use description is an important distinction. The US knew Saddam was a bad guy and what he may do. I agree with you that those weapons could be delivered, but weigh those chances and the difficulty in producing mass injuries against the definite injuries of war. His having those things requires us to keep a close watch, not invade. Finally, despite the protestations of the administration and many posters on this site, no evidence of a Saddam/Al Qaeda connection exits, furthermore, western intelligence agencies state that Saddam has not engaged in terror against the west since 1993.

"Except, um, I think the Iraqis are denying it. "
Ha, ha, good point, I meant, of course, those responsible for deciding on an invasion. That anti-western drumbeat in Saudi Arabia goes reletively unnoticed, yet it is creating the next generation of terrorists. PJ, do you really think the wealth of those oil fields will be put in Iraqi hands?

"The Palestinian situation has got next to nothing to do with increasing the prospects of peace in the Middle East. How will that ever alleviate the inferiority complex of the Islamic militants? Moreover, these folks could care less if the Palestinians live or die."

Disagree that the situation has "next to nothing to do with the prospects of peace." But I do agree that arab states do not care about the Palestinians. In fact, prior to WWII as the palestinians were being displaced by Jewish settlements, they were not absorbed into other Arab countries precisely so they could be used as pretext for animosity. Terrible sellout by their Arab brothers. But, as long as the US is seen in the ME as being biased against arabs in favor of Isreal, that situation is a major sticking point to a peaceful region.

[I]You don't have to go much farther than your average poll that states support for war jumps from 20% to 80% with UN backing[/I]
I've never understood the concept of rating the morality of an action based on its popularity. Does that mean slavery was good when most of the countries in the world practiced it?

RE: Iranian struggle for democracy, check this out. And this.

Yeah, I think we want Middle East democracy. The determination of these people alone is enough to bring a man to tears.

monkeyboy,

I used the poll to show that it wasn't impossible to change peoples' opinions. Polls = peoples' opinions. Nowhere did I state anything about morality. Your attack is totally irrelevant to my point.

And I still don't understand why people are arguing about installing democracies and freeing the Arab people. Are you really saying that the freedom of these oppressed people is the stated goal of an Iraq war? If so, would you still be arguing for a war if Saddam did disarm completely? Or would you let the Iraqi people continue to be brutalized and tortured under his rule?

"But, as long as the US is seen in the ME as being biased against arabs in favor of Isreal, that situation is a major sticking point to a peaceful region."

There's little that we can do about this perception of bias. I'm utterly convinced that Israel could have the most liberal government--and the rage and bitterness of the Islamic militants would still persist. This mindset has virtually to do with a logical way of looking at the world. It is instead an attempt to scapegoat others for one's own failings. Please pick up a copy of Bernard Lewis' "What Went Wrong." You might also do well reading the same author's fantastic essay in the September 1990 issue of The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/90sep/rage.htm

If so, would you still be arguing for a war if Saddam did disarm completely?

He won't, and no, even if he did I would not be satisfied. That's why it's ultimately incomplete to consider the offensive only a corollary to Saddam's weapons capabilities. To some degree, the Bush administration must simplify the reason to a few technicals - it's publicly and diplomatically critical. But the anticipated result is to invade the concept of the Middle East being incapable of supporting leaders empowered from consent of the governed.

Incidentally, the State line of "if Saddam disarmed, we'd consider that regime change" was not so much a cave but an almost sardonic expression of hyperbole. As in, if the Devil himself ceased to be evil personified, he'd cease to be the Devil.

He won't, and no, even if he did I would not be satisfied.

It sounds like you're saying Saddam's weapons are an unnecessary component to the pro-war argument. What are the core arguments for the war, in your opinion, without which the picture is incomplete?

I don't mean to be picky. I'd just like to argue the relevant points, not the irrelevant ones.

Josh,

Here are the core reasons for forcefully removing Saddam and his Ba'athist party from power in Iraq:

-Saddam is a ruthless dictator with ambitions to create an expanded empire in the ME.

-He has shown no reservations about using chemical and biological weapons to further his ambitions when he thinks he can get away with it. Whether he has such weapons right now or not, he is capable of aquiring them in short order if we ever look the other way.

-Rather than having any sense of respect for us showing mercy and leaving him in power when we had routed his military and could have overthrown his government in '91, he has instead shown contempt for his vanquishers by refusing to honor the terms of the cease fire, and even going so far as to attempt to assasinate the first President Bush.

-He does not honor his agreements, so reaching any with him is useless.

-His presence is a destabilizing force to any efforts to foster democracy in the region, since among other reasons, the threat of an Iraqi invasion (which will happen as soon as we turn out back on him) prevents surrounding populations from enacting serious reforms.

-He provides direct financial support to the terror in Palestine that prevents any meaningful progress towards a solution to that problem.

-There is no prospect of democratic reform in Iraq while his party retains power, as any political dissent is quickly crushed through internal terror.

-His sons are even worse examples of humanity than he is, and the situation would only get worse if we waited for him to expire of natural causes.

TonyB's Wapo citation was a good start at trying to unwrap the US Iraq relationship in 1980-5. I'd love to know some of their references, as citation of "thousands of documents" is unsatisfying in several ways. In doing such a review, I'd also expect the authors to say how the specific trade credits extended differed from any others extended in that period, except in hindsight. In addition, the numerically sloppy "billions of dollars of credits" mentioned in Teicher's affidavit is huge enough to merit added investigation into its plausibility and uses. Were the credits were for munitions or for grain, for example? But the article is better than any other that I've seen.

Josh, this is a good encapsulation of what I see as the primary argument for toppling Hussein for a democracy . It's short, but the Plain Dealer wouldn't accept it any longer.

It sounds like you're saying Saddam's weapons are an unnecessary component to the pro-war argument.

No...but I see how it can come off that way. Like solid al Qaeda links (before the West has access to classified Ba'ath documents postwar), I see the weapon issue to be largely redundant. And ultimately misleading, for to end one's desire for cooperation on "disarmament," one proposes to leave dictatorship in place; and a militaristic dictatorship disarmed for any length of time is a physical impossibility. And again, it goes against the school of thought to which I associate, in that the source of terrorism and world instability is the absence of freedom in some nations.

Saddam must be viewed in the larger perspective of democratization. To look no further than weaponry is to cheat the West of realizing what it must defeat: autocracy. Again, I wish that the Bush administration could speak more broadly more often, but with Iraq as the precedent of democratization - something that challenges decades-old concepts at home and abroad of tolerating dictatorships - the administration cannot. They must simply focus, officially, on terms that the world will accept. As the Middle East begins to revolutionize and despots fall, Bush can be more candid and more rhetorically ambitious (but just read the transcript of his SOTU and it's obvious he makes no secret of spreading elected governments).

But first things first. The closest analogy I can think of is when police officers, committed to clearing the street of criminals and having surrounded a man on the run for an assortment of crimes including murder, instruct him to "drop your weapon!" The crook is under arrest for crimes beyond his immediate threat to enforcers of the peace; but the primary stage of his capitulation to justice is his own disarmament.

He provides direct financial support to the terror in Palestine that prevents any meaningful progress towards a solution to that problem.

As much as I'm in favor of invading Iraq, this is an extremely weak justification. Saddam not a major funder, as far as I know.

No one denies that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons; we sold them to him. But those weapons simply are not a threat to the US. Not only has he absolutely no delivery system; but he is a secular ruler--he is not into Islamic martyrdom. He knows that if any of those weapons were used against the US, nothing would prevent his instant demise.

John Hawkins gave the moral case above. The national security one is "Saddam is a gambler bad at evaluating risks, with a history of cross-border adventures to take care of domestic problems, and he's explicitly threatened to nuke/burn the Saudi oilfields." He won't nuke the US, but god only knows what he'd get up to in his backyard.

"He knows that if any of those weapons were used against the US, nothing would prevent his instant demise."

Oh my God, here we go again. I doubt very much if Saddam Hussein will ever boldly attack the United States. Declaring an official war against a stronger opponent is not his style. Instead, he will do so surreptitiously and will likely deny his involvement after a tragedy occurs. He is very well aware that the appeasers of the West will forevermore claim "we don't have enough evidence." This evil dictator is a master at playing us for fools.

And we won't gain any "respect" from radical Muslims by crushing anybody. These extremists are the people that truly will never stop and never be convinced.

Some people with experience in the region disagree with you. I wish I had specific citations handy but for now, I can recall a speech given by an armed services officer who spent time doing humanitarian work in Afghanistan prior to the Taliban's removal, and frequently deal with military elements there.

He stated that the general reaction to Clinton's cruise missiles was quite the opposite: It was evidence that the US was a snivveling coward, willing to attack from far off but unwilling to take actual risk in face-to-face confrontation.

In a cultural atmosphere that highly respects displays of power and force (even when it does not like them), and utterly despises weakness real or perceived (to the point of carrying Koran modesty dictates to harsh extremes against women), what kind of logical conclusions do you suppose the terrorist networks draw when their efforts are never met by reciprocity sufficient to permanently damage their own cause?

I would like to think that those who harbour such notions are becoming disabused of them in the wake of the Taliban's rout. Saddam is an opportunity to leave no doubt. Can making such an example of Saddam be justified?

Given the choice to either (a) depose Saddam (he being nearly a US-created problem, really: Propped up by the Twin Pillars policy clear back in the Carter days and for a long time following, supported by us during the Iran-Iraq war also), or (b) continue to let him play shell games while covertly seeking to increase his power and weapons base -- well, the former seems a legitimate and more attractive prospect.

There are twenty-four million people in Iraq. Most of them did not ask to be ruled by this man, who currently takes the nation's oil wealth and uses it for wildly excessive self-gratification.

The argument for status quo has weak points. The war position has some also. Pick your poison. Personally, I prefer the latter cyanide over the former death-by-fire-ants.

"what kind of logical conclusions do you suppose the terrorist networks draw when their efforts are never met by reciprocity sufficient to permanently damage their own cause?"

The terrorists are being effectively dealt with! It is a false charge to assert the Bush administration is focussing on Saddam Hussein instead of the allegedly more elusive terrorist groups. We must not forget that many of these terrorists are discretely killed. Such incidents will not be reported in our media outlets.

And yes, the militant mindset respects only power. Negotiations are worthless when dealing with those who perceive them as a sign of weakness. The Islamic radical is a nihilist devoted to death and destruction. In other words, they are similar to rabid dogs who must be put down.

PJ/Maryland’s “what do you think will happen if we don’t invade?” is on to something in the case of Iraq that needs considering on a wider basis. Iraq needs watching forever, whatever we decide to do in the next few months and whatever happens to Saddam. Surrounded by hostile neighbors, Iraq is naturally prone to causing trouble. Beyond that, Jordan’s hereditary monarchy seems unlikely to survive another generation. Lebanon’s system of government seems likely to be tested severely as soon as (should I say “if”) tensions between Israel and Syria ever cool. Egypt’s population is showing fewer signs of powder-keg character than some others in the region, but there, too, trouble is a brewing. Saudi Arabia? Well, if scapegoating ever goes out of fashion, the problems the Saud family has brewed up for the US in the mosques is likely to boil over domestically. Yemen? Yikes!

The “war will fix everything” school assures us that democracy bustin’ out all over is the natural outgrowth of showing off US military might. Is there historical precedent for this? Is there much reason to think that democracy will take root in the Middle East under our tutelage when it has not done so naturally? We have directed diplomacy in the Middle East toward securing oil supplies, security for Israel, and fighting the Cold War. It looks to me like things are now going to get even harder. Democracy may not bust out all over, and if it does, expressions of popular will in the Middle East may not generate all that much security for the US.

Oh, by the way --- Go Josh.

The “war will fix everything” school assures us that democracy bustin’ out all over is the natural outgrowth of showing off US military might.

Know your enemy, Harris. Democracy will fix everything, not necessarily "war"; in many cases, however, military action appears necessary. We may not like, say, the French or the French us, but we don't engage in war or anywhere near; they occasionally pull their weight and we do our best to show our appreciation. Common bond, else all others fail? Freedom.

Is there historical precedent for this? Is there much reason to think that democracy will take root in the Middle East under our tutelage when it has not done so naturally?

You mean to suggest that only certain people seek to legally determine the course of their life? Is it so hard to imagine that the Japanese went from worshipping an Emperor and his warmonger viziers to making movies about giant lizards from within a free market in less than ten years? Such condescension towards the Third World is frustrating - but understandable at this point in time.

Perhaps because there is little precedent: beyond the major conversions like post-Hitler and post-Tojo, no (but those accomplishments had zero precedent). Communism's rise stole most of the last half of the 20th Century from us because, unfortunately, near-sighted pragmatism (work with pliant dictators in the interests of stability) prevailed over far-sighted pragmatism (remove dictators in the interests of stability); the West didn't work hard to free anyone beyond Europe.

As far as Iraq, Harris, it only needs watching as long as the rest of the Middle East remains unfree. Once the ball rolls, I can't see the last vestiges lasting more than another generation anywhere in the region.

Germany practiced democracy prior to Hitler's rise. Germany needed better examples for lots of things in that period, but had an electoral culture. Japan has a democracy, it's true. The same party has dominated that democracy after all but one election since democracy was instituted. I'm not sure that Japan is there in spirit, yet. We can tout freedom and self determination all we want, but the record is that most people throughout most of history have not had a vote. Non-democratic leaders are sometimes quite responsive to demands from the populace, depending on the culture and the circumstances. The "only certain people" line creeps pretty close to the line that the Richar Perles of the world have been spouting -- we are patronizing the undemocratic world when we think they won't throw over their own traditions, often their own interest, to experience something we want them to have. I, too, perfer democracy, but there seem to be some prerequisites. Russia created its own form of democracy, without having it imposed. A good bit of Eastern Europe had been holding elections at various levels of government prior to communist take-over. Claiming democracy will flower and solve everything is fine, as long as we are prepared should that not come to pass.

K Harris,

So, because there's one Party in power, despite free elections, ergo it's not really a democracy? Guess India had to give up that mantle of "world's largest" democracy 'til the late 1990s, eh?

And the US House of Representatives, w/ FORTY YEARS of one party domination, that wasn't much of a democracy either? [Okay, it was only one institution, but still.]

Did the LDP restrain the voters from voting Socialist, Komeito, or any other party? Did the LDP have Japan Socialist (or even Communist) Party members arrested (as they were under Tojo and the militarists)?

In Italy, on the other hand, while different parties assume power in dizzying array, it's always the same handful of politicians, playing musical chairs. Democracy? Successful democracy? "In the right spirit" democracy?

"Claiming democracy will flower and solve everything is fine, as long as we are prepared should that not come to pass."

Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) contends that we must not only emphasize democracy, but also the necessary checks and balances. Weimar Germany had elections and that’s indeed how Adolph Hitler initially acquired power. Yet, this country lacked the constitutional guarantees that would have prevented Hitler from becoming a dictator.

We should get on our knees and pray for a destabilized Middle East. This is the only realistic way we will ultimately defeat the Islamic militants. The status quo must be replaced by a nascent democratic mindset.

First, on the point of respect, you are confusing the Taliban and "general opinions" in Afghanistan with al Qaeda. Maybe the the people, in general, in Afghanistan respect us more now that we fought back the Taliban, but al Qaeda doesn't respect us more. Our own government agencies claim that they are still just as dangerous now as then were on September 11th. The general populus of Afghanistan were never a direct threat to us, and frankly neither were the Taliban. I'm happy that we are in the process of improving the country, but I'm not under any illusions that it somehow made us safer from terrorists.

Michael, I think we agree on a lot of points. I'm also a strong believer than spreading democracy will make us safer, better the world, and improve the human condition. The main question is, is that a justification for war? Clearly in some cases it is. We have participated in more than a few humanitarian crises around the world, and I think we were right to do so.

It does beg the question about timing, though. It sounds like you are happy to piggyback your ideals on the current administration's cry for war. You've made it clear that disarmament is not enough for you. I believe, however, that Bush would stop short of liberation if possible. If I'm right, it's a case of ends justifying the means, which I don't believe in.

It seems we differ on a philosophical level, where you feel that the U.S. is justified in bringing democracy to the rest of the world by itself, and I have a more "who's policing the policemen" standpoint. Short of changing my philosophy, we might have to agree to disgree on this particular point.

We should get on our knees and pray for a destabilized Middle East. This is the only realistic way we will ultimately defeat the Islamic militants. The status quo must be replaced by a nascent democratic mindset.

First of all, a "destabilized" region and "nascent democratic mindset" are not equivalent. With only the first part you end up with Afghanistan again. The second part is the hard one, which will take a long time, and lot of money, and a lot of cooperation to acheive. Anyone know how much of our defense budget goes to Japan (your favorite example) nowadays?

Second, this will not defeat the militants, they are just going to go elsewhere and regroup. There are plenty of "destabilized" regions for them to hide in.

Third, I'm not quite so confident that the Iraqis will be pleased with us after the war. Any war that ultimately ends in ousting Saddam is going to be devastating to the country. The larger the civilian casualties, the harder any cooperation is going to be. I hope that the "shock and awe" strategies and urban warfare practice are just worst-case-scenario planning, but I wouldn't bet on it.

The Weimar Republic was shaky, following straight after Imperial rule, and suffered from Communist subterfuge before, of course, elections were swept by the Nazis. I wouldn't exactly call the mood before or after the Second World War as lovingly embracing democracy, nor was it properly protected from the devils that led to its demise.

Non-democratic leaders are sometimes quite responsive to demands from the populace, depending on the culture and the circumstances.

Except that an unelected power is not derived from consent of the governed - so whatever it can offer, it will not willingly allow its termination of power. That's a façade of responsiveness at best and poor excuse for continued oppression.

"Electoral culture" is a tricky idea; on one hand, I do think it to be a relativist surrender in assuming that any culture precludes individual liberties, or that a culture rejecting individual rights has a privilege to exist. Two human beings put in one room will find matters on which to disagree; it is impossible to imagine a nation caring little about a free press to criticize, advise or otherwise express.

Some nations are fortunate enough to see circumstance set a strongly willed populace against an impotent state. In the late-80s USSR or in the Philippines, totalitarian rule lost whatever centralized allure it once held and the populace overcame the weakened regime. Taiwan made a slow, slow move to democracy. We can see another instance of this internal rising in Iran today. Qatar is inching away from autocratic rigidity.

In most other cases, external effort must be exerted; historically, due to immediate security threats posed by the dictatorships. In postwar Germany and Japan, Allies literally and psychologically knocked the wind out of totalitarian ideals; to follow the Swastika or the Rising Sun wasn't worth ignomininous defeat.

I agree very much with Perle, however, in that many people simply can't overthrow their governments. The Iraqi Republican Guard's primary task is to suppress the populace; Iraq people haven't dared revolt since their slaughter at the hands of Saddam in 1991. The lack of liberalized government isn't due to an absence of will but rather an inability of civilians to overcome the third largest army in the world led by one of the nastiest police states.

Again, proponents of liberating the Middle East are not advocating "war" in itself as much as they are simply advocating all means necessary to provide free elections and free markets. Unfortunately, only a few nations in the Middle East will be able to free themselves - at present. Iraq's democratization is likely to offer incredible strength. All the same, by no means should we rely on it alone (see Weimar Republic, above).

We can tout freedom and self determination all we want, but the record is that most people throughout most of history have not had a vote.

That's begging the question and moreover, isn't that assuming a human inability to evolve and move towards universal democracy? Or denying the need for all societies to do so? Ninety percent of medical technology is from the last century - should we not use it, seeing as how those before us made do? Women's rights and equal sufferage has long been ignored - should we shrug it off as foreign to history? Men with dark skin lived and died in this very country with neither rights nor respect for centuries; is their forty-year-old step into equality but a ephemeral trend, contrary to the weight of ages?

Finally: for only the last two hundred years has a democracy created itself from revolution and flourished. For only fifteen years has that nation indisputably led the world in both military and economic strength. For less than two years has that nation's president not only rejected his former doubts about nation-building but set the premise as a cornerstone of his presidency. Very little time has passed for the conditions conducive to freeing nations, indeed!

Josh, I think a few of your questions are answered in my response to Harris.

For what it's worth, I would never expect any extremists of any stripe to hate America more or less, regardless of what America does. Al Qaeda operatives are targets to be eliminated, not potential negotiating partners. I refuse to ascribe to the idea of "win them over to our side" or "it will foment more anger." Peace is made with reasonable men only.

Michael, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. My comments about al Qaeda were directed more at Dave, not you.

I think transforming the Middle East is an admirable goal. My reservations arise not from the goal, but from several other things:

1. My lack of trust in the current administration.

2. The short-sightedness of unilateral war in general. I'm not advocating a hands-off approach here. I think there are many methods of turning up the pressure besides war. And yes, I think the U.N. is doing a fairly crappy job at it.

3. The apparent timing of the war. It seems that we should be focusing more on terrorist than dictators (for the moment).

Nation building makes sense in a game-theory sort of way, but I think using this war as a tool will be as much a disaster as Bush's PR campaign has been. Sure WWII may have turned out for the best in a democracy-spreading sense, but it also came at a terrible price.

So on the one hand, you can advocate nation building as long as you realize the process is often painful for all involved, but on the other hand you should also be advocating that we spend some effort on other at-risk nations so that they are "properly protected from the devils that will lead to their demise".

"I think there are many methods of turning up the pressure besides war. And yes, I think the U.N. is doing a fairly crappy job at it."

This option will only make life much harder for the typical Iraqi. Saddam Hussein insulates himself from these pressures. He will still live in luxury.

"It seems that we should be focusing more on terrorist than dictators (for the moment)."

This is a false dichotomy--especially when one considers the harsh fact that Saddam funds terrorism.

1. My lack of trust in the current administration.

That's tainting the subject and I can't account for that. Though I do trust Bush, I am and have been critical of some of the administration's policies. One needs to keep some objectivity - otherwise nothing else is driving an argument beyond bias.

2. The short-sightedness of unilateral war in general. I'm not advocating a hands-off approach here. I think there are many methods of turning up the pressure besides war. And yes, I think the U.N. is doing a fairly crappy job at it.

Yes - twelve years and nothing doing. If a diplomatic compulsion fails, what other alternative does the world have, lest the very integrity of law be challenged by an unwillingness to prosecute it? Furthermore - the "unilateral" charge flirts with the idea that actions are better when popular than when right.

3. The apparent timing of the war. It seems that we should be focusing more on terrorist than dictators (for the moment).

This is exactly where my beliefs are founded: terrorism exists because of dictatorship; it is a 20th-Century tentacle slithering from the absence of freedom. To say "defeat the terrorists first" is to advocate snipping a weed's leaves off rather than ripping its roots from the ground. People living in freedom do not engage in these acts as a matter of societal involvement; when some do, they are universally condemned (read: Timothy McVeigh) rather than canonized (read: Osama bin Laden, Yasser Arafat). (Separatist groups in free nations I would classify with terrorists, for their status as freedom fighters is long over; most specifically, the IRA and Basque terrorists, in league with Middle Eastern counterparts as if terrorism were the goal and not political change). Moreover, from a practical standpoint, the dictatorships - in the Middle East particularly - provide a series of safe havens for terrorists. Funnily enough, it's like the caves of Afghanistan. As long as several are still in operation, terrorists can move and be sustained at will.

Sure WWII may have turned out for the best in a democracy-spreading sense, but it also came at a terrible price.

Be careful that you're not replacing the solution for the problem, as if a doctor would infect a patient with bacteria to adminster an antibiotic - we converted Germany and Japan because it was the military endgame to killing a fascist-led, global war.

So on the one hand, you can advocate nation building as long as you realize the process is often painful for all involved, but on the other hand you should also be advocating that we spend some effort on other at-risk nations so that they are "properly protected from the devils that will lead to their demise".

I can think of no greater goal for America than to end freedom's definition as "an island." Give my regards to Broadwa-er, the Department of State!

1. My lack of trust in the current administration.

That's tainting the subject and I can't account for that. Though I do trust Bush, I am and have been critical of some of the administration's policies. One needs to keep some objectivity - otherwise nothing else is driving an argument beyond bias.

2. The short-sightedness of unilateral war in general. I'm not advocating a hands-off approach here. I think there are many methods of turning up the pressure besides war. And yes, I think the U.N. is doing a fairly crappy job at it.

Yes - twelve years and nothing doing. If a diplomatic compulsion fails, what other alternative does the world have, lest the very integrity of law be challenged by an unwillingness to prosecute it? Furthermore - the "unilateral" charge flirts with the idea that actions are better when popular than when right.

3. The apparent timing of the war. It seems that we should be focusing more on terrorist than dictators (for the moment).

This is exactly where my beliefs are founded: terrorism exists because of dictatorship; it is a 20th-Century tentacle slithering from the absence of freedom. To say "defeat the terrorists first" is to advocate snipping a weed's leaves off rather than ripping its roots from the ground. People living in freedom do not engage in these acts as a matter of societal involvement; when some do, they are universally condemned (read: Timothy McVeigh) rather than canonized (read: Osama bin Laden, Yasser Arafat). (Separatist groups in free nations I would classify with terrorists, for their status as freedom fighters is long over; most specifically, the IRA and Basque terrorists, in league with Middle Eastern counterparts as if terrorism were the goal and not political change). Moreover, from a practical standpoint, the dictatorships - in the Middle East particularly - provide a series of safe havens for terrorists. Funnily enough, it's like the caves of Afghanistan. As long as several are still in operation, terrorists can move and be sustained at will.

Sure WWII may have turned out for the best in a democracy-spreading sense, but it also came at a terrible price.

Be careful that you're not replacing the solution for the problem, as if a doctor would infect a patient with bacteria to adminster an antibiotic - we converted Germany and Japan because it was the military endgame to killing a fascist-led, global war.

So on the one hand, you can advocate nation building as long as you realize the process is often painful for all involved, but on the other hand you should also be advocating that we spend some effort on other at-risk nations so that they are "properly protected from the devils that will lead to their demise".

I can think of no greater goal for America than to end freedom's definition as "an island." Give my regards to Broadwa-er, the Department of State!

Harris: Michael has done yeoman's labor in responding, but one line of your responses (v.gd. ones btw) remains for me:
"Claiming democracy will flower and solve everything is fine, as long as we are prepared should that not come to pass."

In this statement, you are absolutely correct. World powers have responsibilities concerning moral conduct as well as in enforcing some degree of civility in international relations. We are now harvesting many of the dragon's teeth sown during the Cold War due to neglecting these two responsibilities while being solely interested in besting the USSR. But this responsibility to enforce civil behavior cannot be characterized as solely that of a member of consensual organizations such as the WTO or UN. At times this responsibility derives from national estimates of what is right and wrong, and such estimates may or may not coincide with any other nation's estimates. Should we care about what Canada or France thinks about Iraq? I would doubt it. But perhaps we should care about Kuwait's or Turkey's opinion. But at the end our estimate of what must be done remains our singular responsibility, much as Churchill pondered the UK's position in late 1940. Fortunately for us in the present, we do not have another nation bombing NYC weekly. Who can foretell the future however?

This is a false dichotomy--especially when one considers the harsh fact that Saddam funds terrorism.

Well, we have yet to see the connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. Which terrorists are the ones he funded, and how dangerous are they compared to other terrorists? Terrorism is a large bucket, and we can't simultaneously attack every arm of the beast.

One needs to keep some objectivity - otherwise nothing else is driving an argument beyond bias.

I believe I am being objective. My distrust is based on falseness of most of the promises and the lack of followthrough on the rest. I think it's perfectly valid to oppose a just war if I don't think we could fight it properly.

If a diplomatic compulsion fails, what other alternative does the world have, lest the very integrity of law be challenged by an unwillingness to prosecute it?

I didn't say diplomacy was the only alternative to open war. Unless I'm mistaken we've been bombing Iraq almost constantly for 12 years. I agree that the UN is dangerously close to becoming useless against Iraq. We'll see what happens over the next few days. However, Bush's paper-tiger approach to North Korea doesn't seem to have diminished him in your eyes.

Furthermore - the "unilateral" charge flirts with the idea that actions are better when popular than when right.

Ah, that hinges on the definition of "better". Popularity certainly doesn't make a war any more just or righteous, I'll give you that. However, we depend on other nations for a lot more than military assitance. Unilateral action in itself isn't necessarily bad, but combined with the apparently weak premise for war and the spit-in-your-face attitude of the administration (which is its own kind of isolationism), it's dangerous.

We're going to be a lot more secure if we work to build strong relationships with other countries than if we piss them off. That has nothing to do with the ultimate action that's taken, it's mainly a PR thing. Yes, it takes a lot more work than doing whatever the hell you want, but in the end it's the only sane policy.

terrorism exists because of dictatorship

I'll have to think about this some more. While it may be true, though, maybe we should go after the dictators that are the most immediate threats. I still haven't heard much about the Iraq-terrorist connection other than it supposedly exists.

Good discussion so far, though. Certainly a lot to ponder.

"I still haven't heard much about the Iraq-terrorist connection other than it supposedly exists."

Supposedly exists?:

"Saddam Hussein is paying $25,000 to the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers — a $15,000 raise much welcomed by the bombers' families.

In Tulkarm, one of the poorest towns on the West Bank, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council handed out the checks from Saddam. The payments have been made for at least two years, but the amount has suddenly jumped up by $15,000 — a bonus for the families of martyrs, to reward those taking part in the escalating war against Israel."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html

Uh, David, you know the Palestinians rarely attack Americans, right?

"Uh, David, you know the Palestinians rarely attack Americans, right?"

That's not true. A number of Americans in Israel have been murdered by the Palestinian militants. We are also convinced that Saddam orchestrated an assassination attempt on the life of George Bush 41. Last nut not least, we can take for granted that the tyrant of Baghdad is behind other terrorist attacks. I am really fed up with the nonsense that “we don’t have enough proof.” We know damn well that Saddam is a sneaky scum bag who will not hesitate to lie. As I said in an earlier post, The Iraqi dictator will not likely issue an official declaration of war on the United States. Instead, it will probably be a terrorist attack at a time we least expect it.

I thank Andrew Sullivan for the following link that is definitely germane to this thread:

“(Robert) Gates continued, "I have always argued, in light of my fairly detailed knowledge of the shortcomings of our intelligence capabilities, that the fact that we don't have reliable human intelligence that proves something conclusively is happening is no proof at all that nothing is happening. In these situations, the evidence will almost always be ambiguous. On capabilities, it's not ambiguous. Can Saddam produce these weapons of mass destruction? Yes."”

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030210fa_fact

Couple of (late) reactions to Josh:

1. Why is it still unilateral? You're posting after the 8-nation letter of last week, and long after the UK, Australia, and Jordan have indicated support and at least access to bases. That's in addition to places like Kuwait and Qatar providing facilities, and places like Russia and China pretty much saying that they would abstain in the UNSC (when they know a veto would cost us a LOT of public points).

Does the absence of Germany and France in open support (the latter still a "maybe," rather than a "no way") really mean that it's unilateral? Does that mean that if we had the Germans and French on-board, but NOT the Brits and Aussies, et. al., that it would NOT be unilateral?

2. While it may be that there is not a "smoking gun" of Iraqi support for al-Qaeda per se, at what point does inductive, rather than deductive reasoning make sense?

During the Cold War, people like Claire Sterling argued that the Soviets were bankrolling terrorism. Not just Baader-Meinhof or Red Army Faction, but terrorism in the Middle East as well. Similarly, it's been pointed out that Qaddafi has provided funding to the IRA, and the IRA, more recently, was in touch w/ Colombian guerillas. One could at least as plausibly argue that "it makes no sense" for a desert ascetic to fund sectarian violence in Ireland, or for the Irish to take a stance on Colombia's internal woes, much less for the Soviets to fund groups that didn't necessarily profess to a pro-Soviet line per se.

But that would fly in the face of the far hardier principle of "The enemy of my enemy..." or, more precisely, "That which weakens my enemy, regardless of ideology, is good...."

Tom,

Yes, Mike U has done yeoman’s work in the sense that he has written at great length. However, his argument is largely an assertion of his beliefs, rather than a very convincing argument that things will work out the way he wants. My beliefs regarding the virtue of democracy probably aren’t much different than Mike’s. The medical technology argument is completely weird, but that’s a separate issue. You have gotten the point a bit better. What if this doesn’t work out? Are we ready to occupy Iraq for an extended period? Are we ready to deal with a population whose behavior is critical to our wellbeing, which may harbor even worse intentions toward us after an attack on Iraq than before?

Assertions of belief, about principles and about results, drive a lot of this discussion and others like it. I have to admit I am not particularly impressed with assertions about results. Nobody in this discussion knows what the outcome of an attack on Iraq will be, no matter how satisfying it may be to make such claims. I would feel a lot more comfortable if such assertions of knowledge came attached to long experience in Mid-East affairs, but my impression is that they mostly do not. In the absence of real knowledge about outcomes or anything that instills much confidence in predictions, I would like to know that our government is preparing for unfavorable outcomes.

Some of the posts here argue that we need to take down Saddam Hussein for reasons other than those embodied in Security Council Resolution 1441 and in the arguments commonly offered by the Bush administration. So, while we are on the subject of democracy, I have to say, if the motives for going to war are any other than those in 1441 or those offered by Bush, that ain’t the way it ought to be. If we are going to argue for democracy for the rest of the world, we ought to be pretty scrupulous in our practice of democracy at home, including keeping our public honestly informed during important public debates.

The terrorism link, you may notice, has taken a substantial hit. The UK’s defense intelligence folks have leaked an assessment to the BBC flat denying that they can find a current link between al-Qaeda and Iraq. A BBC reporter says that all the reporters with US or UK intelligence contacts he knows of are hearing disquiet about the distortion of intelligence on such links to serve official purposes. The FBI is reportedly about to present members of Congress with an assessment that finds al-Qaeda the greatest terror risk to the US, with other al-Qaeda-like organizations also a substantial risk. By default, that puts Iraq well down the list, unless one wants to assert, again without real knowledge, that attacking Iraq will substantially reduce the risk of terrorism from non-state organizations.

However, his argument is largely an assertion of his beliefs, rather than a very convincing argument that things will work out the way he wants.

Harris, you've just offered us the job description of most occupations that require a fair amount of intuition! :-)

I would also caution you not to slight the historical references with which I'm buttressing my argument! Certainly, you know as little as I do about the future; so just because you do not predict an end to the sociopolitical zeitgeist does not ensure that you are asserting beliefs any less than I am.

So, while we are on the subject of democracy, I have to say, if the motives for going to war are any other than those in 1441 or those offered by Bush, that ain’t the way it ought to be.

But none of us have offered, when speaking directly of Iraq, anything beyond what the president has proposed. At no point in time has he ever retracted his desire for regime change; he may have cooled it for the sake of recalcitrant colleague nations, but he has never abandoned it. Really, if all the implicit intentions of the Iraqi offensive were repeated with every single public address, Bush would make for extremely long sentences. And I urge you to focus on sections of his SOTU that quite conspicuously celebrates the value of spreading democracy (emphasis mine):

All fathers and mothers, in all societies, want their children to be educated, and live free from poverty and violence. No people on Earth yearn to be oppressed, or aspire to servitude, or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police.

If anyone doubts this, let them look to Afghanistan, where the Islamic "street" greeted the fall of tyranny with song and celebration. Let the skeptics look to Islam's own rich history, with its centuries of learning, and tolerance and progress. America will lead by defending liberty and justice because they are right and true and unchanging for all people everywhere. (Applause.)

No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. We have no intention of imposing our culture. But America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the power of the state; respect for women; private property; free speech; equal justice; and religious tolerance. (Applause.)

America will take the side of brave men and women who advocate these values around the world, including the Islamic world, because we have a greater objective than eliminating threats and containing resentment. We seek a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror.

Regarding the BBC...look, we ought to wait to see what Powell delivers. But the BBC has been acting in a weirdly partisan, pro-Saddam manner lately that makes the New York Times of all rags look like Robert Bartley's Wall Street Journal op-ed page; and I have heard interesting reports about intelligence agencies actually discouraging even conceiving of secular-religious cooperation between state and terrorist, let alone investigating. I'd very much like to wait until some chips have fallen.

Do you really believe that the Bush administration would flat-out lie, Harris? I begin to think that it's this assumed distrust that is the crux of general disbelief, rather than any empirical evidence. I don't think that sort of presumptious position is worth the demonstrated intelligence of many dissenting voices.

The president and his people have said lots of things about Iraq, but as far as I can tell, bringing democracy to all of the Mideast is not explicitly one of the goals of this war. Regime change, with inconclusive discussion of what sort of regime would follow, but not a domino-like conversion of the entire region to democracy. Have their been public suggestions from among war pundits that war will lead to such a conversion? Yes, but that is not what the US public is being explicitly told is the rationale for war. The State of the Union address certainly offers up defense of democracy as a valuable thing, but not as the reason for this war. Defense of the US is the reason offered. Support for democracy is atmospherics. Iraq represents a threat to US security - that's his claim. In this exchange, however, there are arguments that take the notion that democracy is worth fostering and go on to say that not only is war with Iraq justified by the need to foster democracy in Iraq, but because it will lead to democracy elsewhere. That is not something Bush has directly argued.

Do I think Bush would flat-out lie? Yes. It is not all that unusual for Presidents and their administrations to lie to the public, especially about issues of war. Claims about the budget, implying that the "average" tax cut will be enjoyed by the typical household, for instance, hardly seem honest. But I wasn't accusing Bush in this case. I don't thinks democracy is high on his list in this case. Remember, this was the guy who had little use for foreign intervention and nation building prior to September 11. I was suggesting some of the other contributors, in arguing for war on a personal standard not explicitly advertised by Bush as reason for this war, need to check in on the core debate. The country is being told we are going to war for our own good, not Iraq's.

On the BBC, their assertion about "all" reporters hearing grumblings of abuse from intelligence services is open to question. So far, however, the British government has not challenged the leaked report, so the BBC's position on Iraq is not really the point.

K Harris:

1. You might go and read some of FDR, and even Churchill's, comments during WWII. Somehow, democratizing Germany and Japan never made it onto the top-five list of goals. Winning the war was usually first.

I'm pretty sure that it didn't even hit in the Atlantic Charter (which was about as close to a war-aims declaration as you got).

But, let's be honest. If you would LIKE to see democracy in the region, then you have to start from somewhere. Or, as Matthew Broderick says in "Glory" to Denzel Washington: Well, you're right, you might get very little if we win. But you'll surely get nothing, if we lose.

2. As to British intel, it would seem that, between what Powell and British Foreign Secretary Straw, that the BBC reporting was flatly contradicted.

Now, you can believe the leaks in the press OVER the official line, that's your privilege. But, then, when you hear the intel leaks that al-Qaeda is behind other attacks, in the future, I hope you'll give those leaks the same credence. Or, do you only believe the leaks that agree with your point of view?

Yes, but that is not what the US public is being explicitly told is the rationale for war. The State of the Union address certainly offers up defense of democracy as a valuable thing, but not as the reason for this war...That is not something Bush has directly argued.

I will disagree with you here and recognize the impasse; Bush's address is utterly clear, as are numerous references of his to the desire of nation-building, particularly made since January 2002.

Support for democracy is atmospherics.

No; Bush has talked about it too consistently. I think that conclusion rests to heavily on the expectation that a broader policy goal need be presented in its entirity when more practical matters are at hand. As much as someone like I would love to see, not every policy initiative need be a tidal wave from its first public mention. Moreover, Bush has demonstrated an ability to play an excellent game of little-ball; he may point to the fences, but he'll more than likely bunt or Texas League Single, then make his way around the bases from similarly small, steady hits. Less fanfare than a mighty swing, but he still scores.

I can believe Bush's change from disbelieving in nation-building very much, because I was as equally suspect of it myself before I realized that:

a) 9/11 showed us that "live and let live" has become an obsolete fantasy.

b) America can liberate, occupy and democratize herself, especially aided by a civilian and military shift towards that national ideal. Even before these days when the United Nations is inches from being disbanded on grounds of impotence, I understood that the autocrat-muddied ambivalence of the international body need not enter into the reconstruction of a nation.

So, confronted with a new way of viewing "nation-building," I changed my mind. I suspect Bush's (and many others') reassessment was similar.

Do I think Bush would flat-out lie? Yes.

At this point in the discussion, another impasse. What with Powell's release of coveted intelligence, Harris, the proposition of disbelieving Bush and his administration becomes downright eerie when they are placed next to Saddam. I may not trust Bill Clinton worth a damn, but what information his administration did offer the American public about either Saddam or Osama bin Laden as who they were and what they did was hardly suspect. Take the al Qaeda connection. Bush isn't using Saddam's documented behavior and untrustworthiness to claim something ridiculous like a Martian lineage in Tikrit, but something altogether believable like Saddam's penchant for cutout, terrorist middlemen as freelance thorns in his enemies' side; so we truly are left with believing either Saddam's word or Bush's.

A number of Americans in Israel have been murdered by the Palestinian militants.

Ah, yes: note the "in Israel" part.

And what the hell? Suddenly democracy is a disposable option in Iraq? Don't you remember what happened the last time we tried to prop up a US-friendly tinpot dictator *cough*The Shah*cough* in the region?

I don't think that the "proof" arguments are going the right way. I don't need more proof that Iraq is in material breach of the UN resolutions. I already believed (before Powell went to the UN today) that Saddam has biological and chemical weapons, and that he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons, and that he is actively opposing inspections. None of that is up for debate.

There is sufficient proof that Iraq is in material breach of the UN resolution. This means that the UN should take action. However, there is not sufficient proof that we should take over Iraq outside of the UN. Failure to comply with a UN resolution is not a justification for the U.S. to take it upon itself to disarm Iraq. Those are two different proofs.

I begin to think that it's this assumed distrust that is the crux of general disbelief, rather than any empirical evidence.

I admit I do distrust Bush (based on past experience), but I'm not doubting his evidence. The al Qaeda link is a stretch at best, but I think he's pretty much dead on with the other accusations. My disagreement comes not from the knowledge of what Iraq is up to, but rather what to do about it. I can't make a leap from the current situation to war. The only way it makes sense is to work through the UN to bring about the "serious consequences."

I'm not of the camp that says we have a mandate to liberate all oppressed nations through war. As much as some would like to believe, that's not how the war debate is framed anyway. Instead what we have is a lot of fearmongering and buzzwords about weapons of mass destruction and terrorist links.

If Bush came out and said the main purpose of overthrowing Saddam is freeing Iraq and reconstructing the country, I don't think the public would vote for war. And as much as public opinion shouldn't be the sole barometer for war, that is essentially what democracy is about. Sometimes majority rule doesn't work out in your favor, but them's the breaks with a free society. Bush shouldn't have to support his aims with exaggerated claims and scare tactics. If the justification is really that borderline, then people are right to be skeptical.

"Don't you remember what happened the last time we tried to prop up a US-friendly tinpot dictator *cough*The Shah*cough* in the region?"

Life sucks and then you die. The United States will forevermore be forced to make lemonade out of the available lemons. Sometimes things work out--and sometimes they don't. Did somebody promise you a rose garden? If so, they lied to you!

Josh: Your:
"If Bush came out and said the main purpose of overthrowing Saddam is freeing Iraq and reconstructing the country, I don't think the public would vote for war. "

Reminds me of the conundrum that Lincoln found himself in concerning the Emancipation Proclamation. Sometimes you have to do what is right despite the fact that it wouldn't be "democratic". Which is precisely the reason why The Federalist Papers espoused the republican form of government. A small issue compared to the evils of totalitarianism, but critical when examining Presidential policies and actions.

Reminds me of the conundrum that Lincoln found himself in concerning the Emancipation Proclamation.

I don't really think you can compare this to the current situation. The Civil War was about the nation tearing itself apart, not battling some far off country that hasn't attacked us yet. There are large numbers of people who still think the Confederacy should have won the war. Lincoln did what he had to in an extreme situation.

I think those with my point of view don't see the current situation as one of extreme danger, requiring the subjugation of the will of the people.

Josh: You are the one who brought up whether Bush would be supported in a war to establish Iraqi popular determination when we both support that overall goal. I didn't. If your point doesn't bear scrutiny to other comparable unpopular Presidential decisions, so be it. Don't forget that another name for the Civil War is the War of Northern Aggression. In almost all ways the South did not attack US installations outside of their own territories at the beginning of that war. Sounds parallel to your depiction of Baathist Iraq to me, at least until the North invaded the South on a rather large scale which gave Lee a reason to counterattack. What appears to both of us as a very justifiable war 140 years later was not as clearly justifiable at that point in history. That lack of concurrent clarity seems to be evident concerning Iraq today.

There is sufficient proof that Iraq is in material breach of the UN resolution. This means that the UN should take action. However, there is not sufficient proof that we should take over Iraq outside of the UN. Failure to comply with a UN resolution is not a justification for the U.S. to take it upon itself to disarm Iraq. Those are two different proofs.

And if the UN fails to take any action, possibly because some of the Security Council members might benefit more from posturing and maintaining the status quo (France/French oil, with lapdog Schroeder singing the Amen chourus in follow-up), then what?

Who is most likely to be attacked by WMD once Saddam's "material breach" has been carried on long enough with the UN dithering and dathering? And second, if that entity is in the position to do something about it, should it go ahead without the UN if necessary?

"I think those with my point of view don't see the current situation as one of extreme danger, requiring the subjugation of the will of the people."

Well, we won’t have to worry about that in this particular crisis. The new polls will almost certainly show the American people resoundingly supporting President Bush. Let’s hope that Saddam Hussein decides to pack his bags and run off to a deserted island hideaway.

The new polls will almost certainly show the American people resoundingly supporting President Bush.

Might want to pack a few more qualifiers in there.

So anyway, after reading this Ted Rall article, my certainity about the rightness of this war is shaken a bit. Basically: why should we trust Bush to rebuild Iraq with a democracy? He's abandoned Afghanistan.

He's abandoned Afghanistan.

That's completely false; it's nothing but rhetoric! How did absent US troops conduct a raid on the forces of a holdout warlord?

Please, Jason, pick an argumentative position and stick with it: if you're so suspect of American intervention on foreign soil, why the hyperbolic rejection of the Bush administration's decision to give Afghanistan a wide berth in determining its leadership and laws?

Excuse me - Freudian slip. I meant "wide latitude" rather than "wide berth."

And: don't thank me, Jason, thank the United States of America.

Jason: Citing Rall on US foreign policy is like citing Ritter on arms inspections. At best I'd wonder which details were true out of the ideological biased selection of other propaganda.

Egregious case in point: the Sudetenland was annexed in 1938, not 1936.

In case anyone hasn't seen the numbers yet, Oxblog has an interesting post on polling done after Powell's UN presentation.

http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2003_02_02_oxblog_archive.html#88683006

"US troops fighting outside Kandahar" doesn't contradict the assertions made; neither does that photo.

Please, Jason, pick an argumentative position and stick with it: if you're so suspect of American intervention on foreign soil, why the hyperbolic rejection of the Bush administration's decision to give Afghanistan a wide berth in determining its leadership and laws?

I'm not following how "letting them pick" their own dictatorship, excuse me, King, is a good thing.

"US troops fighting outside Kandahar" doesn't contradict the assertions made; neither does that photo.

It goodly well flattens those irresponsible charges.

D'oh! This oughta help the italics thing.

Just wanna say hi after reading your blog.

Comments are Closed.