[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

Says Mr. Reynolds: "This is also why I prefer a Mussolini-style ending in which Saddam is lynched by his own people to exile, or even a trial. I think that would provide a valuable lesson."

Yes, that's what I always think about lynchings. They'll provide a valuable lesson. Precisely. People get uppity, you know?

But you know, I think Den Beste is right when he says the world political order is about to change. He's wrong about a bunch of other things; he clearly doesn't understand the concept that international legitimacy may be important for any other reason than the immediately practical. I've written before about the sheer folly of assuming that the United States will always be in the privileged power position we currently enjoy, and I've discussed why enlightened self-interest leads us to the conclusion that we must not encourage a world in preemptively securing one's own position by invading other countries is wise. Ah well.

He's still right. Germany's a bigger US trade partner than England. Germany and France together are a bigger trade partner than China. To say, as Den Beste does, that the US needs nobody by its side other than the UK and Australia (poor Canadians; they've been altogether left out) is blind arrogance.

It saddens me that so many have lost track of the meaning of the word "ally." On a mailing list I'm on, someone recently said "why are they allies if they aren't supporting us?" Apparently he confused the word "ally" with the word "subordinate." It's easier to assume that Europe has gone mad than it is to consider why they're objecting. And you know, thinking about why they're objecting doesn't even mean you have to agree with them. It just means it might be useful to think about it, in case there's something you can do about it. But no; easier to write them off as insane.

It's not the defeat of Saddam that bugs people. It's the US occupation of Iraq, and the use of Iraq as a base to force regime change throughout the region.

Anyway. Yes, the world is going to change, and here's one important way it's changing:

For the first time, the United States will invade another country not because that country attacked it, or because it attacked one of our allies, but because we think it might pose a threat in the future.

If you don't think that's a big deal, even if you think the attack is a good idea, you're nuts. And your children will have no right to complain if, in a hundred years, Brazil invades the United States "because we just don't know what they might do with those old nukes." That's the precedent we're about to set.

Comments

Precedence, or "What Law?"

[point5b.livejournal.com]

Personally, I'm puzzled at the premise here that attacks against countries that haven't attacked one's country or allies are new. Did I wake up in a parallel world where NATO didn't bomb Kosovo, and where Kuwait was an ally of ours in the early 90s (or where Kuwait had attacked Iraq first)? Where the cities of Hungary and Afghanistan never had Soviet tanks in the streets? Where there are no "Free Tibet" protests? Where South Vietnam coexists with the North and where South Korea had an awful lot of close allies in the 50s?

Take a look at the history of the world for the last century. Count the number of wars and invasions. Count the ones condemned by the League of Nations and the UN. Count the fraction of those stopped or even just acted against by either group. There has not existed an international order preventing attacks or invasions by any nation against other nations. Pro forma speeches to denounce aggression are nothing but PR.

The only deterrent to an attack or invasion is the risk of losing the fight against immediate enemies, their allies, or countries that think their interests are threatened, something that's been the risk of starting a war since the dawn of time. The "international political order" has twiddled its thumbs during numerous invasions in just the last fifty years. There's no scary new precedent to set. It's not even new for the United States, as a member of NATO.

As for the aspect of rational self-interest, if Brazil was the world's most powerful nation, what international order could or would prevent it from invading the US? You would need some police power with infinitely more muscle and determination than the UN has ever had. Whether or not you'd consider such a construct desirable, and whether or not one considers the Iraqi war correct, establishing such a police power would require far more precedence set than the war does.

Re: Precedence, or "What Law?"

[bryant]

There's no such premise. Please don't fall prey to the assumption that I'm an idiot just because I'm anti-war. Reread my post; I think it's new ground for the United States. And I think that it would be a shame to cross that line.

Kosovo, unlike this war, was UN sanctioned. Is that a thin reed to hang legitimacy on? Sure, but it's the only reed we've got. I argue that a world in which wars of relief must be sanctioned by the UN is better than a world in which any nation of sufficient power can launch such a war whenever it wants.

The rest of your argument is just "that's the way it is so we should accept it and encourage it." Which, frankly, is not a very compelling argument. I live in hopes of a better world. I argue in hopes of a better world.

Re: Precedence, or "What Law?"

[point5b.livejournal.com]

Yes, the world is going to change, and here's one important way it's changing:
...
There's no such premise. Please don't fall prey to the assumption that I'm an idiot just because I'm anti-war. Reread my post; I think it's new ground for the United States. And I think that it would be a shame to cross that line.

I don't think you're an idiot, but I am pointing out that you made the claim that thinking this wasn't a huge, precedent-setting event was "crazy". Am I "crazy" for thinking that something would only be a huge precedent if it were different from the status quo? It just isn't new ground for the world or the US, for good or ill. Take a look at Kuwait or Panama. Or Kosovo:

Kosovo, unlike this war, was UN sanctioned.

NATO completely bypassed the UNSC (http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1999/04/14/f-p1s4.shtml) in order to avoid a Russian veto. On the other hand, the US delegation fought for UN resolution 1441 to require Iraqi compliance with UN inspections and cooperation in destruction of WMD on pain of military reprisal. Not to mention multiple 1990s resolutions requiring such.

The line simply isn't newly crossed. That's not so much an argument for or against the war as simple fact. You can make an argument that this is wrong or undesirable, but the idea that it's novel doesn't fly.

I argue that a world in which wars of relief must be sanctioned by the UN is better than a world in which any nation of sufficient power can launch such a war whenever it wants.

I think such a claim is tenuous at best, since it relies on an assumption of the goodwill and integrity of the UN or some more-capable international body. As for the UN, I could point out that Libya heads the UN Human Rights Commission, but that's just the result of political games. Far more important are such things as the UN Declaration of the Rights of Man, the only well-known declaration of rights I can think of that pretty much any dictatorship can claim to follow thanks to the sheer number of weasel-clauses.

More broadly, a powerful "international political community" is only desireable if what that community wants is desirable. This, of course, assumes that these desires are even coherent.

Re: Precedence, or "What Law?"

[bryant]

OK. I gotta think you're not reading my posts at this point, with all due respect.

I've never ever claimed it breaks a global precedent. I claim it breaks a precedent for the United States.

"I think such a claim is tenuous at best, since it relies on an assumption of the goodwill and integrity of the UN or some more-capable international body."

Incorrect. Straw man. It relies on the assumption that said international body is less likely to approve unjust wars; it does not speak to the probability that said international body is likely to approve "just" wars.

Re: Precedence, or "What Law?"

[point5b.livejournal.com]

I've never ever claimed it breaks a global precedent. I claim it breaks a precedent for the United States.

I've pointed out Panama, Kuwait, and NATO's operation in Kosovo (and that NATO incidentally did not act with UNSC authorization). Attacking another country without being attacked first or having an ally attacked just isn't new for the US.

It's entirely reasonable to say our government shouldn't do such a thing, but it's not reasonable to say it hasn't.

Incorrect. Straw man. It relies on the assumption that said international body is less likely to approve unjust wars; it does not speak to the probability that said international body is likely to approve "just" wars.

There's no straw man here. Especially when you frame the issue in ethical terms of opposing "unjust" war, you require that the international community or body operate with some modicum of goodwill and integrity. I don't see how these would be inherent traits of international communities or organizations, and I don't think that the UN has them in any real supply.

My problem with your line of argument is that you seem to suggest that organized groups of nations are somehow inherently more moral than nations acting on their own. You and I can certainly suggest scenarios where such groups would restrain an aggressive singleton nation and protect its neighbors. On the other hand, such groups could prey upon other nations (for example, the Axis Nations). The entire moral and ethical range is possible, and I don't see how the "international political community" or the UN deserves any fundamental assumption of good character.