[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

Re: Allies?

[point5b.livejournal.com]

I'd say it doesn't even make them not allies -- at the very worst, it makes them not allies in this particular instance.

The problem is finding an instance where they are allies, especially the sort we need to provide for the defense of at great expense.

Of course, if money is such an immense issue, it seems to me like it'd be pretty simple to get around that. There's nothing stopping us from giving France guarantees that they'll be the source for as much as possible of the materials needed to reconstruct Iraq, for example.

I'm sure something of the sort is being offered.

By the by, it's simply inaccurate that the US didn't sell arms to Iraq. We sent them anthrax and other biologicals. The Commerce Department also licensed US companies for electronics sales, including weapon components. We're talking stuff that you need an export license for because it has no use other than military.

You're simply right, here. My mistake.

Is there really a moral difference between selling them arms and that? (And before you say anything, I didn't bring up the historical issue

I'm very aware that I brought up the historical issue, but I'm afraid that you're missing the point. While US support of Iraq stopped in the 80s, other countries, including Germany and and France, continued to sell weapons (conventional, chemical, and the materials for biological) in exchange for Iraqi petrodollars well past the Gulf War and to the present. I could point out at least we had the excuse of trying to neutralize the fanatical Iranian regime. What excuse do our "allies" have for arming one of our enemies at this point?

Re: Allies?

[genitiggie.livejournal.com]

What seems important to me is not what some of the European countries were doing in the 1980s (when the European concept was much less developed) but where they stand now. Nobody can rewrite their past legitimately, but they *can* decide to try not to do it again.

Judging by what I see & hear in news media from Germany and the Netherlands, and in our very multicultural canteen, the European perspective is that the US is behaving in an alarmingly neo-colonialist manner, which they do not want to support, since they feel it to be morally wrong, or at least dubious.

You ask what the US is getting from its allies. I say, maybe a conscience?

Re: Allies?

[point5b.livejournal.com]

What seems important to me is not what some of the European countries were doing in the 1980s

And the 90s, and up until the present. Some of our would-be "consciences" are helping to prop up the rule of a brutal, aggressive dictator who also happens to be an enemy of the US.

Re: Allies?

[bryant]

"The problem is finding an instance where they are allies, especially the sort we need to provide for the defense of at great expense."

Check out where France and Germany stand on the list of trade partners.

But in a sense you're right. I don't know if you've read my earlier posts or not. The summary of my views on the war: I think Saddam is a terrible ruler and a bad man and I want him overthrown. I do not want him overthrown as an excuse for Bush to gain a better position in the Middle East. I believe that when you strip away all the rhetoric, that's what's going on. I have no patience for the "no blood for oil" chant, because I think it's misguided and misunderstands what this war is about. Similarly, I have no patience for the claim that this is part of the war on terrorism.

I think that if this was not so blatantly an attempt to gain a stronghold in the Middle East, France and Germany wouldn't object so hard. I think it's repellent that Bush is taking a /less/ popular road towards the overthrow -- while I suspect that Saddam's still going to go, I'm horrified that Bush is making it harder for this to happen.

So, yeah; the alliance is creaky at this point, if it even still exists. But I do not think that France and Germany are honor-bound to support their allies at all costs, and if we're taking such selfish actions... sure, that's a reason to step back from the alliance.

"I'm sure something of the sort is being offered."

Why? Serious question; I haven't seen any news to such an effect, which doesn't mean it isn't happening, but...

"I'm very aware that I brought up the historical issue, but I'm afraid that you're missing the point. While US support of Iraq stopped in the 80s, other countries, including Germany and and France, continued to sell weapons (conventional, chemical, and the materials for biological) in exchange for Iraqi petrodollars well past the Gulf War and to the present."

Have they? You know, I accepted that at first, but then I went back and checked. I'm sort of thinking this is one of those beliefs which mysteriously spread through the world without much foundation. Not even an accusation of arms sales to Iraq by France after 1991 or so. Ditto Germany. The current source for Iraqi arms seems to be Yugoslavia, in fact.

What am I missing?

Re: Allies?

[point5b.livejournal.com]

"The problem is finding an instance where they are allies, especially the sort we need to provide for the defense of at great expense."
Check out where France and Germany stand on the list of trade partners.

We trade more with any of Japan, Mexico, or Canada than with both of them combined. China runs very close to their joint contribution. We wouldn't exactly tumble into ruin without them - if we would, that might be a grim justification for jumping to their aid or providing their defense on the basis of trade.

So that you know where I'm coming from, despite my points in this discussion, I'm a serious isolationist at heart. I think we should slowly dismantle all our military bases outside of US territory. I also don't think trade is a matter we should go to war over (or risk going to war over because of military entanglements) beyond the unlikely event of someone trying to blockade us. This is admittedly an ethical view in what's been a pragmatic argument, but its also well inside the realm of mainstream political discourse - a war for trade would be a hard sell. So, at any rate, we might simply have different takes on what constitutes "national interest" in this context. I'm concerned about the threat that Iraq poses, and consider dealing with that to be in our national interest regardless of whether Germany and France have other ideas, even to the point of reduced trade with them.

I don't know if you've read my earlier posts or not. The summary of my views on the war: I think Saddam is a terrible ruler and a bad man and I want him overthrown. I do not want him overthrown as an excuse for Bush to gain a better position in the Middle East. ...I think that if this was not so blatantly an attempt to gain a stronghold in the Middle East, France and Germany wouldn't object so hard.

No, I hadn't. I followed a link from Gwen to here, and had never read your LJ before that I remember. On reading that line, I went back and read your last 40 posts (you're a bit more prolific than me, but then I'm a lousy journalist, so to speak).

I don't have the impression that you're a Saddam apologist or even irrational in your position. I just fundamentally disagree with your reasoning. The prospect of the US having to prop up a fragile post-war Iraqi government does bother me, especially when I consider the examples of Germany and Japan and the possibility that we could end up committed there for years or decades. Maybe it's callous of me, but I don't feel the US must single-handedly save the world from tyranny. Saddam is horrible, but if he were just a random tinpot dictator with conventional weapons, I'd be satisfied (though bothered by his predations) if the US had completely ignored him for the last 20 years.

My problem is that he's not just a "harmless" third-world dictator. He has chemical weapons, he likely has biological weapons, and he's undeniably trying to make nukes. And it doesn't matter that I think we should have sat out the Gulf War - we didn't. We've enforced a no-fly zone for the last decade, exchanging fire with Iraqi anti-aircraft crews almost daily at times. When he confined weapons inspectors to their hotel, we bombed him more significantly. Saddam hates us. He (with some reason, considering the last 12 years of weapons inspection follies) thinks he can get away with quite a bit. Going by what we know of him, I think he would absolutely try to act against the US if he thought, rightly or wrongly, that he could get away with it.

I think the risk of Saddam Hussein with nukes is much higher than the risk caused by the US conquering Iraq. I actually thought a confrontation with Iraq could wait a few years, but I think even the initial movements towards war with Iraq removed that option. We either act now, or we back down and back off, which would allow Iraq enough time to have nuclear weapons. So, despite being an isolationist, I think the war is necessary.

Re: Allies?

[point5b.livejournal.com]

I think it's repellent that Bush is taking a /less/ popular road towards the overthrow -- while I suspect that Saddam's still going to go, I'm horrified that Bush is making it harder for this to happen.

I don't follow your thoughts, here. How do you expect Saddam to have any chance of keeping power? All indications suggest Bush will act unilaterally if the UN doesn't go along.

So, yeah; the alliance is creaky at this point, if it even still exists. But I do not think that France and Germany are honor- bound to support their allies at all costs, and if we're taking such selfish actions... sure, that's a reason to step back from the alliance.

I take the opposite view. Iraq has no great feud with France or Germany. They suffer basically no risk from Saddam if he gains nuclear weapons. Therefore, I construe their position as selfish, especially when we're presumably in an alliance of mutual defense.

"I'm sure something of the sort is being offered."
Why? Serious question; I haven't seen any news to such an effect, which doesn't mean it isn't happening, but...

No news, just my supposition, but Bush's administration has been going to great lengths to get support from reluctant nations in hopes of having UNSC support. They're willing to act unilaterally, but a reiterated statement of UN approval would remove a lot of political friction. Hence, I think that a lot of hands are being greased right now. I'm even willing to consider UNSC approval an outside possibility.

"I'm very aware that I brought up the historical issue, but I'm afraid that you're missing the point. While US support of Iraq stopped in the 80s, other countries, including Germany and and France, continued to sell weapons (conventional, chemical, and the materials for biological) in exchange for Iraqi petrodollars well past the Gulf War and to the present."
Have they? You know, I accepted that at first, but then I went back and checked. I'm sort of thinking this is one of those beliefs which mysteriously spread through the world without much foundation. Not even an accusation of arms sales to Iraq by France after 1991 or so. Ditto Germany. The current source for Iraqi arms seems to be Yugoslavia, in fact. What am I missing?

In the larger sense, there's obviously no problem with the claim that countries other than the US have provided weapons to Iraq since the Gulf War. You make an excellent point, though, in the case of Germany and France. I had no luck with quick searching on that tonight, and I had the bright idea of spending too much time researching relative trade numbers. I'm actually drawing a blank on the specific claims, beyond a vague memory of 90s-era dual use matters. So, that's completely unsubstantiated for the moment; I have to give the weak excuse of having to get back to you on whether I find anything.