[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]

"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.