[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 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.