[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

[gwenix.livejournal.com]

Yes, but I also look at it as the immediate, we're breaking our own ideal of "due process". I don't care if that only legally applies to our own citizens, it's a good concept with very solid foundation in "fair" and "just". If we only attack people based on speculation, we are really working on the same premise as the Witch Trials.

[bryant]

I agree with that, but the chickenhawks have more or less explicitly abandoned the idea that there's any universal human rights. The tendency these days is to claim that you only have rights if you're an American, and sometimes not even then. Thus, it seems useful to point out the practical virtues of multilateral thinking.

[artbroken.livejournal.com]

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's worth pointing out that the US doesn't have Australia on it's side; Bush has John Howard and members of the cabinet on his side.

There's a large and growing groundswell of public opinion here against war with Iraq, and Howard is shedding popularity rapidly.

Add to that the traditional Aussie disdain for America (the nation, if not the people), and the next change of government could see this alliance scuttled.

[gwenix.livejournal.com]

People do realize it's that kind of thinking that got this country made in the first place, right?

[heron61.livejournal.com]

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.

That's a truly excellent point and one I had not thought of and had never heard before. I will make certain to make use of it in future debates on this and similar topics - thank you. These days arguments based on ethics seem to carry little weight with people who are pro-war and pro-government, but it's more difficult (sadly) to ignore an argument based on practicality and long-term self-interest

[bryant]

Indeed. The same is true for Britain, actually -- I've seen polls that put the number of British anti-war sans further UN resolutions as high as 80%. Dan Beste, without a hint of irony, notes that Blair has no choice at this point but to agree with anything Bush proposes. Is Howard in a similar situation?

[bryant]

Thanks! I tend to take an enlightened self-interest view of ethics, or as I like to think of it, anarchism by way of John Rawls. (Who would disagree with me fervently, but his veil of ignorance and original position are powerful tools.)

[ef2p.livejournal.com]

While I am not a Constitutional Scholar, I would like to point out some of the text of the Bill of Rights.

Amendment I: ...or the right of the people...

Amendment IV ...The right of the people...

Amendment V ...No person shall be....

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall...

Furthermore the presidential oath of office is:

I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I can see, but do not agree with, an argument that say that 'the people' refers to the 'American People'. However 'No person' and 'the accused' pretty clearly refer to anybody regardless of residence, current location, or nationality. It sure seems to me that the president is not upholding the fifth and sixth amendments to the constitution and is there by broken his oath of office. (Can we impeach him now?)

[artbroken.livejournal.com]

Of course he has a fucking choice.

Howard wants to play the hardman, and has done ever since Bali. The problem is that the public isn't linking Bali to Iraq; they're linking Bali to Indonesia, and crying bullshit at the US-based rhetoric.

I sincerely hope that this will get him tossed at the next election. Of course, I was hoping his flagrant violation of the human rights of asylum seekers would do that at the last election, and he came through with a landslide. So maybe this is a nation of swine after all.

The big crunch will come when a war actually begins. That's when the public response will finally crystalize one way or another.

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.

Allies?

[point5b.livejournal.com]

As for allies, the point of an alliance is shared interest. The biggest criticism of our European allies is that they don't appear to share our interests, and indeed want to act against them. Our NATO allies made a big deal of invoking Article 5 (if one NATO country is attacked, all NATO countries respond as if attacked), and then used it to try to restrain the US military in Afghanistan. In pandering to anti-US sentiments during their election, the German government demanded we let them veto any action by us in Iraq. There's a difference, a very real and distinct one, between not being someone's lapdog and trying to knock their feet out from under them.

I think den Beste's theories about France and Germany quietly helping Iraq with its WMD programs in the recent past are highly unlikely (even if France admittedly helped Iraq start its nuclear program), but then I've been told I trust people too easily. In the realm of fact, many of the countries with governments against attacking Iraq have a lot of money riding on not disrupting trade, licit and not, with Iraq. People like to criticize the US for arming Iraq, but the US just gave money. China, the USSR and later Russia, France, and a scattered few other nations actually sold them the weapons in exchange for that money or Iraqi oil. It's not as if we found ourselves coming up against Abrams tanks or M-16s during the Gulf War. And keep in mind that some of these countries are still arming Iraq.

And on the domestic fronts of many West European countries, they genuinely worry about anti-Western uprisings in the ghettos in which they've isolated Arab refugees and kept them unassimilated. When Israel does something against the Palestinians, synagogues burn in Paris. They figure worse will happen (and to gentiles!) if the US does something major.

Some countries have agendas that just don't mesh with US interests. That doesn't make them enemies or "mad", it just means they aren't allies.

[genitiggie.livejournal.com]

Blair is a syncophantic ratbastard. However, he *does* have a dilemma:

On the one hand, the UK in its role as sheep bleating after the US, currently enjoys a far more influential role in global politics than is reasonable for a small European country. If it does not join in the war, it risks this. Blair gets to be the man who dramatically reduced the UK's role on the global stage.

On the other hand, if Blair's spin doctors - or actual evidence but I don't expect that - don't manage to convince a very hostile public that there's a good justification for this war, then the public will go right on disliking him as much as they do now.

The increasingly feeble-sounding attempts from Jack Straw to dissuade Bush from the war, in combination with the Blair rhetoric, don't sound as though they have the least belief that the war might not happen. So Blair doesn't get to be the Great Peacemaker.

Which leaves his career entirely dependent on spin doctors and a very short war. Not, I imagine, a very nice place to be.

Which is not to say that I am sympathetic towards him. As a Prime Minister, his job is to think first about the greater good of the UK, and then the greater good of the rest of the world, not the greater good of Tony Blair, or even the greater good of the "Labour" party.

Of course, it can be argued that he *is* thinking about the greater good of the UK, with regards to not losing its 'special relationship' with the US. Here my own political bias is showing :) This 'special relationship' is increasingly damaging to Europe's opinions of the UK, and to my mind, the UK should be worried about that, being in Europe and all. But in Europe, it's just another small country, and one that isn't very inclined to follow the rules. Nowhere near as ego-boosting as being a superpower's best friend.

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: Allies?

[bryant]

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

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.

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.

Here's a quote from Howard Teicher, a staffer at the NSC during the Reagan years:

"CIA Director Casey personally spearheaded the effort to ensure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war . . . the United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing US military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required."

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 don't think it really makes any difference except insofar as denying it reflects on the character of the President.)

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: 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: 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: 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]

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?

[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.

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.