Re: An Unnecessary War

[Clifford Poirot <cpoirot@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Since Rick is letting this discussion go on, let me chime in with a few
observations, and then I will even try to tie this back to PK Economics.

1. As a matter of international law, which the U.S. claimed to be upholding
when it invaded Afghanistan, I do not think that pre-emption on this level
(attacking on the basis of a threat that might develop as a set of
contingencies) is acceptable. Attacking to repel an immanent and present
threat might be. The threat is not current. Of course, international law is
really a fiction. But the issue is does this course lead us closer to
international security cooperation and the international rule of law, or
further away? I argue the latter.

2. The best argument for invading Afghanistan is what I call the Christopher
Hitchens argument-to  uphold democracy, protect the Kurds and end Saddam's
tyranny. I supported military action against Milosevic. Saddam is at least
as bad as Milosevic, and I think there is a case to be made that he is
worse. I admire Hitchens but on this score, he is simply naive. The U.S.,
which helped to underwrite Saddam's wars on Iran and the Kurds, and has
cynically manipulated the Kurds for at least two decades, is not in a
position to remake the political map of Iraq. I could imagaine a case where
I would support military action against Saddam (say if he attempted ethnic
cleansing against the Kurds or Shia), but not on the basis of past action
which we at best, turned a blind eye to. So with all respect to Hitchens
(who is right morally, but wrong in this instance), I reject that case for
invading Iraq.

3. Though historically balance of power and deterrence arguments have their
own problems, and I am reluctant to take this tack (doing so assumes the
validity of U.S. hegemony), there is none the less an interesting realist
case against attacking Iraq to be made. I will sketch it out here very
simply-A U.S. invasion is at best imperial overreach, spreads resources
thin, and undermines U.S. legitimacy in the region while distracting from
the greater danger of N. Korea and the immanent danger of Al Quada, and the
deteriorating situation in Afhanistan. From a pragmatic point of view, this
is a sound argument that will play in the media, thus making people not
vulnerable to accusations of being "soft". As an absolute argument, it does
play into the hands of realism as a paradigm, which is problematic (at best)
for any "left wing" analysis of U.S. foreign policy. As a practical
political matter, I think an anti-war coalition is best served by creating
the broadest and most effective coalition possible, and not getting
detracted by any apologies for the butcher of Baghdad.

4. From a PK point of view, this war is incredibly dangerous-threatening to
reignite the stagflation of the 1970's and derail the economic recovery.


-----Original Message-----
From: Sven R Larson [mailto:slarson@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 2:42 PM
To: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: An Unnecessary War


William F Hummel wrote:
> No.  The argument against war with Iraq has nothing whatsoever to
> do with a balance of terror thesis.

But what is this...

> Saddam is a monomaniac and brutal tyrant, but he is not suicidal.
> He knows that any significant strike he makes against the US or
> its allies would bring a quick and deadly response, far greater
> than anything he could do with his weapons of mass destruction.

...if not a balance of terror argument???

It is interesting, by the way, to see that this balance of terror
argument, consequently endorsed by critics of a war against Iraq, is
exactly the argument that the international nuclear disarmament peace
movement criticized vehemently two decades ago for being naive,
romantic, unrealistic and cynical. But I guess it's as true now as
it's ever been: those who cannot remember the past are condemned to
repeat it.

I guess the final wake-up call for balance-of-terror romantics will
come the day when Saddam's maniac of a son has taken over and wants to
be the Leader of the Arab world (i.e. control the world economy
through the region's oil reserves). He sells a nuke to al Qaeda, and
al Qaeda plants it in New York. bin Laden then calls the White House
from a cave in northern Pakistan: "Dismantle the state of Israel
immediately or we pull the trigger".

Try that for balance of terror.

/srl