Semi-Daily Journal

I'm a hawk.

The war cannot be justified unless Iraq can become an open, pluralistic democracy. It doesn't need to happen right away, but elected city councils, prosecutors, and municipal reconstruction boards need to be in place within a few years. A system of checks and balances must be phased in to allow factions to learn to deal with each other peacefully.

The expenditure of lives and treasure in Iraq is justified by the targeted outcome. With Iraq liberated and with democracy building and free markets booming once again, the neighbors in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, and Syria will be embarassed. Democratic movements must be supported by the United States or the new Iraqi government. Eventually, Wahabbism must be crushed in Saudi Arabia through internal subversion, which will be infinitely easier with a liberated Iraq leading the way. The dictatorship in Syria must fall and the people liberated in both Syria and Lebanon. Iranians must feel secure enough in the prospects for dedmocracy to overthrow their Mullahs, though this is not as closely related to Iraq because of the cultural divide.

And finally we will be able to make progress toward peace in Israel when the Palestinians are not being forced through internal terror and overwhelming funding from Iraq and Syria to act counter to the interests of the Palestinian people. Hamas and Hizbullah will make it impossible for the legitimate leadership to coalesce until we strip those outside forces of their support, but once they are removed we will see a new dawn of peace and undestanding because few honestly want to see malice and death visited upon their children forever.

So that's the scorecard. Invade Iraq and these are the criteria for success:

*Liberate Iraq
*Establish free, open, democratic governance
*Establish free markets, not just cronyism
*Put pressure on neighboring regimes
*Set up internal movements that allow us to overthrow current governments of Saudi Arabia (our real enemy in the region) and Syria
*Encourage the resistance in Iran
*Support new free democratic regimes in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and Lebanon
*Encourage an honest and fair mutually beneficial peace deal in Israel

If we stop with overthrowing Saddam or even with merely establishing democracy in Iraq, we have failed.

The reason Iraq mus be first is because it has the most potential to be liberated and the most openly militant anti-freedom crusader leading it. Saddam needs to be removed or none of the rest can happen. If we attacked our real number one enemy in the region -- Saudi Arabia, the nation responsible for 9/11 -- we would simply see Wahabbists and Saddam fight over ultimate control of the countrty while our allies in Japan and our (erstwhile) allies in Europe saw their oil supply fail.

As for the prospects for success, I would much rather see Senator Graham fighting this war than Bush. I secretly suspect that Bush just wants the oil for his industry buddies, since he has demonstrated eagerness to erect trade barriers, deal underhandedly with regulators, and open our ancient forests and pristine wildlands to heavy industry for any small advantage to and industrial friends, especially oil industry friends. Democracy is not really Bush's highest priority.

The Washington Post has an excellent article today on the Administration's post war plans for Iraq. On the one hand it was somewhat reassuring in that it showed that there are people in the administration who have thought about this issue. On the other hand, there was this quote:

"officials emphasized that they would not expect to 'democratize' Iraq along the lines of the U.S. governing system. Instead, they speak of a "representative Iraqi government."

There was also this, in the Guardian:

"Tony Blair today refused to specify what sort of regime might follow Saddam Hussein's in Iraq - despite making the "moral case" for overthrowing the Iraqi dictator by military action.

The prime minister avoided committing to a democratic regime at least three times under questioning from reporters at today's monthly press conference"

Not encouraging signs...

Kenneth Pollack, in an op-ed piece in today's New York Times, makes a persuasive case that getting ridding of Saddam Hussein is a necessity.

There is reason to be optimistic that most or all of the desired benefits listed by Professor DeLong can be obtained. The Kurds won't get an independent state, but they will be in a strong position to see that their interests are not ignored. Bush can't get away with double crossing them the way his father did.

Democracy is a real possibility. Iraq has a large number of educated secular minded people, and it is, one may assume, fed up with dictatorship.

As for the worries I think they are overblown. The power of the "Arab street" has been greatly exaggerated. Governments aren't overthrown by screaming mobs of illiterates, or they rarely are.

Who's going to nuke Israel? Israel has a nuclear deterrent. I don't think anybody will want to go there.

Iran is already pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Syria probably is too. The best thing to do about that is to get a friendly, hopefully Democratic government in Iraq and hope it starts a trend.

The sight of a quarter million American boys and girls in space suits carrying ray guns tearing through Iraq like a hot knife through butter will have an intimidating effect on potential troublemakers in the region.

Nobody likes the wicked infidel empire, but what can they do? On top of that, Saddam Hussein isn't really all that popular any more. The number both within and outside Iraq willing to die for him is probably fairly small.

I suspect the oil will keep flowing. The Saudis, Iranians, etc, have to make a living like anybody else.

Newt says:

"I'm a hawk" and "The war cannot be justified unless Iraq can become an open, pluralistic democracy."

There is a case to be made for a war of liberation of the Iraqi people, but all the available information as well as historical precedent suggests that this is not that war. You seem to agree. How, then can you be a "hawk" -- by which I assume you mean that you support the impeding war (the real one, not the ideal one you might like someone to fight)?

Also, I think some of what you are looking for is contradictory. You say:

*Liberate Iraq
*Establish free, open, democratic governance
*Establish free markets, not just cronyism
*Put pressure on neighboring regimes
*Set up internal movements that allow us to overthrow current governments of Saudi Arabia (our real enemy in the region) and Syria.

But if you establish free, open, democratic governance, then it is up to Iraqis, not Americans, to decide about the nature of the economy isn't it? This is the kind of rhetoric you see from Thomas Friedman -- claims of a "pro-American democracy". The thing is, when it push comes to shove, you just know that "pro-American" will squeeze out "democracy".

Until recently, I thought that Iraq had to be disarmed for our own protection. I thought that we would commit to establishing a Democratic government in Iraq if there was a war. Now, I believe there was no reason all along Iraq could not have been fought by "containment." I am also doubtful that we will ground a Democratic Iraqi government if there is a war. We have 200,000 battle ready troops surrounding Iraq, and I wish I understood why.

February 21, 2003

U.N. Inspectors to Order Iraq to Destroy Hundreds of Missiles
By JOEL BRINKLEY - NYT

United Nations weapons inspectors said today that they would order Iraq to destroy hundreds of ballistic missiles and rocket engines that were found to be in violation of the cease-fire agreement Iraq signed at the end of the Persian Gulf war in 1991.

Newt ends his superb analysis with the following:

"As for the prospects for success, I would much rather see Senator Graham fighting this war than Bush. I secretly suspect that Bush just wants the oil for his industry buddies, since he has demonstrated eagerness to erect trade barriers, deal underhandedly with regulators, and open our ancient forests and pristine wildlands to heavy industry for any small advantage to and industrial friends, especially oil industry friends. Democracy is not really Bush's highest priority."

There is said to be a struggle within the administration between the "minimalists" who care only about oil and national security narrowly conceived, and those who believe that promoting democracy is both morally right and in our self interest.

Instead of arguing about the need for military action, which is really a done deal, the Democrats (and the Republicans for that matter) should be pushing for a long range plan to help the Iraqis build democracy. According to David Frum, who wrote the Axis of Evil speech for Mr. Bush, there is going to be a big fight in Washington over this, and we should all write our Congresspersons and Senators. While we're at it let's tell Mr. Bush that being a conservative includes protecting the environment. Hawks for wilderness conservation!

I am a dove on Iraq (hawk on Afghanistan and Philippines):

I would have to see the entire top list of points revealed as reality before I would admit I my position was wrong.

Why? Because all of the points on the list are not only objectively critical if war is to be justified, but because they are the *very reasons* given by the Bush administration for going to war.

Our credibility as an international leader is on the line here!

The United States is the quintessential embassador of democracy in the world. We have a moral duty (as well as a strategic duty) to promote our form of government to the developing nations.

If we fall short in Iraq - and I believe that failing to demonstrate any of the points on Brad's top list constitutes falling short - then we are souring the virtue of joining the United States in a network of interdependent, yet sovereign democratic nations. In short, we fall short and we are seen - to some extent correctly - as villians.

A pre-emptive war is such a new and precarious means of managing international relations (for the free world) that it had damn well better be fully justified and it had damn well better not result in any of the serious consequences on the last list.

We will have have squandered huge amounts of political capital with NATO and the UN if the worst happens without good evidence that we had no other choice for a course of action.

We will be blamed for the consequences of points on the last list occuring. The severity of the fall out will depend on the entent to which the top list was realized. So I guess the top list mitigates the bottom list.

It's hard to compare costs and benefits when the costs and benefits largely remain in the realm of speculation; another reason I think this war is a foolish and danger fraught adventure.

Finally, I don't think that it's going too far out on a limb to propose that failing to achieve a thorough demonstration of the top list (the stated causus belli of the Bush admin.) could cause domestic strife similar to the Vietnam era here at home; particularly if points of the bottom list materialize.

Another reason to tread cautiously.

I think I take a minority view here, but I would have to include "killing thousands of the innocent people we claim to be liberating" under the category of "disaster."

Yes, I realize that by these standards, it becomes nearly impossible to wage this war.

--Kynn

Do not underestimate the power of the Arab street.

The assination of Saddat, the overthrow of the Shaw of Iran, the continuous stream of suicide bombings in Isreal, 9/11.........

I have read that the American revolution was mostly the work of about one third of the population.

All the Arab street needs is a rallying point; a cause. Bin Laden has tried, with only limited success to date, to stimulate revolution based on Arab sentiments towards the US and Isreal.

If we allow ourselves to be seen as robber imperialists in Iraq, if we slaughter huge nubers of civilians in the process, then I think Bin Laden and his ilk may finally succeed.

I can easily see hundreds of thousands of civilian causalties if the Iraqi army puts up a fight in the urban centers. Probably most of you posting here have not been students of military history so you don't realize the likelihood of this occuring. But, let the record show, there has been no battle fought with non-combatants trapped in the zone in which the non-combatants didn't die in numbers nearly equal to or greater than the combatants whether due to injuries inflicted by ordnance or due to exposure, starvation and other results of the damage inflicted on their society.

Smart ordnance hasn't changed this equation much at all, especially if military targets are located in close proximity to civilians. The cities must still be taken block by block with very dumb ordnance like bullets, mortars, tanks, arty (keep in mind that arty, despite advanced computerized targeting and firng systems is dumb enough to have inflicted the majority of friendly causalties in GWI). I've heard some talk of the US using non-lethal gas to incapacitate enemy troops in the cities. This stuff is unproven and may be fairly unhealthy, if not fatal, to the elderly and children.
I believe that Saddam is counting on this and I believe that it bodes badly for the reaction on the Arab street.

At the risk of "overposting", I am enclosing below the text of Robert Byrd's speech of February 12 on the Senate floor. The fact that this thoughtful, eloquent speech has gone unreported in the major media is the sign of the major sickness of public debate that, for a variety of reasons, we suffer from.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (2/12) - To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list.

High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation.

Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11. Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face.

Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher. This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

In that scant two years, this Administration hassquandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land. Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces.

This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace? And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in
Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq? Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years. One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution. But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet.

Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word. Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country".

This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

__

Why can't that egomaniacal old fool should shut up for once? What a lot of drivel.

interesting piece in the Guardian

The greatest risk to the US is its own imagination

A cult of secrecy only increases the grave danger of terrorism

Martin Woollacott
Friday February 21, 2003
The Guardian

The article by "X" which appeared in the American magazine Foreign Affairs in July 1947 would become the most famous commentary on foreign policy of modern times. Entitled The Sources of Soviet Conduct, it argued that communist Russia was a cautious power whose ideology laid down that capitalism would eventually fail because of its own contradictions. The USSR would therefore try to wait the capitalist world out rather than frontally attack it. The piece further proposed that the Soviet Union's own weaknesses were far more serious than any on our side and would in time lead to its demise, and that the west's best policy was one of judicious containment. Events proved George Kennan to have been about as right as any man can hope to be on such matters - and yet, as the former senator, Patrick Moynihan, has written - "The history of American foreign policy in the second half of the 20th century could be written in terms of how this message was lost."
We do not yet have, or, if we do, we have not yet identified the "X" article on the real nature of the threat which became manifest on September 11 2000. But we do have reason to reflect on the cautionary tale that is the story of western policy toward the communist powers. In his book Secrecy, Moynihan showed how fantastical notions of Soviet military, political and economic strength grew within an institutional culture which preferred bad news to good. The cult of secrecy nourished this growth, because it inhibited rational discussion by sucking more and more information out of the public realm and by trumping what remained public. Secret information surely had to be more reliable than the ordinary stuff that was just lying around. And so, as the literally visible evidence piled up that the Soviet Union and the People's Republic were muddled, corrupt, and inefficient societies under severe strains, it was ignored in favour of secret calculations that showed them on the way to outmatching western countries in every sphere.

The result was huge military overspending by the US, which drove it deep into debt, a war that might have been avoided in Vietnam, and a series of covert operations that caused much suffering and eventually almost compromised the constitutional order in America itself. Even when a more realistic perception of Russian weakness came to prevail, an assumption that the Soviet Union was a permanent fixture in history continued in some western circles almost to the end.

With the US now spending on defence at rates comparable to, or higher than, those of the Carter and Reagan years, and with the planned military action in Iraq seen by some as presaging more wars around the world, it is an obvious enough thought that the mistakes of the past may be about to be repeated. The military arguments are by now familiar. The critics say the threat of missile attack from rogue states, which accounts for that large portion of spending devoted to missile defence and that contemplated, apparently, for new nuclear weapons to counter chemical and biological weapons, is already adequately deterred by America's existing weapons. The spending on conventional military capability, they say, is still skewed to weaponry required for combat with the vanished Soviet Union or a highly unlikely war with China, and is irrelevant to the kinds of conflict in which the United States is most likely to be involved in the future. Undoubtedly, there is threat inflation here.

But a more important argument is the broader one of whether America under George W Bush is in the process of mistaking the nature of Islamist terrorism, misunderstanding the historical phase through which, at different rates and in different ways, Muslim societies are passing and, for good measure, miscalculating a range of other threats, like that represented by North Korea. Is there, in this respect, a parallel to the inflation of threat that operated during the cold war years? The first point must be that, considered in terms of intention alone, this seems unlikely. There may be a scrap or two of evidence that al-Qaida and its allies and emulators might draw the line at using the worst kind of weapons - there was one report that they had rejected the idea of crashing planes into nuclear reactors - but there is more to suggest that they would use any means they came to possess. The intention, then, is potentially genocidal, unless and until there is proof to the contrary.

But capacity and durability are another matter. It is normal, after all, for the capacity of terrorists, saboteurs and traitors to be exaggerated. Moynihan recalls in his book the blowing up by German saboteurs of the munitions dump on Black Tom Island in New York harbour in the early morning of July 30 1916. It smashed windows and shook people out of bed throughout the city, and although the loss of life was small, it was the September 11 of that era. This and other German-inspired incidents led to hysteria among the population and to over-reaction by the authorities on a grand scale. The real facts, which were that the Germans had more or less shot their bolt as far as subversion and sabotage went, were for a long time obscured. Supporters and critics of the policies of the Bush administration seem to agree that al-Qaida, whether regarded as an organisation or a tendency, is formidable. In the sense that it could deliver a formidable blow by means not available to terrorists in the past, that must be true, but in the wider sense of ubiquity, skill, and support from Muslim communities, the case is not proven.

Finally, terrorist movements have lifespans. They are born in certain circumstances, they change, and die. Counter-terrorist action, whether military or political, is only one factor in this evolution. The reaction of the communities from which they come to their actions, and their own reactions, sometimes of shame and disillusion, to their victories and defeats play a part as well. Apocalyptic terrorism is, in other words, not necessarily with us forever, although it is true that it is almost certain to do some grave damage before it departs the scene.

Richard Powers, in his introduction to Moynihan's book, argues that one of the baleful effects of secrecy is that it inclines public opinion toward conspiracy theories. Nothing is accepted as stated, politicians always lie, there is always a hidden agenda. Both the Bush administration, the most secretive in America for years, and the Blair government have taken their share of shots from these lockers, particularly from the European side of the Atlantic. The combination of secretive government, guarding exaggerated or misconceived ideas of the threats facing the nation from rational discussion, and a public opinion distorted by the notion that all secrets are by definition discreditable to government, was an unhappy one during the cold war. It is even less desirable now.

· Secrecy, by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Yale

Anyone who says they are a hawk because they want democracy in Iraq, should have their head examined. The people in the White House are against nation-building, remember? It's even beginning to dawn on Andrew Sullivan.
I guess you can say that replacing Hussein with a less bloodthirsty tyrant is an admirable goal. Well, I guess it is, but not every admirable goal is worth the U.S. fighting a war half-way across the planet.
About the only other (moral) reason for a war, is the notion to get rid of Iraqi W.M.D.s. But do they even have them? On this you basically have to trust the Administration, since they're the ones with the intelligence. But there is an obvious disconnect between the enormous amounts of chemical weapons that the Administration mentioned as being out there - in order to scare people into action in the first place - and the fact that none has turned up after two months of inspections. Maybe Saddam has stored them all under his pillow. I won't be too sarcastic, because maybe I am wrong, and there really is something there that the intelligence and Administration knows about.
The war justification has been built on a wing and a prayer.

"The sight of a quarter million American boys and girls in space suits carrying ray guns tearing through Iraq like a hot knife through butter will have an intimidating effect on potential troublemakers in the region."

"Nobody likes the wicked infidel empire, but what can they do?"

How quickly some people have forgotten what a couple dozen guys and a half million dollars can do when they use their 'imagination'.

The poster hints at one of the major unspoken motivations for the war. The US lost a lot of 'face' on 9/11. We were exposed as having a sort of 'glass jaw'. I don't think it's out of the question to think that Rumsfeld-Cheney want to reestablish some 'good old fashioned honest fear' among our enemies.

It's not reason #1 for war but it could be reason #5.

How do the 'compassionate hawks' feel about this as a partial reason for going to war?

The problem is that nations aren't our primary enemy in the current terrorism 'war'. The particular group we're fighting probably looks forward to the Iraq war eagerly.

The concept of the "shock and awe" bombing of Iraqi cities is literally keeping me awake tonight.

What pencil-necked candy-assed promotion through ass kissing pentagon coward thought this one up?

What morally depraved myopic elected/appointed officials have decided to go ahead with such a plan?

And for Christ's sake, why isn't the oh so fair and balanced syndicated media putting this sort of thing on the front page - with a good discussion of what it really means - so all Americans can understand what their not really elected government is up to without having to spend a good portion of their already too few hours day searching about the net?

I am disgusted! Outraged!

Those missiles will kill a lot of civilians. No two ways about it.

The destruction of water works and other infrastructure will result in civilian deaths as well. And, since we are not going to nation build, who is going to repair all of the damage so that Iraqis can live a twenty first century life when its all over?

The only points in question is whether or not the missiles will cause Iraqi combatants to throw up their hands in surrender. And I doubt it. Iraqi resistance could easily remain after the bombing is finished and American troops are drawn in close. The other point -from Brad's second list - is whether or not civilian deaths and blown up mosques will cause increased terror activity againsy us and/or an expanded conflict.

But the civilian deaths. The destruction of cities. The destruction of mosques, hospitals, schools...........is this what America stands for? What benefit offsets this cost? What sort of reptilian mind contemplates this cost and deems it acceptable in light of the mission at hand?

What is the mission, again?

Once the heavy stuff starts landing in urban centers it's no longer just about Saddam; it's war against the Iraqis, maybe it's war against Muslims in general. Yes, there will be resistance from the streets.

Bush has retracted every selling point (Brad's top list) he made for this war with the exception of the still unproven WMDs; the retractions occuring only after he obtained congressional authority to wage war at will and only after the American public acquiessed while the troop build up in the gulf was completed. Why? What has happened to change his methods and goals?

Now he reveals what was undoubtledy his plan from the beginning. He will smash Iraq and sieze control of the oil fields END OF STORY.

Bush lied to us. He is leading us to compromise our core values. We should impeach the son of a bitch before the United States embarks on a course of action that will for generations tarnish the im age of American democracy.

I get the feeling that the hawks are working from pure faith that the best outcome will come to pass and minimalizing the possibility of the worst because the worst is simply too awful for them to face.

The fact is, the worst is looking more likely every day.

I am delighted by the prospect of an unelected and out of control dictator finally getting his just desserts. George W. Bush, that is, when the war crimes he is preparing to perpetrate result in disaster, and the election of every democrat to the right of, say, Al Sharpton.

Perhaps 43 and Milosevic will enjoy long discussions of how they only acted to protect their peoples.

A few comments on one point raised above: the assumption by hawks that an overwhelming display of US military might would produce a long chain of desirable reactions in the Arab world. {"The sight of a quarter million American boys and girls in space suits carrying ray guns tearing through Iraq like a hot knife through butter will have an intimidating effect on potential troublemakers in the region.")

This is fantasy-making wish fulfillment. Yes, I'm inclined to agree that the fabled Arab street is unlikely to rise in revolt. But the idea that "the Arabs" respond appropriately to shows of brute force is worse than immoral and racist - it is stupid.

We are allegedly fighting a war against terrorism. Bending Arab governments to our will in a way calculated to aggravate the already deep sense of injustice felt by individual Arabs is perhaps the worst-possible strategy that could have been adopted. Pro-democracy hawks seem to think that Arab anti-Americanism is an artifact of official propaganda, and that a good stiff dose of political liberalization will turn the Middle East into something like post-Soviet eastern Europe. They might want to consider attitudes in Turkey, which has a pro-Western government, a fairly democratic regime and is a recipient of substantial American aid. Somehow, astonishingly, only 30% of Turks reported having a favorable view of the United States. [Pew Trust survey - http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=165] And yet many hawks persist in arguing that a couple of sharp blows to the Iraqi skull will bring delusional Palestinians to their sense.

We live in an increasingly autistic polity. We talk mostly to like-minded people, and tend to shout at and ignore the rest. We are so persuaded of the self-evident rightness of our course that we are driven to consider all dissent as illegitimate: coerced, feigned, hypocritical. Our hawks have created a delusional, parallel universe whose flawed assumptions are about to be disproven at great cost to ourselves and the rest of the world.

What I simply do not understand is why we can not focus on terrorism and "contain" states that are a likely threat to neighbors or to America. Think of the need to combat terrorism in Latin America and Africa, for instance. We could focus on terrorism, and also gain so much in good will with economic assistance and trade liberalization through the continents.

"So that's the scorecard. Invade Iraq and these are the criteria for success:

*Liberate Iraq
*Establish free, open, democratic governance
*Establish free markets, not just cronyism
*Put pressure on neighboring regimes
*Set up internal movements that allow us to overthrow current governments of Saudi Arabia (our real enemy in the region) and Syria
*Encourage the resistance in Iran
*Support new free democratic regimes in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and Lebanon
*Encourage an honest and fair mutually beneficial peace deal in Israel"

Hmmm. Well, at least some hawks are capable of detailed analysis. Let's be quite honest: if the current U.S. government were willing and capable to meet these goals, and was also committed to minimizing civilian casualties even if that meant somewhat greater casualties for U.S. troops, I would be a hawk too.

It is precisely because the Bush adm. is congenitally unwilling to achieve all but the first of these goals that I am opposed to the war. The current administration is not the first to use "free markets" as a code term for cronyism and will not be the first administration having a record of support for highly repressive MidEast regimes--besides Sharon, one hardly hears the neocons in Washington or their standard bearers in this blog (Willingham and Thomson foremost) mentioning that we should overthrow the _Egyptian_ government, which is as repressive as that of Syria but which does our bidding because it is so dependent on U.S. aid.

Also, the notion that the Arab street will rise up and overthrow their rulers just because there is a U.S.-dominated government in Iraq is laughable. They are more likely to overthrow their own governments if these are too supportive of the U.S. invasion, though this too is a remote possibility. The best way that the U.S. can encourage democracy in the region is to encourage free trade with Arab countries and U.S. investment in the region. It is precisely because the U.S. failed to do this in Cuba that Castro has lasted over 40 years. Willingham and Newt are probably right that the invasion can no longer be stopped, but I think the consequences will not be good. Far from it.

What did the French accomplish with war in Algeria? Could Iraq be in any way analogous?

Senator Robert Bryd pointed out that we may have cornered ourselves in ourf position on Iraq. Henry Kissinger has commented that sending home 200,000 battle ready American troops without disarming Iraq would significantly weaken America.

Randall writes:

"The best way that the U.S. can encourage democracy in the region is to encourage free trade with Arab countries and U.S. investment in the region."

Exactly. Free trade is the holy grail. But this is impossible without political liberalization. Without the rule of law, property rights, and a willingness to accept foreign investment those things can't happen. That's why that apart from oil the GDP of the entire Arab world is less than that of Finland.

There are some encouraging signs. In Qatar they are experimenting with democracy. There is plenty of anti-Americanism in Qatar (Israel blah blah), but the Qatar government is siding with the US in the coming war with Iraq and getting away with it in terms of domestic politics.

Jordan is following a generally progressive course. It is one of I believe three countries in the world that have a free trade agreement with the US. Not only that, the agreement has an environmental clause!

The US would not be helping the Arab peoples by tolerating the aggressive fascist regime in Iraq. We can't make our policy by public opinion polls either in the US or in the Middle East. We have to try to look at the total strategic picture.

The claim is made that if the US invades Iraq the Arabs will get so upset that Islamic extremist governments will come to power all over the Middle East. I think that claim underestimates the intelligence of the Arab peoples.

I think most will be glad that Saddam Hussein is gone, but worried about the intent of the US. It will be up to the US to alleviate those worries. This should not be left up to the adminstration. We need to let them know that we want US support to go to democratic forces, not supposedly friendly dictators.

JW

Thanks. Very interesting argument!

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/23/international/23IRAN.html

February 23, 2003

Inspectors in Iran Examine Machines to Enrich Uranium
By MICHAEL R. GORDON - NYTimes

International inspectors visiting Iran this week were shown a network of sophisticated machinery to enrich uranium, spurring concerns that Iran is making headway in its suspected program to develop nuclear weapons, Western officials and international diplomats said today....

Andres writes:

"It is precisely because the Bush adm. is congenitally unwilling to achieve all but the first of these goals that I am opposed to the war. The current administration is not the first to use "free markets" as a code term for cronyism and will not be the first administration having a record of support for highly repressive MidEast regimes--besides Sharon, one hardly hears the neocons in Washington or their standard bearers in this blog (Willingham and Thomson foremost) mentioning that we should overthrow the _Egyptian_ government, which is as repressive as that of Syria but which does our bidding because it is so dependent on U.S. aid."

We shouldn't overthrow any government by force, except in a few extreme case. Afghanistan was such a case. The Europeans and Arabs pretty much agreed with US on that, and it wasn't really controversial.

The only other case at the moment where military intervention is justified is that of Iraq. The Security Council passed a unanimous resolution saying in polite diplomatic language that Iraq must disarm or be disarmed. But now some countries don't want to enforce the resolution.

The administration is not using the term "free markets" as a code war for cronyism. The administration doesn't talk much about cronyism at all, perhaps because they are rather cronyistic themselves!

Nobody is proposing to invade Egypt, certainly not me and my neoconservative cronies. For one thing Egypt is cooperating in the war against terrorism. For another Egypt is a peace with its neighbors, including Israel. Egypt is a moderate dictatorship, but their system of government violates human rights and frustrates the political freedom and economic aspirations of the people. The US needs to lean on Egypt to move in the direction of democratic reform, maybe by privately threatening to cut the billions in aid we give them every year.

An Egyptian official on C-Span was arguing that if they have democracy the people might vote for the fundamentalists, who would then end democracy. He made the comparision with the Germans' electing Hitler. They need to work out some sort of deal where the fundies get to play so long as they renounce violence.

Joe: Your last paragraph is just pointing out the need for a Constitution. It's fine for the people to vote for fundamentalists (or whoever). All you need to ensure is that they are not able to cancel subsequent elections (also, I guess, that there aren't unelected officials with more power than the elected - see Iran). After all, at some point, whoever is elected, will screw up on points important to the electorate (like the economy), and then get voted out.

They not only need a constitution, they need a military that believes in the Constitution, and political parties that are willing to abide by it. In Turkey the Islamist party has come to power, but they have promised not only to uphold to uphold the Turkish constitution with its strict separation of mosque and state, but to continue pursuing membership in the EU. The army is ready to intervene in case the Islamists don't keep their promise. Maybe that is the model for Egypt.

Hey Joe, its an interesting version of 'democracy' where the army stands ready to overthrow an elected government if it does things the army doesn't like (and of course the Turkish army has exercised that 'right' quite a few times.

Joe Willingham's last post shows exactly why the US is despised, and American motives questioned in the Middle East. US governments have tried to argue that they support democratization in the Middle East, and yet in practise we've made it very clear that the opposite is true. Anyone who buys the sort of special-pleading the Egyptian government is handing out obviously has no intention of allowing democracy to gain a foothold anywhere in the Middle East. At least, not before we can find a way to ensure that we like the results.

What about Iran? Should we be concerned that Iran may develop nuclear weapons? While we and so much of the world have focused on Iraq, North Korea and Iran have been preparing to become nuclear powers along with, of course, Pakistan....

22 years ago, on this day, antidemocratical individuals of the armed forces staged a putsch against the governement of Spain, fortunately it failed. Alexander Haig declared at first that it was an internal affair of Spain, which to this day is understood by spanish people as the evidence of the lack of concern for democracy from any official institution of the USA. It seems that the governement of Reagan was aware of the conspiration, since in the previous November the US Ambassador had a reunion with one of the leaders of the intent.

Why would anyone give credit to the USA in regard to democracy?

DSW

" 22 years ago, on this day, antidemocratical individuals of the armed forces staged a putsch against the governement of Spain, fortunately it failed. Alexander Haig declared at first that it was an internal affair of Spain, which to this day is understood by spanish people as the evidence of the lack of concern for democracy from any official institution of the USA. It seems that the governement of Reagan was aware of the conspiration, since in the previous November the US Ambassador had a reunion with one of the leaders of the intent."

Aha! The ol' AFL-CIA plot.

Dave Larson writes:

Joe Willingham's last post shows exactly why the US is despised, and American motives questioned in the Middle East. US governments have tried to argue that they support democratization in the Middle East, and yet in practice we've made it very clear that the opposite is true. Anyone who buys the sort of special-pleading the Egyptian government is handing out obviously has no intention of allowing democracy to gain a foothold anywhere in the Middle East. At least, not before we can find a way to ensure that we like the results."

I certainly do *not* buy the special pleading of the Egyptian government. Exactly the opposite. They need to move toward an inclusive and democratic system. They should not be allowed to make the problem of religious extremism an excuse.
But they do have a tricky problem to deal with.

derrida derider writes:

"Hey Joe, its an interesting version of 'democracy' where the army stands ready to overthrow an elected government if it does things the army doesn't like (and of course the Turkish army has exercised that 'right' quite a few times."

My point was not to defend the past behavior of the Turkish army, but to suggest that there *may* be signs of progress in the present situation, where the army has agreed not to interfere, so long as the religious party that came to power upholds the constitutional requirement of the separation of mosque and state.

Few principles are absolute in politics. If the German army had mounted a coup against the legally elected government of Hitler in the 1930's that would have been a good thing.

I don't think the Islamic countries should be expected to become full fledged democracies overnight. What they need to do is move in the right direction. When they do, we should give them credit for it.

There is something I would like the pro-war group to explain.

Bin Laden has a beef with the U.S. His Al Qaeda group crashes airplanes into buildings in the U.S.; killing thousands and destroying some important and expensive property.

Now Bin Laden is evil incarnate.

The U.S.- the Bush admin, more correctly - has a beef with Saddam Hussein so we bombard Iraqi cities with hundreds of cruise missiles and lord knows how many thousands of tons of other types of high explosives; destroying critical infrastructure, expensive property, and killing thousands of civilians (certainly).

We are liberating heroes(?).

If it is criminal and morally wrong for our cities to be bombed and for our civilians to be killed, why is it not criminal and morally wrong when we bomb the cities of other countries and kill their civilians?

To make it more personal....what if a suspected dangerous criminal was fleeing from the police. He runs into the school where your children are in attendence. He takes your children and many others hostage. The police want this man so badly that, after the failure of brief negotiations - in which the police imply that nothing short of the criminal's death will satisfy - to produce an instant surrender, they simply burst into the school firing on full auto. killing all of the children and the criminal.

Do you thank the police for killing the criminal and go home happy? Do you solely blame the criminal for the death of the children? How to you feel about the police and their tactics?

An over simplified analogy? Not really. I submit that the same ethical code applies to both situations. I further submit that those who see a difference are able to do so because they are operating from a very ethnocentric - if not down right racist - position.

If we are a nation of high universal moral/ethical standards we can win against or enemies in the long run, mostly without fighting. The world will rush to join us.

If we act as if our values apply only to us then we will sow the seeds of resentment and revolt where ever we go.

The Bushies are forcing this war on Iraq. Yes the UN sanctions must be adhered to, but then you have Bush's latest. Even if Saddam destroys these missiles that have a prohibited range, it is not enough. Bush keeps telling Saddam that only regime change will suffice as far as the US is concerned. So Saddam won't destroy the missiles because he knows he will need them in the war that cannot possibly be avoided. The UN may unite to act against Iraq in a war.

The Arab world sees what we are doing and it doesn't look good.