Semi-Daily Journal

I have been scratching around for strategic sequels that do not put "taking the USA down a peg" at the top of the rest of the world's agenda.

A clean win (either win and stay or win and GFO) doesn't seem to fit the bill.

A quagmire is the most promising scenario I can come up with. (It limits our ability and inclination to go kill people and break things elsewhere.) Based on early returns from the Baghdad primary, this seems reasonably likely.

In all cases, countermeasures to US military advantage become a high priority global tech focus.

In all cases, acquisition of nukes (and worse) is strongly incented.

In all cases, we're in a world o' hurt.

For so long as you are more concerned with getting your story believed than with telling the truth, you will have no chance of getting anything out of it. Whether your version is right by some chance or not.

It's not a question of which story is right: both stories are right. It's a question of which story people hold in the forefront of their minds...

Brad, how many of its neighbours is the new "democratic" Iraq going to invade? Already we've had John Bolton calling for an attack on potential Iraqi nukes on a visit to London; we have had Jack Straw feeling he has to announce that the UK will have no part in any invasion of Syria. The UK will have no part in any invasion of Poland, either, but it doesn't feel constrained to announce this.

If we suppose that the neocons are right, and that a large American garrison (enforcing democracy, of course) in Iraq will destabilise by its mere existence the neighbouring Arab countries, then those troops are going to have to move in to restabilise them. That's the logic of empire. And these restabilising operations are going to look an awful lot like invasions to the rest of the world.

Ya know Brad, for a guy who only hours ago was citing George Orwell's "1984" to make a point about politics inside Iraq, your preoccupation with "the 'story'...the rest of the world tells itself" about our country, puts me in mind of another little book: "The Wizard of Oz".

If you haven't read it, do. It's pretty good. I should tell you though--at the risk of giving too much away--THAT particular "story" ends happily: Dorothy wakes up.

Dear Mr. Schwartz

We've all "told ourselves the (now familiar) story" about how the world was changed on 11 September 2001:

A very "high profile", wealthy Islamic fundamentalist (formerly of the CIA) together with several dozen of his closest friends conspired to perpertrate a heinous crime upon the civilized world: The simultaenous hijacking four airliners for the puropse of crashing them into the WTC, the Pentagon and another (presumably similarly "symbolic") target unknown.....

(HOW these persons were able to accomplish their rather elaborate, far-flung, lengthy and expensive mission without being detected, IF they weren't detected and WHY their scheme wasn't preemptempted by those agencies and government(s) who did detect it, IF they did detect it are VERY important unanswered questions too. But THOSE crimes, IF they occurred are beside the point.)

...Decent people (of every race, religion, class and conviction) around the world responded to these spectacular crimes with the sort of shock, horror, outrage and resolve we have every right to expect of decent people. Governments around the world vowed to cooperate with ours in the task of bringing the perpetrators of the crimes to justice. Laws were passed and policies pursued in practically every capital of the world to this end. For a few days or weeks or months it did seem that the world HAD indeed changed--for the better: The United States (and the world) had the suspects (and their political patrons as well) located AND isolated diplomatically, militarily, economically, politically, morally AND physically...

But then somebody in Washington decided that invading Afghanistan NOW was more important than the patient, persistent pursuit of international law and order, more important even, than actually bringing the perpetrators of the crimes to justice. Somebody in Washington decided that "war" on terror is sexier than law enforcement, that conquest is more exciting than government, profit more important than principle.

In other words Dr. Schwartz, the world DIDN'T change very much at all on 11 September 2001, for better or for worse.

"(HOW these persons were able to accomplish their rather elaborate, far-flung, lengthy and expensive mission without being detected, IF they weren't detected and WHY their scheme wasn't preemptempted by those agencies and government(s) who did detect it, IF they did detect it are VERY important unanswered questions too. But THOSE crimes, IF they occurred are beside the point.)"

Don't worry, there's an investigation starting up. And with a $3 MILLION budget (last I heard), I'm sure that we'll get to the bottom of this.

Barry

Can I add a plea for the US (and the UK to a lesser extent) to immediately stop using cluster bombs, especially in populated areas? That makes claims to be minimizing civilian casualties a joke that the corresponding pictures and accounts will make very hard to forget.

If a decent approach to refugees, humanitarian aid, POW's, reconstruction and post-Saddam rule also be adopted, it would go a long in helping to make Professor DeLong's master narrative more credible and defendible by his like-minded throughout the world. Otherwise, it will remain but a fatansy...

(I just learned that, by -an old- order of Congress, Bobby Fisher is still supposed to be World Chess Champion. How about having the Russian Parliament declare that the US never made it to the moon...)

After WWII, Germany and Japan became accepted because they acknowledged that their policies had been flawed and replaced their discredited leaders. Some in the US are suggesting that the US will only regain credibility abroad after the Bush administration has been replaced. The suggestion is that our unilateralist actions have damaged international trust and respect so completely that regaining it is beyond repair for this administration. John Kerry is already campaigning on this theme.

As for the US ending the war quickly and beginning the rebuilding, does taking Baghdad ensure the end of the war? Certainly this is the optomistic assumption. What if the war doesn't end. What if the Iraqi army does not surrender but melts into the population and fights on as partisans? A war like that would be like the US in Vietnam or the Soviets in Afghanistand and could last for years and never be won.

Some have compared the US invasion of Iraq to smacking a hornet nest so we can see the hornets. We have smacked the nest. How will we deal with the hornets?

I disagree that the US will be judged mostly on how quickly the war in Iraq goes. I believe that the US will be judged on how it handles the peace. If we go it alone unilaterally, the US will be isolated and a pariah. An international effort and a US listening to and negotiating with allies will have the most positive effect. However, that does not seem to be the mood of our administration. Like many Americans and some of the posters here, they seem to be mad at the world and soothing their anger by lashing out at friend and foe alike. I don't think this is a good strategy.

There's an interesting article published in The Atlantic in 1990 by John J. Mearsheimer. You can access it via this url: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/mearsh.htm

Some extracts. Stop me if you've heard it before. (No, he's *not* talking about the US):

"We may, however, wake up one day lamenting the loss of the order that the Cold War gave to the anarchy of international relations."

"..when power asymmetries develop, the strong become hard to deter ... Furthermore, a major power might simply bully a weaker power in a one-on-one encounter, using its superior strength to coerce or defeat the minor state. "

"... owing to the tendency of coalitions to gain and lose partners. This can lead aggressors to conclude falsely that they can coerce others by bluffing war, or even achieve outright victory on the battlefield."

"Bipolar and multipolar systems both are likely to be more peaceful when power is distributed equally in them. Power inequalities invite war, because they increase an aggressor's prospects for victory on the battlefield. Most of the general wars that have tormented Europe over the past five centuries have involved one particularly powerful state against the other major powers in the system."

"Nuclear weapons seem to be in almost everybody's bad book, but the fact is that they are a powerful force for peace. Deterrence is most likely to hold when the costs and risks of going to war are unambiguously stark. The more horrible the prospect of war, the less likely war is. Deterrence is also more robust when conquest is more difficult. Potential aggressor states are given pause by the patent futility of attempts at expansion."

"...Defenders have the advantage here, because defenders usually value their freedom more than aggressors value new conquests.

Nuclear weapons further bolster peace by moving power relations among states toward equality. States that possess nuclear deterrents can stand up to one another, even if their nuclear arsenals vary greatly in size ..."

"But hypernationalism, the belief that other nations or nation-states are both inferior and threatening, is perhaps the single greatest domestic threat to peace, although it is still not a leading force in world politics."

"The problem is worsened when domestic elites demonize a rival nation to drum up support for national-security policy."

Apt.

"What we need to do is to turn the story--and turn it quickly--the rest of the world tells itself into a story about the U.S.--over-hastily, and without following proper procedure--quickly, easily, and mercifully overthrew a cruel and genocidal tyrant who was a threat not just to his own people but to neighbors as well."

This is already happening. And it's also a story the U.S. is telling itself. Which gives me some hope that Bush may not get re-elected in 2004 as people's fears begin to ease in the flush of victory. (And the economy tanks as a world-wide recession kicks in.) Although Kerry just shot himself in the foot by braying about "regime change", which on a bumper sticker is fine, but on the lips of a major Democratic candidate at the moment is idiotic. Because for the most part, those of us more on the left *aren't* a bunch of screaming lunatics who mindlessly chant slogans. Instead, we're people who are looking down the road and noting how problems like terrorism will ultimately be best met by a world of cooperative nation states, not a world of good guys vs. evil doers. We're not hated for our success either, we're hated for our overweening pride and dismissal of those who are Not Like Us. When you succeed in even pissing off Canadians, it's pretty clear that it's not about envy, it's about respect.

What was Mr. Schwarz post supposed to convince me of? That molecular biologists are so self-centered and preoccupied with their work that they don't have time to inform themselves or to do more than repeat TV slogans? That he's not a dessicated intellectual, but has the barfly's ability to substitute insults for thought?

People who disagree with Dr. Schwarz (who mildly prefers piece but is up for the nuclear winter if it comes to that) are screaming simpering petulant immature things with their heads.... in the sand.

Go back to the bench, Doc. Apply your own insults to yourself as appropriate, and get back to me in a hundred years. Nice meeting you.

It seems to me there is no possibility of American "credibility" as long as the lawless and infantile Bush Administration remains in Washington.

Designated enemies can fear America's power, and America's friends can stand by in embarassment or worry -- or like Tony Blair climb on board the error while frankly proclaiming that it is necessary to do so in order minimize the damage and "affect the outcome," i.e. try to rein the maniacs in. Neither of these sets of reactions constitutes the granting of credibility, except perhaps in the sense that one "believes in" the axe one has seen wielded.

~"More troops and a bigger logistical tail would mean a faster operational tempo, "~

You are careful to present later statements as conjectures. Please do not be offended that I point out that the above is a conjecture as well.
A guess, and no doubt your very best guess, based on all your direct experience and all your study.
But that leaves you (and me) far far behind the best guesses of logistics experts.

How fast can TWO camels go, side-by-side, thru the eye of a needle?

If two camels proceed thru the eye in sequence, how can the hindmost contribute to the defense of the foremost?

~"which might mean more casualties (we have more guns shooting) and might mean fewer (to the extent that U.S. troops showing up in surprising places causes people to throw down their guns and head home). My guess is that it's a wash--so taking Baghdad in four rather than two weeks means an extra 4,200 people dead. "~

Have you worked up that mathematical model of military logistics I suggested a while back?
Or are you guessing from rhetoric rather than math? I'm sure you're capable of good guesses, but you might share the elements of the thinking with us.

What's the economic term for perverse supply curves -- in which increasing units of a given resource leads to diminishing utility?

For example, either of us might once (before marriage and fatherhood) might have found great utility (delight, value, fun, etc etc) in having around ONE nubile, inventive, playful, sexually voracious and fiercely devoted/loyal/jealous girl friend. But as the old country song goes, "trying to love TWO women ... sometimes the pleasure, ain't worth the strain."

Having overwhelming force "available" means having it in Kuwait or Turkey with much of the Fort Hood infrastructure duplicated. Paved parking, bunks, chow halls, barbed perimeters, sewers, phones, showers ...

Would Saddam have allowed such bases to be constructed or would he have attempted a pre-emptive strike himself, while the "overwhelming"
force was still marshalling? After a significant number of troops are available to target; before the number force is enough to be operational. (inside joke -- think Escobar.)

Tooth or tail, the more presence the U.S. presents to Iraq, the more targets we put at risk. It seems to me you look at the possibility of more forces entirely one-sidedly, and I'm curious as to why.

It kind of amazes me that other countries want to participate in the administration and reconstruction of post war Iraq. There seems to be this obsession with who gets post war reconstruction and oil service contracts. It seems clear to me that costs to the country (or countries) leading this effort will easily be greater than the economic benefits of securing these contracts. I hope when the time comes we leap at the opportunity to tap the United Nations for what is going to be a difficult, painstaking, and expensive process. Perhaps Bush and company are holding out on committing to UN oversight as a negotiating ploy to get a post war Security Council resolution that is as favorable as possible to US interests.

Joe Blog wrote, "It seems clear to me that costs to the country (or countries) leading this effort will easily be greater than the economic benefits of securing these contracts."

But it's possible that the people footing the bill (say, taxpayers in the countries participating) are not the same as the people reaping the benefits (certain large corporations).

Cheers,

"What was Mr. Schwarz post supposed to convince me of?"

Not much, since the case for war in Iraq has already been made with great length and articulacy elsewhere. You might want to start with Tony Blair's speech to the House of Commons in mid-March, if you haven't read it already.

And, no, I *don't* expect to change anybody's mind -- not at this point. It's clear that the remaining 30% of the U.S. which is anti-war would be anti-war no matter what we found or learned. If we do find evidence of WMD, it'll be dismissed as having been 'planted'; and anything else whatsoever will be simply dismissed or ignored, period -- any atrocities we uncover, any number of Iraqis who ask our troops to stay, anything that doesn't fit the anti-war mental worldview.

Nor do I find myself particularly thrilled with my own reaction to all this. I've spent my adult lifetime trying to become a productive member of peacetime life -- and suddenly I read the news, and find myself admiring our soldiers far more than I admire anybody I see at home. This is not good; it either means that I'm having a temporary wash of middle-aged enthusiasm, or that I really am finding out rather late that my values are different than the ones I've spent 20 years working towards. Either way, it's not exactly a dignified posture to be in.

No, I'm just fed up. Fed up with the anti-war movement, fed up with Europe's endless quivering sensitivity, fed up with seeing my country flamed for 'arrogance' when, as far as I can tell, we are in fact (belatedly) doing some reasonable approximation of the right thing in Iraq.

There are a lot of things wrong with Bush's policies that I think the progressive Left could in fact be profitably addressing -- mainly, its domestic economic policies, which Prof. De Long has ably rebutted. And there are constructive, reasonable things that 'old Europe' can do to address the imbalance of power with the U.S. that currently has its elites so unhappy. But the anti-war movement would rather go around with signs like "BUSH = HITLER" than break its brain with the effort of admitting that, just maybe, in Iraq Bush has actually for once done something OK. And Europe would rather hate America than shrug, recognize us as flawed but decent people, and get on with the adult business of rectifying its own errors that have led to its current state of relative desuetude.

I've spent my life trying to be a productive, peaceful, but solid member of the human race. Now I see a lot of the human race would rather indirectly support Islamofascist terrorism than let me and my countrymen work and innovate in peace.

Damn straight I'm angry.

Stephen, one need hardly look so far as "certain large corporations" to see who gains. Bushes poll numbers are up. Don't underestimate simple political gain as a motive.

I'm not sure this war has actually done anything good for American's large corporations. Many of them have been going out of their way to portray themselves as international concerns that have no link to US politics except the location of their offices. Walmart has actually been complaining of sluggish sales due to the war. Exxon is facing a boycott in Europe, as are other US firms. Exchange rate uncertainty is costing all sorts of international interests.

There is a fallacy in assuming that a nation is a single coherent agent. What is best for most Americans need hardly be what is best for the few Americans with the power to set policy.

I think the best thing the US could do right now, both to repair its international relations and to reduce the tension in the Middle East would be to ask the UN now to come into the country and immediately take administrative control over the more or less pacified areas, if there are any, specifically inviting France, Germany, Russia and Canada to send peacekeepers and experienced civil administrators to take full control. There is nothing else, at this point, likely to dissuade people from thinking that the US is occupying Iraq for fundamentally imperialist purposes.

If humanitarian considerations and fears of weapons proliferation really justify this war, turning the whole place over to the UN and to those nations that were most sceptical about this war meets those goals while giving the US a diplomatic coup. It would immediately dissipate fears that the US intends to attack Iraq's neighbours next, or that the US wants to control Iraqi oil, or that it seeks a permanent military presence in the region. It would make suspicions about the honesty and integrity of US foreign policy look like sour grapes. At a stroke, it would turn America into the selfless good guy who got rid of a dictator and asks for nothing in return. It is, I think, almost certainly the best course of action for Iraqis and for the US.

And, that is precisely why it won't happen. Colin Powell offered nothing but vapourware yesterday in Brussels - a chance for America's allies to pay the bills, but not to have a say in governance. He went so far as to say the US (and the UK - although I doubt that he means it) would have the "leading role" in post-war Iraq. Even Blair wants the UN in charge, so it's hardly any wonder there's scepticism elsewhere,

I am still trying to understand how Iraq could have been a threat to Britain or the United States. Apparently the inspectors had done a terrific job. Iraq, of course, has had a miserable government, but it was obviously no military threat.

Erich, if you wish to communicate that someone is "articulate", the word "articulacy" is quite ill-chosen. Furthermore, bombing other countries is many things, sometimes even appropriate, but it has neither constituted an innovation in over eighty years nor is it something that can be done "in peace." That confusion does not help your case.

More on topic, let me ask you, if America were the white knight in this tale, why is evidence of weapons of mass destruction and stories of atrocities likely to be dismissed? You have to at least consider the possibility that America has a past history of dishonesty in its dealings and that its current choice of methods have done nothing to enhance the government's reputation. Is it at least possible that people's response to America is due to a sense of distrust, both in the Bush administration and the American state in general, that is not wholly unjustified?

You ask the people opposed to war to consider the possiblity that Bush is doing the right thing in Iraq. Well, I'm asking you in return to consider the possibility that Bushes and America's words and actions have a lot to do with those same people's negative response.

"I'm asking you in return to consider the possibility that Bushes and America's words and actions have a lot to do with those same people's negative response."

This is two different things thrown in one kitchen sink.

Bush himself: yes, he's hated in Europe. Unfortunately, the last President we had, who Europe adored, chose for whatever reason to kick the can down the road on the issue of Iraq for eight years. So it comes down to a choice between having Iraq dealt with effectively by a U.S. President who Europe hates or waiting 2-6 years for another President who Europe will actually approve of.

I think you have to be at some amazing level of Euro-narcissism to see that as a reasonable criterion for whether war in Iraq is justified. If war's not justified under Bush, it would not be *more* justified under Al Gore or Hillary Clinton. Conversely, if it would be justified with those Euro-approved folks in the White House, then you'll have to pardon my naive American belief that it is justified now.

So much for Bush. Onward.

America's words and deeds: which ones? Our support of dictators in Latin America? Or our having helped overthrow the Nazis and keep Soviet Communism from enslaving all of Europe? And in what scale are our mixed evil and good deeds being weighed?

I think that we Americans have both been guilty of evils and responsible for great goods in the world. I think most people who aren't completely robotic adherents to the Left or the Right would admit that much (the robots would disagree, for opposite reasons). I also think that on balance we have done qualitatively more good than evil. But I really don't know how to change the mind of somebody who thinks the reverse.

Nor is it clear to me that changing that person's mind should be a prerequisite for the U.S. acting to prevent a possible Islamofascist threat in Iraq from become one so obvious that even the silliest Leftoid in California can see it, and also so entrenched that a genuine bloodbath is needed to uproot it.

So there you go.

By the way, spelling "Bush's" as "Bushes" is not a good move if you're going to flame my vocabulary.

Unilaterally yours,

--Erich

Stephen J. Fromm writes:

"...it's possible that the people footing the bill (say, taxpayers in the countries participating) are not the same as the people reaping the benefits (certain large corporations)."

It's not only possible, it's a statistical AND social certainty.

Speaking of "reap(ers)", while trying desperately NOT to sound like another CNN commercial break, I'm happy to note that "the Nation" (notorious house organ for the US division of the global "anti-war movement") has "broken its brain" with a couple of insightful pieces on influential insiders and how the business of reaping grimly really works in Washington:

Richard Perle's Corporate Adventures
by Tim Shorrock
(April 3, 2003)

"Richard Perle's resignation as chairman of Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board on March 27 capped a tumultuous month for the neoconservative who spent the past decade stoking the fires for the US onslaught on Iraq. The trail to his resignation--as chairman, but not from the board itself--began with Seymour Hersh's New Yorker exposé of Perle's financial stakes in Trireme Partners, a private fund that is currying Saudi investment in homeland security companies, and the Autonomy Corporation, a British company that sells eavesdropping software to the FBI and to US, British and Italian intelligence...."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030421&s=shorrock

AND

Can We Talk?
by Eric Alterman
(April 3, 2003)

"C.L. Sulzberger would not have liked this war. Back in 1937, New York Times Washington bureau chief Arthur Krock was hoping to be named editorial page editor. As Gay Talese tells it in The Kingdom and the Power, Sulzberger would not even discuss it. He explained to Krock, "It's a Jewish paper and we have a number of Jewish reporters working for us. But in all the years I've been here, we have never put a Jew in the showcase."

This war has put Jews in the showcase as never before. Its primary intellectual architects--Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith--are all Jewish neoconservatives. So, too, are many of its prominent media cheerleaders, including William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and Marty Peretz. Joe Lieberman, the nation's most conspicuous Jewish politician, has been an avid booster, going so far as to rebuke his former partner Al Gore and much of his own party...."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030421&s=alterman

(Read 'em and weep, Schwartz ;-)

P.S. If you're a bottom line guy, if you like to concentrate on the big picture or if you're still not clear on the concept, this might help:

The Reason Why
by George McGovern
(April 3, 2003)

Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die.
--Alfred, Lord Tennyson
"The Charge of the Light Brigade"
(in the Crimean War)

"Thanks to the most crudely partisan decision in the history of the Supreme Court, the nation has been given a President of painfully limited wisdom and compassion and lacking any sense of the nation's true greatness. Appearing to enjoy his role as Commander in Chief of the armed forces above all other functions of his office, and unchecked by a seemingly timid Congress, a compliant Supreme Court, a largely subservient press and a corrupt corporate plutocracy, George W. Bush has set the nation on a course for one-man rule.

He treads carelessly on the Bill of Rights, the United Nations and international law while creating a costly but largely useless new federal bureaucracy loosely called "Homeland Security." Meanwhile, such fundamental building blocks of national security as full employment and a strong labor movement are of no concern. The nearly $1.5 trillion tax giveaway, largely for the further enrichment of those already rich, will have to be made up by cutting government services and shifting a larger share of the tax burden to workers and the elderly. This President and his advisers know well how to get us involved in imperial crusades abroad while pillaging the ordinary American at home. The same families who are exploited by a rich man's government find their sons and daughters being called to war, as they were in Vietnam--but not the sons of the rich and well connected...."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030421&s=mcgovern

"Read 'em and weep, Schwartz..."

My name's Schwarz, not Schwartz -- for those out there still looking for typographical errors.

And in case somebody's confused about my heritage, it's German- and Irish-American -- mostly Irish, despite my German surname and Y chromosome. I don't have the honor of Jewish ancestry, but I do admire the Jews far more than the anti-Semites on the Left.

Erich, you have misunderstood me. It was not your spelling I was criticising. If the articulate nature of Blair's case is among the reasons to accept it, you bear the onus of making an articulate case yourself.

"With articulacy" is exactly the kind of stylistic choice that is, frankly, inarticulate, since the same sentiment can be expressed more concisely and without any loss by "articulately." "Innovating in peace" is the characteristic buzzword of a certain sect of American conservative and quite unrelated to war in Iraq. That betrays a failure to think clearly about what you are saying. "Islamofascist," "leftoid", and the abuse of the prefix "Euro-" are equally clichéd and loaded usages that ultimately signify nothing. They lead the reader to question whether you have approached the issue with a clear mind or have merely lifted arguments from other sources. Buzzwords and clichés are to be avoided if you wish to make a convincing case, or so says my Strunk and White. Capitalising "left" and "right" serve only to reduce the meaning of those terms from necessary but incomplete generalisations into monolithic stereotypes. "Throwing things in the kitchen sink" is a mixed metaphor, unless it has currency in some remote anglophone community somewhere. These are the sorts of stylistic errors that betray poor thinking and lead to such negative reactions in media like this one. They are quite different from mere spelling errors, a matter which in most cases is accepted as innocent, even in the most grievous instances.

Adding -es after -sh and -ch in English to indicate the genitive case is acccepted in some style guides because it is more phonetically accuarate and is almost never ambiguous in modern English. It is the form I prefer because it is easier to teach to foreign students who may not know that in English the "sh" sound can't be followed by "s."

There is by all evidence no one but the Bush White House concerned with this "Islamofascist threat" becoming a bigger problem. Blair claimed not two years ago that containment was working, and Bush in 2000 was himself at best indifferent to any Iraqi threat. The so-called evidence in support of this claim has proven singularly unconvincing even to those who might be sympathetic to the White House's cause.

So, we are expected to take the president of the United States' word on the reasons for war and trust his personal good intentions in assuring the outcome. America's past record has everything to with that. The testimony of a convicted perjurer does not become more trustworthy just because one discovers that not every word he says is necessarily a lie. Trust requires more than good deeds, it requires honest dealings. And by asking to be permitted to conduct a war without clear provocation, Bush is asking for a great deal of trust and has not demonstrated that he or the American government as a whole deserve such trust.

America's record as an honest broker is at best dubious, and even if I were to concede that present-day European owe present-day Americans some debt of gratitude for actions done in the fairly remote past, that debt does not extend to condoning ill-conceived wars on unrelated parties when the consequences may well be born by everyone in the world. If America's past misdeeds do not justify present hostility, its past glories do not absolve it of suspicion either.

Those are the arguments I am asking you to consider.

"Adding -es after -sh and -ch in English to indicate the genitive case is acccepted in some style guides because it is more phonetically accuarate and is almost never ambiguous in modern English."

To the best of knowledge, this isn't true.

I really wish I thought that the world was in such great shape that getting my specific writing style criticized by somebody unclear on how to spell my name or the genitive case of an English noun was the best possible argument to be made about American politics.

But in fact the world isn't in such great shape. So I'm honestly befuddled by this line of argument.

As for the more serious parts of the argument: it's not really my place to tell Europe what it should or shouldn't trust. My point is that if there is a specific argument to be made about American perfidy, I'd like to know why *I* should be expected to agree that the evil done by America in the last century outweigh the good done by it.

I'd also like to know why anybody in Europe expects me to wait 2-6 (or more) years for a President who Europe likes, who may or may not be less unfocused and irresolute in foreign policy than Clinton was, and who may or may not be able to deal with Iraq without far more bloodshed than Bush's war is having now.

Europe can sit on the sidelines if it wants to. But why exactly does it expect, or even want, a veto on U.S. defense policy? Moreover, why should *I* trust *it*?

Well, I am content. Iraq has been disarmed and so at last we are safe from attack. Of course, it seems Iraq had been disarmed over the years of inspections.

"Damn straight I'm angry." -- Eric S.

So am I at times. But it really isn't about you or me, it's about _us_ as in the U.S. of A. Labels like "Islamofacist" and "Euroweenie" aren't helping the rest of the world see us in much of a postive light either, and when officials like Richard Perle go out of their way to insult the leaders of other nations, well, doesn't that strike you as hubris?

I think we've done more good than ill on the whole. But that doesn't mean I don't think we can't do better in regard to being a nation that holds itself up as a first among equals rather than as a king of the hill. Organizations like Interpol require cooperation, not competition, to address international crime, and countering international terrorism is going to require the same approach.

As to the worth of getting rid of Saddam Hussein, I'm glad to see him go. I'm not glad that we're going to inherit a basket case of a country though, and one that's cost us a lot of goodwill worldwide in the process. We can get that back eventually, but I'm also wondering when our current course will be altered. We may have the right to unilaterally act as we see fit, but that may not be the wisest course to take.

Schwarz writes:

"My name's Schwarz, not Schwartz -- for those out there still looking for typographical errors.

And in case somebody's confused about my heritage, it's German- and Irish-American -- mostly Irish, despite my German surname and Y chromosome. I don't have the honor of Jewish ancestry, but I do admire the Jews far more than the anti-Semites on the Left."

Didn't intentionally misspell your name. Didn't
make ANY kind (veiled or otherwise) of reference
to YOUR ethnic background--don't really give a damn about it, if you want to know the truth.

Don't appreciate your unsubstaniated (and utterly ridiculuous in this case) "anti-Semites on the Left" rhetorical slur/dodge either, since the only even remotely plausible cause for a remark like that in to be found in MY remarks was a reference to Eric Alterman's piece in the Nation--

"Can We Talk?
by Eric Alterman
(April 3, 2003)

"C.L. Sulzberger would not have liked this war. Back in 1937, New York Times Washington bureau chief Arthur Krock was hoping to be named editorial page editor. As Gay Talese tells it in The Kingdom and the Power, Sulzberger would not even discuss it. He explained to Krock, "It's a Jewish paper and we have a number of Jewish reporters working for us. But in all the years I've been here, we have never put a Jew in the showcase."

This war has put Jews in the showcase as never before. Its primary intellectual architects--Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith--are all Jewish neoconservatives. So, too, are many of its prominent media cheerleaders, including William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and Marty Peretz. Joe Lieberman, the nation's most conspicuous Jewish politician, has been an avid booster, going so far as to rebuke his former partner Al Gore and much of his own party...."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030421&s=alterman

(Giving you the benefit of the doubt here, Schwarz, assuming you actually read the cited article for "range": Read it again slowly now, for "effect".)

--a piece which is about nothing if it is not about how remarks like yours have poisoned the well of public discourse in this country......

Since you have failed to actually touch on any of my points, I will address yours, one by one:

"I really wish I thought that the world was in such great shape that getting my specific writing style criticized by somebody unclear on how to spell my name or the genitive case of an English noun was the best possible argument to be made about American politics."

If your name is not spelled "Erich" then I can not explain why it appears so in my browser under every one of your posts. I have not referred to you by any other name.

Criticising your writing style is a matter of criticising the way you make arguments, because they way you are making them makes if difficult for even those here who might agree with you to do so. That is, in fact, a criticism of US foreign policy, although that was not my sole intent. Your stylistic choices will prevent you from gaining any sympathy for exactly the same reasons that Bushes foreign policy has failed to gain much sympathy in the world. When an argument is presented unclearly, when it is couched in loaded words designed not to communicate but to inflame, when its promoters are unresponsive to the arguments made against it and angry that anyone else might deign to disagree, that argument will likely fail.

"But in fact the world isn't in such great shape. So I'm honestly befuddled by this line of argument."

That, unfortunately, is also the Bush administration's response to everyone who disagrees with it about Iraq. It is that befuddlement which does not lend one to place much confidence in the White House.

"As for the more serious parts of the argument: it's not really my place to tell Europe what it should or shouldn't trust. My point is that if there is a specific argument to be made about American perfidy, I'd like to know why *I* should be expected to agree that the evil done by America in the last century outweigh the good done by it."

I have not asked you to agree that America's influence on the world in last century has been on the balance negative. That is not a position I hold myself. I asked whether or not America's government and America's leaders, as they are at this moment and as they might be in the future, can be trusted to decide to conduct a war without any immediate provocation. That is an awesome trust. It empowers whoever is in the White House to decide on the fate of whole nations, unguided by any encumbering principles. Do you believe that that is an appropriate power to extend to the current US president, and do you believe that power can be safely extended to future presidents without creating an unacceptable risk of abuse? Furthermore, even if you do believe so, can you not at least understand why others might disagree?

"I'd also like to know why anybody in Europe expects me to wait 2-6 (or more) years for a President who Europe likes, who may or may not be less unfocused and irresolute in foreign policy than Clinton was, and who may or may not be able to deal with Iraq without far more bloodshed than Bush's war is having now."

I haven't seen anyone here, or for that matter in the European press, claim that they would support this war if only Clinton was in charge. I have seen a few bloggers say so, but they are the people who already considered this war a good thing and only feared that Bush would mess it up. I have seen a few European writers claim that had Clinton been in charge, he would have more skillfully handled the diplomatic situation and would likely have gained at least the implicit consent of a larger part of European society, but that is a wholly different claim. I have never claimed that I would feel different if there was a different president, and your invocation of Clinton is thus a non-sequitur.

"Europe can sit on the sidelines if it wants to. But why exactly does it expect, or even want, a veto on U.S. defense policy? Moreover, why should *I* trust *it*?"

Europeans do not expect to have a veto over US defensive policy. Had Iraq bombed New York, I doubt quite strongly that there would have been any European objections.

Europeans, and the world in general, do expect to have a veto over US _offensive_ policy. When America attacks a nation that does not present a clear and apparent threat to the peace, the rest of the world has both a legitimate stake and a right to object to an American led breech of the peace. These principles were advanced at the Nurenburg trials and were enshrined into American law and European law first when the UN was founded and then again at the founding of NATO. It is an important principle and one not to be rejected lightly.

Europeans are not asking for your trust. Western Europeans are not - except for the UK - currently undertaking any wars which are not defensive or permitted by a specific UN Security Council resolution. They are not taking territory and are not establishing any military occupations. They have not asked for the power to do so.

You are asking for the world to trust the American president with a power that has no effective limits. Europeans are not asking for such powers.

I think it is also fair to claim that American intervention in the middle east has produced more debits than most. In Iraq they have first of all supported Saddam, ignored the gassing of Halabja in 1988, given him the green light to act against Kuwait, invaded, fomented rebellion and then not supported it, isolated and bombed it, used weapons inspectors as target spotters and then given it no chance to comply with an extremely intrusive process that had been shamelessly abused in the past.
It is also unlikely to welcome the rise to power of the Shi'ite and pro Iranian majority and it has a choice of letting down the Kurds again or upsetting Turkey, Syria and Iran. It has complained that an ally did not overule the wishes of 90 per cent of its population (Turkey) in the name of democracy.

Now it is clear that a lot of care has gone into the war and it is being prosecuted quite effectively fingers crossed but in the battle for hearts and minds what could it have done worse?

"I asked whether or not America's government and America's leaders, as they are at this moment and as they might be in the future, can be trusted to decide to conduct a war without any immediate provocation."

Probably nobody can. Power does corrupt. Human beings have, at best, a pretty mixed track record in handling the sort of power that Bush has now.

The problem is this: while America is untrustworthy to Europe, neither can Europe or the Moslem world be trusted to manage their own affairs without the U.S. eventually being harmed by them. We have had the U.S. dragged into two World Wars because of Europe's inability to resist totalitarian ideologies, and we've recently had an American city cratered because the Moslem world can't handle its own problems without venting its frustration through terrorism.

So we have an impasse.

It's quite true that American preemptive strikes are, by definition, lawless and Hobbesian. Unfortunately, the policies which Europe would seem to like the U.S. to adopt do not end Hobbesian nonaccountability; they merely cede such freedom of action to America's enemies by default. It's easy for America to get France's permission to fight Iraq: all we have to do is wait for a suitcase atom bomb or genetically engineered smallpox to go off and cause the death of thousands or millions.

If I were European, and leftist, and living in my own mental universe, that would seem like a reasonable position. For better or for worse, however, it does not seem like a reasonable position to 70% of us who are American citizens and who know that we, not Europe, are most likely to be on the receiving end of the next episode of Islamofascist mass murder.

So we're preempting Iraq's possible support for such an attack by forcibly removing Hussein from power.

If you honestly believe that our doing so marks us as morally evil or mentally deranged, you should by all means take any steps of which you are capable to oppose us. However, you should not expect Americans to place the same relatively low value on America's defense that you yourself seem to. Most of us won't.

"However, you should not expect Americans to place the same relatively low value on America's defense that you yourself seem to. Most of us won't."

Erich, therein, apparently, lies the crux of your arguement and the impetus for your support of the preemptive attack on Iraq.

Thus, I now ask you - as many against the war have asked the Bushies - to produce a shred of evidence demonstrating that Iraq represented a serious threat to our national defense.

Please do not bother to include proven forged documents regarding Iraqi attempts to obtain nuclear material. Also unacceptable is mention of missiles that may (or may not) have been capable of flying a few more miles than allowed, but still several thousand miles short of the US.

I will not credit violation of UN sanctions as per se causus belli unless you stipulate that Isreal should be attacked next for its violation of UN sanctions pertaining to occupation of the Palistinian territories.

Implying Iraqi resposibility for 9/11 is also off-limits as the current CIA admin. has, itself, dismissed any such links as spurious.

Go ahead, shoot.

PS. Your statement that I referred to above is rather insulting. Here http://buffalonews.com/editorial/20030404/1025897.asp is just one example of a man, who, by virtue of a life long professional dedication to national security, has more than proven his sense of value for the issue. Yet, he is against this war and Bush's tactics.

"... a shred of evidence demonstrating that Iraq represented a serious threat ... "

Look, this is the problem:

What *is* a serious threat? Serious enough that it could become deadly in a few years if left alone? Or serious enough that Hussein already has first-strike capability on the continental U.S.?

Also, what is a threat clear enough that you'll agree to it? Until we've finished overrunning Iraq, whatever we know about it has to come from the reports of defectors, from our own limited intelligence, and from the discrepancies of what Iraq has clearly not told us.

If you define 'serious' as being 'obviously and unarguably lethal in the eyes of any human being who's not medically deranged,' then, no, the threat *isn't* serious. Sane people can honestly believe that Hussein is no serious threat. I think they're wrong -- in fact, I think they're horribly wrong -- but it is a painful fact of adult life that people can be sane and yet be in grievous error about things that matter terribly.

But if you define a 'serious threat' as 'probable enough that a majority of us in the U.S. and U.K. would rather not wait for it to get clearer and worse,' then we've had that level of threat for some time.

And if your value system is that the U.S. really should wait until the smoking gun *is* a mushroom cloud, then of course any lesser evidence of foreign policy failure isn't enough to discredit diplomacy and U.N. arms inspections. The U.S. should wait to be virtuously atom-bombed or smallpox-ed or anthrax-ed. Then, we can bask in a positive glow of moral approbation from our friends in France and Germany!

That is the dilemma. To satisfy Europe's sense of what is 'serious', we have to either get Hussein to Tell All to some agreed-upon venue -- an action that is quite unlikely -- or we have to wait until mass destruction actually occurs on U.S. soil, or we have to wait until Hussein's regime has got atomic bombs and uses them to make a reinvasion of Kuwait unstoppable, or ...

To satisfy Europe, the U.S. has to go stupid, and ignore its own clear national self defense and self interest.

I don't blame you for *wanting* that. And I admire your piquant cheekiness in wanting *me* to want that. But why you seem to *expect* me to agree with you is really not clear.

The problem is one of threat assessment and of estimating probabilities when we have limited ability to know all the facts yet must nevertheless make decisions with huge consequences. That stinks, and it'd be really nice if we could get all the world leaders to tell everything they know, without reservation, at great length. However, the good ones can't tell everything without burning intelligence sources they'd like to keep intact, and they also must actually deal with genuine uncertainty and limited information. Meanwhile, the bad ones are quite happy to lie or play political games out of motives that are vile or at least reprehensible. And that difficulty remains true whichever side you think is good or bad -- neither sort of national leader is in a position to provide certainty. The only certainty we would have would be if Iraq were an open society. And if it were one, it is very unlikely that Americans like myself would favor a war with it.

Meanwhile, Europe clearly places a lower value on diminishing the risk to the U.S. from Iraqi-sponsored terrorism than the U.S. itself does. That would be fine if that were recognized as a mere preference, but it seems that many Europeans consider their own assessment of risk to be so reliable and so impartial that the U.S. should follow it. They also seem to want the U.N. to act primarily as a counterweight to U.S. foreign policy, but not to have it, you know, actually *do* anything about threats to the U.S. itself.

All very understandable. And all very useless to those of us who live here in the U.S. and consider ourselves to be at war.

It's fine for the European Left to sneer at 'the Bushies', but I think they're more interested in my continued biological survival than the Left is.

Erich Schwarz, asked for evidence that Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed a threat to the United States, responds that a majority of people in the United States believe he is a threat, Q.E.D.

If I read that "a majority of molecular biologists believe that genetically enhanced food is safe," I feel reassured about eating that food. I assume (perhaps naively) that they have rendered expert opinions after careful consideration of the facts. If I read that a majority of Americans believe something, I have no reason to make that assumption.

Either the majority has good evidence for their beliefs, or they don't. If they do have good reasons, why can't they be repeated for our consideration? And if their "reasons" are something like "he has nuclear weapons, and he was behind the 9/11 attacks", why should we defer to their beliefs?

I'm sorry to have to bring out such elementary points, but that's what happens when an argument doesn't pass elementary scrutiny.

"If they do have good reasons, why can't they be repeated for our consideration?"

Excuse me, but have you been living under a rock for the last half year? Or are you merely being deliberately obtuse?

George Bush, Colin Powell, and Tony Blair have made their case for this war, at considerable length and in highly public venues. Do you consider their arguments wrong-headed? If so, there's little point in my pointing them out to you.

The reasons have been made available for your consideration. If you don't agree, you don't. What constitutes a 'good' reason depends on your assessment of probabilities that, unfortunately, we cannot have absolute certainty about -- as well as differing postulates about human life that are unlikely to be resolved by any amount of argument. Adult life is like that sometimes. History is like that sometimes.

"And if their 'reasons' are something like 'he has nuclear weapons, and he was behind the 9/11 attacks', why should we defer to their beliefs?"

I'm not sure what this refers to. Have, in fact, Bush, Powell or Blair made that statement, verbatim? As far as I know, they haven't, and the actual arguments they made were considerably more factual and cogent.

Or are you referring to public-opinion polls within the U.S.? If so, I'm sorry, but I doubt your opinion would be assuaged if the subjects polled had had the clarity and nuance that Blair had in Parliament these past months. You'd probably still think they were wrong -- for disagreeing with you.

And in any case, I don't expect you to 'defer' to anybody. I'm merely surprised that you seem to expect 70% of the American public to defer to you.

Umm, Eric, Europe is a good deal nearer Iraq than the US. If Iraq's alleged WMD's were a serious threat to the US they'd be doubly so to the Europeans, let alone to Iraq's immediate neighbours. So if its about WMDs you really have to claim the US' judgement here is better than all of their's - you can't found the argument in a REAL divergence of interests rather than a PERCEIVED one. The Europeans were all keen to make sure Saddam didn't have WMDs - the disagreement is over how many he already had, if any, and what's the best way to make sure he didn't get more.

And think for just a moment what it means to have a doctrine of taking out anyone you can who might be a threat to the US one day - a 'shoot first and ask questions afterwards' policy. It's a recipe for permanent war - which you have to suspect the John Ashcrofts of this world, let alone the Karl Roves, wouldn't terribly mind.

But it also means any state that values its independence from the US had better start getting hold of some nukes (if I was a national security adviser in virtually any ME state now I'd be telling my masters to get hold of some nukes NOW, whatever way they can) and had better looking to their alliances.

On virtually any likely outcome from here, this war has improved Osama bin Laden's position. The US is thoroughly diverted from Pakistan and Afghanistan, the powerful western anti-terror coalition that formed after 9/11 has been shattered, a bitter lifelong enemy will be killed, pro-US Arab governments are facing huge popular anger, previously moderate clerics are issuing fatwas declaring jihad, and there is already a huge stream of Arabs lining up to be suicide bombers. Nuclear proliferation has been enhanced, which boosts the chances of al-Quaeda ever getting hold of one. And somehow George Bush has contrived to lose a PR war with the most widely despised man in the ME!

"... Europe is a good deal nearer Iraq than the US. If Iraq's alleged WMD's were a serious threat to the US they'd be doubly so to the Europeans ..."

First of all, I strongly suspect that, left to his own devices, Hussein's WMDs were never meant to be used on the basis of geographical proximity (except when needed to reinforce a re-invasion of Kuwait or an invasion of Saudi Arabia). The real threat was that they would be provided to terrorist organizations who in turn would be cat's paws against the U.S.

Moreover, this point assumes that Europe is actually sane enough to act in its own rational self-interest. It is not clear to me, from the history of the 20th century, that this is a particularly tenable assumption.

"... this war has improved Osama bin Laden's position ..."

I tend to think that Osama bin Laden is too busy coping with boiling pitch in the Fifth Circle of Hell to feel very 'improved' by the Third Infantry Division rolling into Baghdad. I also think that the Al Qaeda affiliates we've routed in north Iraq (and possibly in south Iraq as well, if the British are right) are not as 'improved' as they'd be if we'd left them in a privileged sanctuary.

"... somehow George Bush has contrived to lose a PR war with the most widely despised man in the Middle East!"

That was going to happen no matter what we did.

Bush's admittedly off-putting characteristics were the excuse; but I think the real opposition was to the idea that America would actually take steps to extirpate a threat to it, instead of waiting to be nobly violated by a suitcase atom-bomb or a bolus of genetically enhanced anthrax. That prospect was apparently so hideous that the French have become pro-Hussein. That's their privilege. But I don't want them deciding the fate of the U.S. through a UNSC veto, thank you very much.

Erich, after all's said and done, no matter how much you may try to turn conjecture into facts, the reality is that the US is invading Iraq, not the other way round, the US is killing Iraqis, not the other way round, and even in his darkest hour Saddam still hasn't used the weapons of mass destruction that are ostensibly the reason for this invasion. Yet you have the balls to insist he would have done so, without provocation, in peace time.

"Hussein's WMDs". What WMDs?

Should the WMDs fail to materialize, and the threat to the US turn out to be a figment of the collective neo-con imagination, who is going to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq? Is Iraqi oil going to be sold to pay US firms to repair the damage caused by the US invasion? Is that what "keeping the oil in trust for the Iraqis" means?

Well, well.

Here's an interesting item which "sums up", in an eerily Third Reichian sort of way, all this rhetoric about "the stories" "we" tell "ourselves", what we "believe", and the sometimes tenuous (at best) connection between those things and reality...

Here's the head, sub-head and first 'graph:

Support of U.S. Military Role in Mideast Grows

Americans' backing for Bush rises; many might endorse action against Iran or Syria.

By Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- Buoyed by success on the battlefield, most Americans now express support for an expansive U.S. role in the Middle East, with a clear majority backing the war in Iraq and half endorsing military action against Iran if it continues to develop nuclear weapons, according to a new Los Angeles Times poll....

Just 41 paragraphs later Ronald gets down to the bottom line:

...Nearly eight in 10 Americans now accept the Bush administration's contention — disputed by some experts — that Hussein has "close ties" to Al Qaeda (even 70% of Democrats agree). And 60% of Americans say they believe Hussein bears at least some responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks — a charge even the administration hasn't levied against him."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/battle/la-war-poll5apr05,1,41722.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2Dheadlines

Any questions?

"How could this be," you ask?

Ask one of the ex-journalists who dared strayed "off-message" lately. I'm sure they'd be happy to explain the situation to you: privately and "off the record", of course.

Any more questions?

No?

Good.

Ending a war is actually harder than starting it: the loser might not acknowledge his defeat. Suicide bombings might become a regular feature in the news.
It is absolutely mind-boggling how the neocons have got away with comparing the American situation vis-á-vis Arabian countries to that of Israel - a country that was a) attacked by b) neighbours in its immediate geographic proximity.
This might well turn out to be the U.S.´s equivalent to Britain´s Boer war - the beginning of a long and irreversible decline as the dominant world power.
Will the U.S. ever again have a president that has both the insight and the power to contribute major initiatives towards global stability and progress?
On a not entirely unrelated note (as it regards the quality of scientific advice American political leadership gets):
Does the majority of American economists understand why nobelist Mundell calls for a realignment of the major currencies?
Or is the best the world can hope for a replica of the kind of disengagement process that Nixon embarked upon - taking detours through both Cambodia and both America´s domestic and the world economy (saddling the former with wage-and-price controls - just as some Keynesian recipes are now calling for closely regulated energy prices - and ridding the latter of its currency regime without building a replacement structure)?
I am puzzled about current Keynesian thinking. There is, e.g., talk about government subsidies for a broadband buildout. Makes me think that if the Great Depression had occurred in the 50s, someone would have come up with proposals for the government to fund the fledgling TV industry. Would have been a wonderful venue for Joseph McCarthy to explore...
Of course, there was substantial government investment in the 50s - in highways. Why is there so little informed debate about the energy infrastructure of the future?
There is the distant vision of the "Freedom Car" - but no viable plans for transitioning the energy infrastructure from the oil-guzzling present into that as-yet-unattainable hydrogen future. Methanol is not widely considered as a practical option - which is deeply ironic if you consider that all its advantages are precisely of a practical nature (i.e., it is not a perfect solution, but it actually reduces carbondioxide emissions - which does not happen if you burn fossil fuels to first produce the hydrogen you then use in clean cars -, and it is also the cheapest option when considered in terms of combined costs for achieving vehicle and infrastructure compliance).
Which brings me to another irony: it may well be the fact of France´s large share of nuclear energy in its electricity market that allowed its politicians to exploit their nation´s "national greatness" illusions to take a stand for non-aggression. Whereas the U.S.´s "national greatness" instincts currently only serve to reinforce the natural predispositions of oil-industry-executives turned national leaders.
What was good for Ford may have been good for the country as a whole. What is good for Halliburton in the short run may not even be beneficial for Halliburton in the long run.

"George Bush, Colin Powell, and Tony Blair have made their case for this war, at considerable length and in highly public venues."

Tony Blair's speech (see http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001204.html) devoted roughly 2,000 words to establishing that Iraq had been consistently defying U.N. resolutions to come clean on his weapons program.

Blair then noted that, in a sense, all this is beside the point since opponents of military action "[do] not really dispute that Iraq is in breach.... The real problem is that, underneath, people dispute that Iraq is a threat."'

Having identified the issue in dispute, Blair, one might think, would then go on to devote at least as much effort and as many words to making the case that "Iraq is a threat." Instead he makes the following points:

1) there have been cases in the past in which democracies underestimated the threat posed by dictators: notably, of course, in the 1930s.

2) but the threat posed by Iraq today is not comparable to that posed by Germany in the 1930s.

By this point in his argument, then, Blair has A) cogently demonstrated a point which was not in dispute and B) offered an analogy whose lack of ultimate usefulness he concedes himself. Listeners are still waiting for an argument on the key issue in dispute. So Blair continues. He asserts:

3) that people crave stability

4) that chaos may come from a) "tyrannical regimes with WMD" and b) "extreme terrorist groups".

All will concede point 3). Point 4a is far from self evident, since the world lived with the old U.S.S.R. in relative stability, and lives today with the People's Republic of China. Now it is obvious that there are many differences between the two dictatorships. It is not obvious, or at least it is not self-evident, that these differences necessarily make Iraq more of a threat. And Blair makes no attempt in this speech to argue why Iraq with mustard gas and anthrax is simply intolerable, while a Communist dictatorship in China, one armed with nuclear weapons, is a welcome part of the international system.

Finally, Blair makes his case. It goes essentially like this:

5) there are terrorist cells now operating;

(nobody dispute this, of course)

6) terrorists and dictators both hate freedom and democracy;

7) therefore there is a danger that they may come together. That is (though Blair does not say it in so many words) there is a danger that Iraq will give terrorist cells WMDs, because Iraq sees the terrorists as allies in the fight against freedom and democracy: "At the moment, I accept that association between them is loose," says Blair. "But it is hardening. And the possibility of the two coming together - of terrorist groups in possession of WMD, even of a so-called dirty radiological bomb is now, in my judgement, a real and present danger."

Erich, you apparently see this as an actual argument -- even a persuasive argument. But at its defining moment, it relies entirely on an unsupported, unexplained expression of "my judgment" about what is "possible." So, for example, there is no attempt whatsoever to present any argument for the rather astonishing assumption that a figure like Hussein would place WMDs in the hands of those who have made no secret of their loathing for his secular regime, simply because he approves of their hatred of freedom. You might almost as well assume that Hussein will share WMDs with the Jewish Defense League because he approves of their hatred for the ACLU. "Hatred of freedom" is not Saddam Hussein's ideology; power for Saddam Hussein is Saddam Hussein's ideology. Speculative words about "hardening associations" between forces which "hate freedom" are no substitute for plausible answers to the obvious questions of what Hussein's motivation would be for such an act, how exactly he would benefit from it, what resources of mass death he might reasonably be suspected of possessing, and how these would reach the U.S. And no answer is forthcoming, from Blair, or Powell, or Bush.

So, I am still looking for an argument for why Saddam Hussein is a threat. 'The polls say most Americans believes he's a threat, so there must be a good argument for considering him a threat' doesn't make the case, because Americans are quite capable of believing in bad arguments. And 'Tony Blair gave a highly-praised speech, so there must be a good argument in there' also must be classed as a non sequitur. In order for you to make a case that there is such an argument, I'm afraid you will have to offer it yourself.

What were Mr. Schwarz posts supposed to convince us of? That molecular biologists are so self-centered and preoccupied with their work that they don't have time to inform themselves or to do more than repeat TV slogans? That he's not a dessicated intellectual, but has the barfly's ability to substitute insults for thought?

People who disagree with Dr. Schwarz (who mildly prefers peace but is up for the nuclear winter if it comes to that) are screaming simpering petulant immature things with their heads.... in the sand.

Go back to the bench, Doc. Apply your own insults to yourself as appropriate, and get back to me in a hundred years. Nice meeting you.

Maybe Schwarz was just a nightmare--ala "The Wizard of Oz"....

Bush Says Iraqi Fighters Facing Their 'Final Days'
By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush said on Saturday that Iraqi forces were in their "final days," expressing growing confidence in the course of the war as American troops penetrated Baghdad for the first time and preparations were stepped up for a post-war administration...

...In a sign the battle may soon come to head, dozens of U.S. attack jets, air controllers and unmanned spy planes went on 24-hour alert over Baghdad for close support of American troops in what could be bloody urban combat, the Air Force commander of the U.S.-led air war against Iraq said.

"Village by village, city by city, liberation is coming," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "As the vise tightens on the Iraqi regime, some of our enemies have chosen to fill their final days with acts of cowardice and murder..."

"..."Free nations will not sit and wait, leaving enemies to plot another September 11 -- this time perhaps, with chemical, biological or nuclear terror," Bush said.

He has tried to link Iraq to al Qaeda, blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, but no definitive proof has been established..."

...Bush has established a new American doctrine of pre-emptive action that asserts the United States has the right to attack countries it deems a threat.

The White House has said it would consider the war in Iraq a success even if American forces failed to find Saddam.

But Bush vowed that his loyalists would face war crimes charges for alleged "atrocities," including the execution of prisoners of war.

"The Iraqi regime is terrorizing its own citizens, doing everything possible to maximize Iraqi civilian casualties, and then to exploit the deaths they have caused for propaganda. These are war criminals, and they'll be treated as war criminals," Bush said...."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=6&cid=578&u=/nm/20030405/ts_nm/iraq_bush_dc

...Or maybe Schwarz was just a spoof. An elaborate satire...

...Stranger things HAVE happened....

Dr. Strangelove, Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

Dr. Strangelove, Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) is producer/director Stanley Kubrick's brilliant, satirical, provocative black comedy/fantasy regarding doomsday and Cold War politics that features an accidental, inadvertent nuclear attack. The undated, landmark film has been inevitably compared to another similar suspense film, the much-more-serious and melodramatic Fail-Safe (1964). However, this was a cynically objective, humorous, biting response to the apocalyptic fears of the 1950s....

...The funny (and frightening), dark film cleverly cuts back and forth mid-scene (and increases in rapidity as the film draws to an insane close) from three main set locations:

*a locked office in a sealed-off Air Force command base of a psychotic, impotent bomb-group commander who is zealously convinced that the Russians have devised water flouridation to weaken American men

*the cramped, flight deck interior of the B-52 bomber sent to destroy the Soviets with a preemptive strike - led by a Southern-accented, gung-ho major

*the Pentagon's huge underground War Room where an inept US President has convened an advisory staff - including a saber-rattling general (and other military brass), a Soviet ambassador, and a crazed German nuclear scientist speaking to each other over considerable distances

There were a total of four Academy Award nominations (with no wins) for the film: Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Director, and Best Screenplay....

http://www.filmsite.org/drst.html

"Should the WMDs fail to materialize, and the threat to the US turn out to be a figment of the collective neo-con imagination ..."

Should the WMDs be found hidden underneath Baghdad, I suspect that you will suddenly and rapidly develop a case of Convenient Leftist Amnesia. Am I being unfair to you in assuming this?

"... who is going to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq?"

The same people who would have paid for it even if we had had France's permission -- American taxpayers, offset by whatever revenues for rebuilding Iraq we can get by reviving the Iraqi oil industry. With or without the U.N., the U.S. would have ended up being primarily responsible for actually *doing* anything other than whine and complain.

"What were Mr. Schwarz posts supposed to convince us of?"

Hi, Zizka.

I've already answered this many posts back -- at length. If you don't like the answer I gave the first time, perhaps you should find another thread to read?

--Erich

"So, I am still looking for an argument for why Saddam Hussein is a threat."

I've referred you to the arguments that have been made. Your complaint isn't that there are no arguments -- it's that there are no arguments that *you* like. Which is, I suppose, an understandable complaint, but it's also one that I don't really have the power to address.

The standard of proof that you seem to want would be a reasonable one for the trial of O.J. Simpson. But Hussein isn't an individual citizen of a free republic; he's a dictator running a totalitarian society from which the United States cannot reasonably expect peaceful behavior. Hussein is not entitled to a Johnny Cochran. He's not entitled to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

"I'm afraid you will have to offer it yourself."

No, I don't have to. I don't *have* to do anything but oxidize carbon and die.

I understand that you don't find the current case for war compelling. The problem is that it seems to me that no case short of a proven and successful attack by Iraqi-sponsored terrorists on a U.S. city would, in practical terms, be likely to persuade you. Ideally we would be able to wait until such an attack had been planned but not yet carried out and then give you the full details of the plan; but in practice, it is probably more practical to preempt its possiblity than intervene at the exact moment between its start and its end.

It also seems to me that your demands for full evidence would be reasonable in a court case between private citizens of a free and transparent society, but are highly impracticable between nation-states where one nation-state is totalitarian, has brutally strict control of its citizens, and has been working to maintain that control for many years. Any evidence we actually have for Iraq's behavior or plans has to be gleaned from intelligence sources that are difficult to obtain, inherently unreliable, and constantly at risk of being caught and executed (as three CIA sources were in the last few days).

So you're demanding that I give you things that I'd *like* to give you, but can't, and the reason I can't give them is ... Iraq is a cruelly run dictatorship ... which makes the whole thing necessarily a matter of guessing the future's probabilities. I can understand that you see those probabilities differently than I do. I think I somewhat understand your desire for a Kantian rigor in the standards by which we go to war. But I have to tell you that I think your standards are not practicable in the world that we actually inhabit, and that trying to follow them now would be a great way to wake up in a few years and find a world in much worse condition than this war we are waging now is likely to leave it.

In short: I certainly can refer you to the arguments that have been made; and I can plainly see that you find them unconvincing; but, unfortuantely, not only can I probably not give you an argument that *will* satisfy you, but I am not even obliged to do so. I am obliged to explain myself. I am not obliged to please you.

Mr. Schwarz: I'm still waiting for an answer to the first question. Your combination of venting, ad hominem attacks against whole continents, and misinformation discredits you.

I do leave the DeLong comment section from time to time, but it doesn't seem right for me to let the likes of you to claim ownership by squatting here and stinking up the place.

"Iraq is a cruelly run dictatorship ... which makes the whole thing necessarily a matter of guessing the future's probabilities."

I guess that is the essence of your answer.

So, by your logic do we invade all countries of the earth governed by dictators?

I notice that we (Bush) seems to believe that N. Korea can be handled via diplomatic channels. Why? This is a cruel dictatorship by any measure and one that certainly has WMDs and that supplies them to anyone with the cash. And is threatening war; a war that could breach our shores in a catastrophic manner.

Or do we just stomp on weak countries?

I, too, am waiting for you to mention the shred of evidence that Iraq was in violation of UN sanctions. All you have given forth so far is that Bush said so and that's good enough for you.

But Bush lied about the nuclear aspect. That's proven.

Now what was the other evidence again?

UN RES 1441 made no mention of the sanction being imposed because Saddam is cruel, a dictator, or anything other than the issue of WMDs.

My analysis is some sort of mid-life crisis (alluded to by yourself) that is driving this whole pro-war sentiment within an otherwise rational man.

Military life is not all that it is cracked up to be these days. Mostly its boring, monotonous, stilted. There are the hassles of frequent moves, sometimes to unpleasant places (try Okinawa) either TDY or longer.

Few actually do the exciting stuff that you see on the recruitment ads. Then those few have to realize at some point that they are trained killers. That their main purpose is taking another's life. And the even fewer that actually do have to take another's life either become hardened or live with a sense of guilt the rest of their lives. In any case, rarely, if ever, is that action the subject of bragging at the local pub.

I'm sure that this is not what you really are pining for.

Set aside your fantasies of bloody (heroic?) combat for a second and return to the scientific method!

"Or do we just stomp on weak countries?"

The answer to this question is essentially yes! It is best to stomp on a Saddam Hussein before he becomes a far greater threat. There is no sense allowing another North Korea situation to develop. This is simply common sense and nothing to fell apologetic about.

"Set aside your fantasies of bloody (heroic?) combat for a second and return to the scientific method!"

Somebody obviously needs to read a little bit of Karl Popper and Peter Medawar. There is no such thing as a “scientific method” as hinted by E. Avedesian. We are dealing with matters that can only be addressed via our prudential intellectual faculties. The empirical sciences are of minimal value when attempting to comprehend Saddam Hussein and his tyrannical regime.

"Your complaint isn't that there are no arguments -- it's that there are no arguments that *you* like."

No, I mean literally that Blair did not provide a genuine argument: he simply made an an unsupported, unexplained expression of "my judgment" about what is "possible" in terms of an unstated threat constituted by an undefined "hardening." Do you consider that an "argument"? If so, I could very easily give you an equally "powerful" argument demonstrating the necessity of invading any country on earth.

There is a vast territory lying between such vague and unsupported assertions, on the one hand, and a jury trial requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, on the other hand. Nobody is demanding the latter. War opponents are asking for, and are reasonably entitled to, something more than the former. Again, it should be possible for Blair or Bush or Powell to say (without the aid of forgeries and potted "histories") what weapons Hussein can reasonably be suspected of holding, how those weapons might reach the U.S., and what motivation Hussein would have for using them or donating them to others. Complaining that a request for answers to such questions constitutes some sort of high-handed argumentative imperialism ("I am not obliged to do so," etc.) is absurd.

What is the point of this debate? It is being settled on the ground. Iraq will soon be liberated, and there will be one less vile dictator for the totalitarian left to support.

JW, Iraq is not so much being liberated, than being converted in the first military colony of the twenty-first century.

DSW

Joe Willingham asks:

"What is the point of this debate? It is being settled on the ground...."

Well Joe, near as I can figure, Brad started this debate with his comments about how facts on the ground in Baghdad would (or could) affect something he called "the master narrative".

About the time THAT concept (probably a relic from Brad's days as a Washington insider or, possibly, a symptom of something MORE serious like a budding psychosis, a blow to the head or, maybe, just a bad oyster ;-) shriveled up and died, Erich happened along, determined APPARENTLY, not only to whip Brad's ALREADY dead horse but also to demonstrate how it runs. And NOW, now that it's obvious the pony was a hobby horse, YOU come along and ask what was the point of the debate!?!

Flip a coin, Joe (You really CAN'T lose)

HEADS:

You can fool some of the people all of the time. And you can fool all of the people some of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

OR TAILS:

STARTING a war is almost always a bad idea: ESPECIALLY when it's not the best of SEVERAL options available to you and ALWAYS when you're really just doing it just because you want to and because you figure you can get away with it.

You're right Mike. George Bush is a crazy man who likes to start wars. Saddam Hussein is a good man who is trying to look after the best interests of his country. I don't know why it took me so long to see that.

Joe I agree with the first statement. I disagree with your second statement about Saddam Hussein. A number of people in our nations capital and on the East Coast have just gone nuts. They believe that terrorists will strike again any day and the only way to deter them is to put a big military footprint smack in the middle of Arabia. I do not think that Bush necessarily "likes" to start wars, but he feels that God has called him to start this war in order to protect America. This is where the crazy part comes in.

I do not believe that wars make the world safer.

"I do not believe that wars make the world safer."

The overwhelming evidence contradicts you. I guess somebody has forgotten World War II. Sadly, we should have learned our lesson at that time: don't appease dictators---or the situation will almost certainly worsen! The so-called anti-war crowd were greatly responsible for the rise of the Third Reich.

"The so-called anti-war crowd were greatly responsible for the rise of the Third Reich."

I should add that the isolationist "America First" Republican Party was among those who did virtually nothing to oppose Adolph Hitler before it was too late to prevent a world war. FDR and his Democrat backers may have very well saved civilization.

Isn't it ironic how times have changed? Today, we must make sure that Democrats are marginalized. The majority of their leaders are childishly immature and unworthy of respect.

I suspect that the GOP was in agreement with Hitler in most of the political, and ideological, instances, and I do not see that has changed since then. The war waging was strictly contingent, after all Hitler and Mussolini were nearly at war between them before the 1939-45 war.

Now your notion of respect reminds me an arab woman at the times of the invasion of Kuwait, she claimed that by this act Saddam had brought the world to respect the Arabs. How foolish I thought then.

DSW

"It's not a question of which story is right: both stories are right. It's a question of which story people hold in the forefront of their minds..."

You postmodernist, you. That's like saying don't worry about falling off a cliff, worry about hitting the ground. WHILE people are more concerned about pushing their message, about its spin, the perception that THAT will generate is that truth is not their concern. From that, they will have problems getting their version accepted. Funny, that.

Oh, and I disagree with the other idea someone presented, that on balance the USA was a net benefit to the rest of the world over the last century and a half. My grounds for this are that it omits the consequential effects of squeezing out the OTHER stuff that was going on and was a net benefit - things like the upsides of the European empires, that the USA ringbarked, or the financial destruction of Britain that Skidelsky describes in his biography of Keynes.

Don't forget, the USA made Saddam Hussein in the first place, not only by direct support but by stopping the efforts that were underway to drain the potentially malarial swamps that bred him. US behaviour over Suez led to the end of the Baghdad Pact and thence to the end of constitutional progress in Iraq. Don't say it couldn't have been foreseen - that was precisely what Eisenhower was warned about. It was foreseen, and by people with some expertise.

Joe writes:

"You're right Mike. George Bush is a crazy man who likes to start wars. Saddam Hussein is a good man who is trying to look after the best interests of his country...."

I didn't say Bush is crazy, Joe. I wouldn't use that term. It's way too general to properly characterize what's wrong with him.

And Joe, since I've said precisely NOTHING AT ALL about Saddam Hussein, it's more than a little puzzling to me where you got YOUR ideas about MY ideas about HIM.

Mike, maybe I am misunderstanding you. Why *do* you think this nation is at war? To me, as to 76% of the American people, including a majority of Democrats, this war is clearly justified, and this has become all the more apparent as we have seen just how brutal the treatment by the Iraq regime of the Iraqi people has been in the course of the war. We are not dealing with a government, or an army. We are dealing with gangs of thugs.

This isn't so much as war in the traditional sense as it is a sort of hostage rescue operation.

Yes, I realize that Bush is a Republican. That's a dreadful thing, but he can't help it. He was just born that way.

"Don't forget, the USA made Saddam Hussein in the first place, not only by direct support but by stopping the efforts that were underway to drain the potentially malarial swamps that bred him."

If so, that further obligates us to remove Saddam Hussein from power! Americans should not be hesitant to clean up their messes. And yes, Dwight Eisenhower screwed up royally regarding the Suez crisis. I am almost convinced that his decision to prevent the Israelis and the French from defeating Nasser was a blunder of monumental importance. Eisenhower inadvertently encouraged the more radical elements of the Arab world.

"If so, that further obligates us to remove Saddam Hussein from power!"

I've heard this chutzpah before. YES, it imposes an obligation. NO, it does not impose a task. You screwed up, and not by coincidence. It follows that you (since you as an individual so identify yourself) are part of the problem, not part of the solution - for all that you contributed to the problem.

Your obligation is to stop meddling, stop making things worse - NOT to jump in. As I once heard in another context, "we'd all get along a lot better if you'd just stop helping."

I speak from experience. My own early education was at the hands of Americans moving into Iraq, pushing their culture at the expense of British influence in the late 1950s. I had to be retrained in pronouncing the letter "Z".

Good thing I tuned in late. Guys, I don't know about Erich Schwarz, but it's pretty clear by know that Joe and DT view anyone who doesn't share their position as either traitorous supporters of Saddam Hussein or as his utterly naive dupes. This is, of course, just another variant of the standard red-baiting which has been so common in this country over the decades. We can hardly expect it to go away. Anyway, here's one thought:

"this war is clearly justified, and this has become all the more apparent as we have seen just how brutal the treatment by the Iraq regime of the Iraqi people has been in the course of the war. We are not dealing with a government, or an army. We are dealing with gangs of thugs."

Wonderful. Any regime that we don't like, we simply declare to be led by a gang of thugs and then we invade. A clear, straightforward way to run our foreign policy, which would have us also invading Colombia, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, North Korea, etc. (how about Texas?). I guess it's time we take much more on ourselves and turn the US into a permanent war economy. Maybe Canada can take it on itself to invade the US if it ever comes to be ruled by a gang of thugs. Oh well.

I was actually hoping that Schwarz would make rational argument based on WMD's(though still wrong--why shouldn't we also invade China or Russia since any corrupt official there can pass on WMD's to Al Qaeda? The world's a dangerous place, and will be made more dangerous by arbitrary acts of mass violence like invasion--get used to it).

But then he spoiled it all with the following bit of Thomson-speak:

"We have had the U.S. dragged into two World Wars because of Europe's inability to resist totalitarian ideologies, and we've recently had an American city cratered because the Moslem world can't handle its own problems without venting its frustration through terrorism."

It's getting more and more tiring to correct such factual atrocities born in bigotry, but let's try it again. There were three countries--Britain, France, and Poland, who did their best to resist the rise of totalitarian ideology in Europe (to say nothing of many thousands of dead Germans, Russians, Spaniards, and Italians before the war started). Meanwhile, we in the US sat on our asses and waited until Hitler and Mussolini declared war on us, in part because a significant portion of our business community liked Hitler and Mussolini. This delay actually proved to be a good thing, since it got all of the population behind the war effort, but it hardly gives us the right to tar Europe with being soft on totalitarianism.

As for 9/11, what does Islam in particular have to do with it? Is there anything in the Koran itself which even remotely justifies the label "islamofascism"? Did anyone start bandying about "waspofascism" when Mssrs. McVeigh and Nichols decided to go into the mass murder business (and when a small minority of Americans wished that they had chosen the UN building instead?), or "judeofascism" when Yigal Amir decided to off Prime Minister Rabin? Is it so difficult to understand that every major religion to come out of the Indo-European and Semitic has a sad propensity to create a small number of such murderous madmen? And that the vast majority of people in such religions abhor acts like 9/11 and Oklahoma City? So why kill them?

And yes, I'm angry enough now that I'll indulge in some name calling, even if Brad deletes this post (not that my words would have changed anyone's mind). Yes, the world is full of fascist thugs who wish to destroy our way of life. Here's the first step to fighting them: stop thinking like them.

Do anyone remember Suharto?

DSW

"As for 9/11, what does Islam in particular have to do with it? Is there anything in the Koran itself which even remotely justifies the label "islamofascism"?"

Islam and Islamism (aka Islamic fascism, aka Islamofascism) are entirely distinct.

Islam is a religion. Islamism is a political ideology which claims to base itself on Islam. That claim is rejected by most Muslims. Islamists consider Muslims who don't share their ideology as heretics.

There are fascist movements which claim to be Christian, such as the Ku Klux Klan. The American government and the American people need to continue to monitor the activities of these dangerous radicals. One danger is that they might make a tactical alliance with Islamists.

There are Jewish extremists such as Ygal Amir and the late Meir Kahane. You are welcome to call them fascists, because that is what they are.

I would hardly characterize McVeigh or Amir as "fascist". Nor, considering the largely autonomous nature of al-Qaeda cells, can they properly considered to be fascist either. Unless, that is, "fascism" is just another context-free four letter word, like "socialism" or "globalization" have become.

"Islamic fascism", like "Buddhist capitalism" and "Hindu liberalism", is a plausible-sounding word that essentially replaces rational discourse with name-calling. You can abhor everything bin Laden stands for, and still muster better, more logical arguments against him than this type of meaningless saloon chit-chat.

"You can abhor everything bin Laden stands for, and still muster better, more logical arguments against him than this type of meaningless saloon chit-chat."

I prefer describing the Islamic militants as totalitarians. This term cannot be disputed and far more accurately explains the mindset of the Osama bin Ladins.

Strontiumdog, you have a point. Bin Laden's movement should be called Islamism, except that sounds too much like "Islam", and the whole point is to differentiate the religion from the political movement. The latter is a messianic totalitarian political ideology which resembles Nazism and Communism more than it does Mussolini's fascism.

McVeigh was a right wing nut case. Sane people who think that the federal government is too big vote libertarian, or write articles about it in conservative magazines. Psychopaths who are of that opinion go around blowing up day care centers. To call them "fascists" is a metaphorical rather than exact use of the word.

Amir should be called a "violent far-right extremist". The fascists were indeed violent far right political extremists, but I don't know that Amir believes in a Jewish version of Mussolini's corporate state.

The inaccuracy of a particular term doesn't change the reality that this nation is at war with Islamism, and that it is a fight to the death.

And most especially with that outstanding exemplar of Islamism, Saddam Hussein.

Totalitarian murderer he may be, but I doubt anyone is going to characterize SH as particularly devout or theocratic.

He's not Islamist, devout, or theocratic. He's a former Ba'athist dictator, or will be soon.

The Islamists are an enemy of the US, but they are not the *only* enemy.