Scott Lemieux brings lawyers, guns, and money to the party about the Economist's strangely reasoned non-anti-Bush editorial:
Lawyers, Guns and Money: The mythical French veto: The letter Economist editor Clive Crook wrote to Brad DeLong makes use of a ploy that, while a familiar tactic of wingnut hacks, is particularly dismaying coming from an intelligent conservative:
He sought allies throughout for the war in Iraq, and built the biggest coalition he could. France and Germany withheld their support for the war, and undermined the effort to put pressure on Saddam Hussein, at a time when they too knew that the sanctions regime was collapsing and they too believed that Saddam had WMD.
This happens to be (in and of itself) a strong argument, which is why you hear it so often. If the Iraq war was generally supported by American allies but opposed by Germany and France, it would indeed by silly to criticize Bush for unilateralism. In my judgment, the Iraq war would not have been in the interests of the United States even so, but this particular critique of Bush would be wrong. And, obviously, if a war is in the national interest France and/or Germany should not be given veto authority. (And while France happened to be right about the Iraq war, I have no illusions that this was necessarily for the right reasons.)
The problem, of course, is that in the particular contexts of both the Iraq war and the presidential campaign this argument happens to be utter horseshit. First of all, in terms of the Iraq war France wasn't the exception; it was the rule. Canada and Mexico, who Bush could not compel to support the Iraq war, are much more representative examples of countries that didn't go along than France and Germany. The idea that Bush effectively but together a broad, effective coalition but was thwarted by a couple of cynical outliers is, while extremely effective rhetoric, also an outright lie. Second, there is no evidence whatsoever that Kerry believes that individual countries should have a "veto" over American foreign policy, despite the fact that this belief is often attributed to him. He simply argues that multilateralism is in the American national interest, a seemingly banal observation that was nonetheless often rejected by Bush apologists as he failed to put together a significant coalition priori to the Gulf War.
If Crook's open-mindedness about Bush rests on this foundation, DeLong's evaluation of his mental state seems quite accurate.
While Scott is welcome (especially the $$$$$ part), I want to cavil at his last sentence. Clive Crook and the others at the Economist are quite sane--it's only the collective hive-mind that comes into being when they try to say what the Economist thinks that needs to have its civil commitment papers signed.
Posted by DeLong at August 29, 2004 03:36 PM | TrackBackWhen Bush was down, people were happy to take bites at him. Now that Kerry is looking Shakey, and an electoral college squeaker for Bush is firming up people want to butter the other side of their toast and curry favor. It's just simian behavior Brad. As someone familiar with the primatological roots of homo sapiens in the theory and evidence for evolution, should be a no-brainer to apply this evolutionary psychology fit. The chattering primates want to make sure they haven't alienated the alpha male, especially if deep down inside they think he's nasty and stupid. As Voltaire once wrote, man is a rationalizing creature rather than a rational one.
Posted by: oldman at August 30, 2004 06:33 PMBrad, you really ought to check out the oldman's stuff on computers and productivity.
He says the emperor has no clothes.
What say you?
Posted by: praktike at August 30, 2004 07:29 PMI think we know if Kerry would allow say a very powerful permanent member of the UN to veto US use of force. Did he oppose Clinton's bombing of Serbia ? This was not UN supported and couldn't have been because Russia and China would have vetoed it. I don't recall that he did. Many Republicans who now suggest it is near treason to criticize a president during a war did, but IIRC Kerry did not.
Crook's other claim "at a time when they too knew that the sanctions regime was collapsing " is also nonsense. Bush invaded at a time when UN inspectors were able to inspect Saddam's palaces without harassment. Blix claimed that he needed months not weeks not years to find out if Iraq had WMD. Bush invaded not because the sanctions regime had failed but because, with his threat to invade, it was succeeding in resolving the WMD issue which was, of course, just an excuse.
Why does Crook say the sanctions regime was collapsing ? Because the Ba'athist regime was corrupt and demanding kickbacks (so not all export earning were spent on food and medicine)? By that standard most countries should be invaded.
In spite of what McCain just said (even if he didn't have WMD he would have gotten them) There is no reason to argue that the relaxation of sanctions which *might* have followed a conclusion by Blix that Iraq had no wmd would have had to be so extreme as to allow Iraq to re arm. For one thing the US has a veto too and has refused to allow the security council to recognise clear facts in the past.
Posted by: Robert Waldmann at August 31, 2004 02:47 AMWell a few years' ago The Economist called for President Clinton's resignation for bringing into disrepute the Office of President. Now it supports a President, despite saying he took the country to war on a pack of lies ('or as it puts it 'misled the nation').
Let's hope the American public takes as much notice of the latter argument as it did of the former.
Posted by: Matthew at August 31, 2004 06:46 AM