Iraqi war without politics

Great Debates
1

How about we do this one without “Bush sucks,” “Those damn Republicans” “War mongers” or bitching about “Treasonous liberals,” or all the rest of the bullshit that’s now the main topic of GD?

There’s 20 other threads for that crap. Leave it out of this one.

I’m now against the war, because Bush et al have screwed up diplomatically.

I think our stance was justified. Disarming Iraq is necessary in our campaign against terrorism. Saddam is a bad bad guy, and getting rid of him will improve the the world. He is in ongoing violation of UN policy, and as the leaders of the earlier coalition that threw him out of Kuwait, we have the right to enforce the conditions of the cease fire.

The mistake that we made is a diplomatic one. I think things were handled correctly through the passing of the last resolution.

Now however, we have screwed up.

We have taken an untenable stance.

On the one hand we have said that 1441 is all the athority we need to go to war, that that shows the will of the UN, and that from that resolution we can act unilaterally and do what needs to be done to enforce We can act alone, because we have all the mandate we need.

On the other hand we have gone back to the UN seeking a second resolution.

It was a big mistake. From a strictly tactical standpoint, whether you think the war is justified or not it is a bad idea to ask for permission for something that you are going to do anyway.

Having asked for that permission and sought a second resolution authorizing force it is my beleief that we are now morally and legally obligated to accept the will of the athority we sought permission from.

If we go to war without it, we are simply in the wrong.

Rumsfeld slip of the tounge sandbagging our biggest ally didn’t help either.

One of our principles as a nation is noninterference. We have always supported the community of nations, and we have fought with the will of our allies and the world.

We are not an arbitrary invader.
Having painted ourselves into a diplomatic corner I think that there is only one proper course of action available to us as a country.

Bush must address the Nation and the UN again.

His speech should run along these lines:

"For 12 years Saddam Hussein has defied the will of the world communtiy. He has engaged in wars of conquest. He has sought and acquired weapons of mass destruction. He has committed genocide against the people of his country and his citizenry is held captive by his rule.

Since September 11th the world has changed and this kind of defiance from an aggressor nation can no longer be tolerated. The United States has called Hussein to task to the UN, and as the will of the world the Un has agreed that it must come to an end. Saddam must disarm or we will disarm him.

Now we have come to a crisis among our own allies. Our principles and are resolve has remained the same. We share it unanimously. This administration and its advisors feel that the evidence of noncompliance is compelling and indisputable. Any more delays simply postpone the inevitable and give this tyrant Hussein and those who would ally with him more time to prepare retaliations and ensure a far bloodier conflict than if we act appropriately and immediately.

Some among our allies and the world community disagree. We feel they are wrong to do so, yet we understand their love for peace and their desire to extend to Hussein yet more last chances to comply.

Just as Saddam must comply with the will of the world so must the United States. No matter how sure and just we feel our actions are, at this point we must lead and show our commitment to justice and community by example.

Though it may very well cost us more lives, more dead, we will not attack without the full support of our allies.

France has sworn it will veto a resolution for action at this time. Other allies express strong reservations concerning the action.

We will accede. This concession of ours carries its own responsibilities to our allies and it is not unconditional.

We call on the UN security council to present a resolution presenting a clear set of conditions and a timetable of compliance for Iraq. That resolution must include a mandated enforcement in the event of noncompliance.

Furthermore, if a country wishes to use it’s veto power it must share in the consequences in the event that the judgement that led to that veto was wrong.

We expect a new resolution to not only include mandated enforcement in the event of noncompliance, by acceding to the wishes of our reluctant allies we require their participation and assistance in disarming Iraq, both financial and military in the event that that judgement turns out to be wrong and we must resort to force.

Let us pray they are right."

Discussion?

2

I don’t think Bush and his team wanted to do this. I think they did it as a favor to Blair, who you must admit is in a very difficult position. His own party may give him the boot over this issue. If you had been Bush, what would you have said to Blair?

3

Can’t see it happening.

The US considers Saddam a threat to their security so they will get rid of him with or without the UN. They think that they don’t need UN sanction when engaged in a matter of national security.

And, in fairness to them, it is a standard rule of international law - if your country’s national security is threatened then you don’t need to sit around and wait for the UN to approve action.

The problem is that there is no objective way of knowing whether a country is really threatened. Country X may claim it has to invade Country Y for reasons of national security but who knows whether their reasons are genuine?

Sometimes they have to keep a lot of their info secret, so they can’t share their exact reasons with the world. So the world just has to take their word for it. But the world doesn’t just take their word for it lightly. It judges a country based on their past behaviour.

The US is a respected country so if the US tells the world that it needs to remove Saddam for national security reasons then the world listens sympathetically.

If the US decides that it has to remove Saddam because the national security implications outweigh the UN considerations then I don’t really see how this is outside international law.

Other countries may not like it but it doesn’t break the law, far as I can see.

But the US is stretching the law a wee bit in this case. Don’t worry though, the law will prevail in the end - it always does.

4

I agree that the business is now screwed up diplomatically. Maybe it’s Bush’s fault for bad statemanship. Maybe it’s the UN’s fault. Maybe Buish should never have tried going through the UN. Maybe France and the anti-war crowd simply out-politicked Bush. Anyhow, here we are.

I think Bush should go ahead and do the war, even without further UN authorization. In the short run, Bush and the US will get a lot of criticism, which we will deserve. In the long run, I don’t think it will make that much difference how we got to go to war. The vastly more important questions are how it turns out in the short run and long run. How many casualties are there? What happens to Iraq? What happens to neighboring countries? Also, after the war, we will be able to judge how much danger the world was in from SAddam’s WMDs.

In the long run, the success or failure of the war will be the key, rather than the precise means by which it began. If war is necessary with UN approval, then it’s necessary even without it.

5

Jojo and December:

It seems logical to me that having sought the judgement and athority of the UN we are now obligated to accept it. This is after all, one of our reasons for prosecuting the case against Iraq. He does not accede to the will of the UN.

Had we not sought the second resolution we would not be so obligated. Having sought it, we are.

6

Dense post. Demands a dense answer. I’m just the man with the qualifications.

If the war on terror is so flexible a justification that it can be shifted from Al Queda to the Taliban and then to Saddam, it is entirely too flexible. As I am sure you are aware by now, no evidence worth of the name exists to conflate OBL with Saddam.

Questionable at best. Ostensibly, the cease fire was a UN type, under its auspices, and hence relying upon its legitimacy. By the very act of going to the UN, GeeDub…Mr. Bush recognized that fact. The UN is empowered to enforce its resolutions as it sees fit, or, as has also been laboriously pointed out, not. There is little enough pretense that the US is demanding that the UN enforce all its resolutions with martial vigor. The US is not seeking to inspire the UN to enforce its will, it is seeking to get the UN to comply with US’ will.

The unfortunate machinations of the Resolutions were effetively moot to begin with. Mr. Bush repeatedly stressed his contention that the US was justifed and willing regardless of UN opinion. He can hardly claim to be hamstrung by diplomatic conventions he has already expressed contempt for.

I can only assume this sentence written in great haste. You are far too cognizant of history to never have heard of Nicaragua, Chile, Iran, Cuba, Mexico, Panama, Granada…

But to the point: however you have managed to arrive at a position of opposition to this war is a good thing. And I think your closing premise is largely sound as a basis for a face-saving consensus for all concerned. Further, it offers a possibility for proclaiming a victory of sorts. Few things appeal to leaders of men more than an opportunity to declare victory.

However, you left out a crucial point: if future compliance is mandated and future direct military intervention green-lighted in advance: who makes the call? I doubt very much that a plan that permits the American President to declare war at his discretion will be met with glad cries of gratitude.

Or, if the plan depends on a further UN resolution that declares the conditions demanding war have been met…well, thats deja vu all over again, yes? Especially seeing as how such a resolution would automatically commit them to war as well.

7

no, I don’t think so.

The US sought the backing of the security council so as to give more backing for their position. The US’s position has changed since GW1 - the US now consider Saddam to be a threat to their national security.

Although GW1 was fought under UN auspices and although all the resolutions have been under UN auspices the US now considers Saddam to be a threat that supercedes UN auspices because he is an immediate threat to their national security.

All this UN stuff is just a sideshow, the US and UK will invade (because they perceive Saddam to be a threat to their national security).

8

You guys are dancing all around the issues. Bush and his administration are hacks at foreign diplomacy. Here is a short list but I am sure there are more.
*Bush administration’s paranoiac adherence to the ballistic missile defense (BMD) program is bordering on the ridiculous and insane.
*Bush administration’s unilateral approach to the rest of the world has fostered a process of de-Americanization, if not anti-Americanism, among its traditional allies in West Europe. (In your face gun slinging rhetoric)
*The Bush team has committed major mistakes and blunders in dealing with foreign affairs may well concern their Korean Peninsula policy. (Like calling Kim a pigmy and stating the he wants regime change there too).

And some wonder why we are at this juncture under this administration. Sheeez.

9

Scylla, your speech is eloquent! I don’t know what impact that such a concession would have on our relationship with Iraq and the Middle East, but I do think that it would alleviate much of the current hostility toward the United States from around the globe. Also, the UN would return to a more stable situation. There are some goodthings that would come from that.

We cannot know what harm might be done in the long run regardless of the direction the Administration chooses.

I think that I am just stating the obvious above. But wouldn’t it be something for the U.S. to humble itself? It is breath-taking to think of it!

10

The case for invading Iraq is a detailed one. I will resist the impulse to discuss it here.

On to tactics:

Roughly speaking, a fair number of people are converging into Scylla’s camp, broadly defined, IMHO.

For example here is T. Friedman’s take:
" So, Mr. President, before you shake the dice on a legitimate but audacious war, please, shake the dice just once on some courageous diplomacy. Pick up where Woodrow Wilson left off: fly to Paris, bring the leaders of France, Russia, China and Britain together, along with the chairman of the Arab League summit, and offer them any reasonable amount of time for more inspections if they will agree on specific disarmament benchmarks Saddam has to meet and support an automatic U.N. authorization of force if he doesn’t. If France still snubs you, the world will see that you are the one trying to preserve collective security, while France only wants to make mischief. That will be very important to the legitimacy of any war."

Tony Blair, has outlined a six part set of demands on Saddam:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030312/80/dvbbt.html

The underlying message as I understand it: yes, invade Iraq, but try to make a point of heeding our friends and allies. For real. (Actually this goes a ways beyond Scylla’s framework - he seems mostly concerned with creating a tenable international stance with regards to our friends. A sharper comparison between the Friedman, Blair and Scylla positions might prove interesting.)

11

In reverse order, where is this “standard rule” written down, and what are other examples of preemptive war taking place since Pearl Harbor (or before for that matter) that are commonly accepted are just and lawful? I can’t recall a single one.

Our government claims the UN will become irrelevant by doing what it was established to do – ensuring the rule of international law over the rule of force. That same government also claims that the only way for the UN to continue to have any relevance is for it to rubber stamp the immoral and illegal actions of the world’s only superpower – a country that is responsible for fully half of the world’s military spending and that has flouted, ignored, and blackmailed the UN time and time again.

And while Iraq is being described as a threat, the US government claims that we here in America face an imminent threat from a nation that has lost 1,500,000 lives since October 1999 due to sanctions, and that has had almost 75% of its territory controlled by the U.S. and its proxies for more than 11 years through the no-fly zones.

This is not terribly credible IMHO.

12

Being cynical and serious at the same time, does this mean that if he meets the other five demands, but refuses to go on TV and admit to having WMD that war against Iraq will be completely justified?

13

The Six Day War fought by Israel in 1967 can be described as a pre-emptive war. Israel struck Egypt and Syria as they were building up forces for a possible invasion.

14

the UN charter has imposed certain limits, including a stipulation that self-defense arises when “an armed attack occurs”. As a result, since 1945 few countries have claimed a right of pre-emptive action. Israel justified the strikes that initiated the Six Day war on the basis that Egypt’s blocking of the Straits of Tiran was a prior act of aggression. It is debatable whether this is accepted as a legal war. The UN didn’t condemn Israel for the was, but did call for its withdrawal from the territories it occupied during the war.

For one Israeli viewpoint on that war, visit this page

15

Well, since you are partly serious… :slight_smile:

The Iraqi Congress/Rubberstampers have already renounced WMD. It shouldn’t be a big deal for Saddam to do the same. Indeed, I would imagine that he would make a 20 minute speech about The Zionist Entity and whatnot, with 25 seconds devoted to an oblique renouncement of WMDs. Then the ball is back in Blair’s court.

--------december In the long run, the success or failure of the war will be the key, rather than the precise means by which it began.

If the invasion and aftermath and reconstruction go well, then I agree. If they go poorly, then the beginning will matter.

------ If war is necessary with UN approval, then it’s necessary even without it.

The problem is the endgame. The Europeans have threatened to withhold funds for Iraqi reconstruction if we go to war without UN blessing. Furthermore, Bosnia et al have given the Europeans more experience with peacekeeping and nation-building than the US has. “Going it alone”, will be difficult, even for the world’s sole superpower.

16

Well it’s a bit late for sharp comparions, but try this for size. Friedman and Scylla are proposing sincere forms of compromise. So, for that matter, did Canada.

Blair is between a rock and a hard place. The rock is his uncompromising ally the United States, personfied by Donny Hoof-in-Mouth Rumsfeld. The hard place is his political bind at home.

Though Blair’s poor little feet are indeed being toasted, his list is ridiculous and doesn’t constitute a bona fide attempt to find a middle ground; any more than do the offers to extend the deadline by a couple of days.

17

What you call “logic” might be alternatively be called “consistency.” Consistency is a virtue. OTOH there’s Ralph Waldo Emerson’s aphorism* “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”*

Unfortunately, our enemies will not follow the UN, even if we do so. The genesis of this difficulty is that Iraq has flaunted the UN over and over. Similarly, Iran and North Korea are not following their commitments to the UN. For that matter, even France ignored the UN recently when they sent troops to Ivory Coast. Even if we behave consistently, as you suggest, these and other countries will continue to ignore the UN.

18

Well, as a world leader, even if our enemies do not follow the UN, we have to. The US holds itself up as a leader of the free world, as an example of democracy and due process, as a leader of justice. We have to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

19

I agree that we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard of democracy, due process, and justice, * as appplied to individuals.* However, it’s less clear that these concepts can properly define our foreign policy.

20

Oh, all right, I see now.
The rest of the world are just, well, foreigners, sub-humans of a sort, you know.
How can anyone think they are on an equal footing with the american uber-mensch?
No need to adhere to any standards when dealing with that lot.

My, what a fascinating brain you have,December, one day I would love to pick it apart and study the weird connections in there.