Iraqi war without politics

Great Debates
41

The diplomacy has not yet entirely failed. From the beginning, this was orchestrated mostly as an excercise in power and domination. The Bushistas established that from the git-go, by Bush’s frequent and unchanging insistence that America was prepared to act unilaterally.

No one wants to piss off the Big Dog if they can find another way. If war is already certain, there is no good reason to vote against the US. Having bluffed out and intimidated the Democrats, they decided to bluff out the UN. All that was at stake was the chance to drape the UN’s legitimacy over actions already decided upon. Realpolitik wise, going for R 1441 was a dumb move. Bismarck wouldn’t have done it, neither would Kissinger. In a way, it worked too well.

Tne UN was flummoxed and paniced. They went with R 1441 to forestall an immediate attack, when it was perfectly clear that the troops were not in position. Even Syria voted for it, for the explained and declared reason that they were hoping that by involving the UN and, more importantly, adding weight to the UN’s authority, perhaps a way out could be found.

Meanwhile, America goes through the motions, while moving its troops into position. And the same principle still applies: there is no percentage whatsoever in voting against America for a country like Guinea or Angola. They vote no, America goes anyway. They vote yes, France vetoes (maybe) and America goes to war. Or not. No skin off thier nose either way, the only possible losing vote is no. A vote they cannot afford.

They will get enough votes to suffice for thier purposes, my guess is 8. Might even get the whole 9, woudn’t be surprised. The groundwork is already laid with the American public, those nasty Frenchies, stubborn, anti-American, intransigent Frenchies. Only reason we don’t have total UN approval is them. Close enough.

So, no, the diplomacy, as such, has not failed. They stand a very good chance of getting thier vote, or of coming close enough to shrug it off. It never made any real difference anyway.

The failure lies not in the diplomacy. The failure lies in choosing domination over cooperation. “If we are humble, but strong, they will respect us.” I wish he had been listening, rather than talking.

It will be entirely impossible to conduct this war entirely without civilian casualties. I am sure our soldiers are professional and humane, they will do what they can, but it is simply not possible.

Video clips of Iraqi widows and orphans will be streaming into the TV set of every Muslim household in the world. That is all they will remember. All of us saw the endless loop of the planes crashing on that terrible day. So we know how they will feel. And we know who they will blame.

No doubt ridding the world of Saddam is a good thing. But is it a good enough thing? Would you take a 10 to 1 chance on having your 'nads crushed with pliers if the prize was a toaster?

Oh, and the lying. Shouldn’t have done that. You don’t lie when you’re right, the truth is complicated enough.

42

How about the growing urban myth that Iraq is a threat to our national security?

43

Estilicon, I don’t know what you are talking about, and I certainly am not wrong. International law is not relevant to my analysis. I would appreciate it if you would elaborate.

44

When did this idea come about that the U.N. has to give the go-ahead to any nation’s military endeavors?

I agree the Bush administration blew this one by making it appear as if they were asking the international body for its permission. Not sure why they did that. The same people who despise Bush now would have despised him if he’d told the U.N. - “FYI, we’re invading Iraq, getting rid of Saddam Hussein and disarming the country. Here’s why. Love, G.W. Bush P.S. Shame on you for not doing this yourself when it was your job.”

Again, since when is U.N. approval needed for military action? The most famous recent international effort where it wasn’t was in Bosnia. Had the NATO-led coalition that went in there waited around on the U.N., Slobodan Milosevic’s genocide probably would have been completed.

Set aside any feelings you have about Bush, Clinton, Republicans, Democrats, or whatever, and answer this question: Do you think when and how the U.S. government will use its military is a decision for the Commander in Chief and Congress, or for a group of some countries’ (but not others’) diplomats at the United Nations?

This U.N. process, that some are trying to trump into being so vital, is fatally and obviously flawed. France’s stance is a perfect example why - again, setting aside any personal feelings you may have for or against their position, and just looking at it analytically.

Jacques Chirac has now said France will veto any new resolution that authorizes the use of force in Iraq, under any circumstances. Cite

Therein lies the flaw in the process. Any Security Council member can stop any action for any reason, facts or circumstances be damned. What may be viewed as a vital necessity for one or more Security Council members, or for many dozens of nations for that matter, can be thwarted by one country, perhaps for political reasons, spite, whatever.

All that only occurs, however, when governments give the U.N. the power they are, curiously, ascribing to it today.

Why does France, in particular, have this power? France is ranked 21st in world population. Cite India, which is not a member of the Security Council, permanent or otherwise, has about 20 times as many people. Indonesia and Brazil, the most populous nation in South America, have several times more people as well.

Japan has more than twice the Gross Domestic Product of France. India far outpaces the French economy as well. Cite

So on what basis is France at this center stage? Its previous glory? Better give the Ottoman Empire - I mean Turkey - a Security Council seat now, then, too. Mongolia too.

The world doesn’t come to an end when the U.N. no longer is given this kind of war-making and war-stopping power. Diplomacy has been historically vital to international relations and resolving international disputes, and it will continue to be so.

All it does is restore decisions on the use of force to where they rightfully belong, after all the facts have been considered, and all the debates made.

45

Ok, Maeglin. December argues that international law is different from internal laws. According to his view, people or corportions inside a country have rights, but not state because if someone violates their right (In Irak case, his sovereignity by U.S.A) to which judge are they going to complain?
Then you rushed in defense of December’s argument with the argument that the distinction between people and states is the central dogma of classic international law.
In a way I said that you were right but regarding classic international law doctrine. Nowadays not only states but international organazations and individuals also belong to this sphere of law. As an example I pointed to several treaties that grant individuals not only rights but ways to enforce them
In conclussion december and you are wrong in todays context. I agree it has nothing to do with the present thread but I thought I had to correct you.

46

Estilicon, I think you are on a different thread than the rest of us. No one but you is talking about international law. I don’t really care about international law in this context.

We were talking about the distinction between the individual and the state with respect to defining foreign policy and the historical way that nations have interacted with each other in the anarchic state system. Mandelstam fleshed out the discussion with her usual knowledge and eloquence.

If you don’t believe me, here is december’s initial remark:

Thanks for your insights, such as they are, on international law, but I still contend that they are of dubious relevance.

47

We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy. - Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson, U.S. Representative to the International Conference on Military Trials, August 12, 1945