Yep, another invite to a flame-war; but maybe if I mention that fact in advance, everybody will try to stay cool.
I’m asking a fairly abstract philosophical question with plenty of real-world concrete significance.
And here it is.
“By what moral standards is ‘imperialism’ or ‘colonialism’ always a bad thing? Let us take as a given that it’s prone to abuse: that the imperial power is mightily tempted to rip off oil-gold-diamonds or just plain living space; that the taken-over nation becomes (as we say) ‘Finlandized’ with respect to its foreign policy; that the new owners do a lot of obnoxious strutting and looking-down-their-noses at the ‘natives’; that it offends the notion of a world in which things happen by law and negotiation; that people get killed and injured and war is not healthy for children and other living things; that we wouldn’t like it if it happened to us; and other such factors (all of them salient and in themselves valid, by the way). But even given all that… Is it moral to have an attitude of indifference to the long-term suffering of foreign populations, to their captivity in the hands of maniacal tyrants, to their torture, to the murderous suppression of ethnic and religious minorities (in Iraq, majorities), to the possibility of regional dominance by a state in which such things are the norm? Is there not a point in which it becomes immoral NOT to intervene, even over the objections of other nations, even by a war of conquest?”
Does preventing an injury to the pride of an ethnic/religious group (as one example of many, the Muslim Arabs) trump all other considerations? (No doubt abusive parents get their pride hurt when Social Services denies them the right to further abuse their helpless charges.)
Is this kind of (obnoxious) paternalism on the part of the US or other nations really worse than moral indifference to the physical pain and privations of millions? (How many millions will die if the world permits the ethnic-religious conflict between former colonial possessions India and Pakistan to go nuclear?)
Yes, I do agree that the US (and all other nations) acts from mixed motives and is fairly hypocritical and unreflective in its rhetoric. I don’t for a moment believe that the recent war was primarily about “rescuing” anybody. (I suspect it was ultimately a “demonstration” war aimed at lessening the possibility of a regional war over Israel being triggered by a miscalculation of US commitment.) And I loathe that idea that W. has become the world’s image of America.
But our motives (though relevant) are not entirely the point. If some 3-week wars with rather minimal (which should not be read as “trivial”) casualties could have had the effect of forestalling the horrors of Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Stalin, Milosevic, Kim Il Sung, Idi Amin, Castro, and the various brutal warlords of equatorial Africa–wouldn’t it have been the right thing to do, morally? So why not Iraq?
I haven’t heard even the critics of the war say something to the effect of, “Hey, Saddam’s a little strict, but he’s not so bad–the rest is mainly propaganda.”
I’m hoping for (analytical and philosophical) responses by persons other than Americans. And of course Sam and Coll.
Wow. This is a big topic. Let’s see if I can break down my thinking on the subject:
Moral. I believe human rights are universal. I don’t think that sovereignity should trump human rights. If 51% of the people vote to execute the other 49%, I don’t think that sovereignity is a reasonable reason to prevent intervention to stop the killing.
Sovereignity derives from the consent of the governed. I do not recognize the sovereign rights of dictatorships, as a moral imperative. However, for practical purposes it may be desirable to recognize the sovereignity of some of these states.
So, from a moral standpoint I would recognize the right to intervene in the affairs of other countries in order to uphold the individual rights of the citizens.
As for colonialism - There are LOTS of problems with that, and here is one area where I think Collounsbury and I will agree. One of the things that bothers me about the ‘neo cons’ is that on domestic affairs they claim to be for limited government, because they claim to recognize that central planning usually fails. They talk about the law of unintended consequences, and complexity and chaos, and how government ‘plans’ never turn out the way they expect.
But then they turn around and talk about ‘reshaping’ the Middle East as if it were Play Dough. You can’t have it both ways. Either central planning is inefficient and difficult to achieve, or it’s not. And this is where the obnoxious paternalism you mentioned comes in. I think some neo-cons are capable of undestanding the complexities within their own countries, but see other countries in a ‘big picture’ mode that causes them to underestimate just how many little devils are in the details.
Speaking for myself, I always expected the ‘reconstruction’ phase of the Iraq war to be very difficult, and I fully expected all kinds of unforseen consequences. I don’t believe in central planning, whether it’s at home or across the ocean.
This also causes me to believe that colonialism is a bad idea. It’s central planning of the worst sort - if it’s hard to come up with a central plan for Americans in America, imagine how hard it is for Americans to come up with central plans for Iraqis in the Middle East, working with a culture they do not understand. Look at the history of British Colonialism - particularly the messy experience in India. Yes, India eventually turned into a democracy, but only decades after the original plan. Read some of the exchanges between Burke and Mill, and you’ll see some eerie parallels to today’s situation in Iraq.
So… My position has always been that the war in Iraq was moral, because Saddam had no sovereign right, and because the people were opressed. It was legal (arguably), due to the unique circumstances of the last Iraq war and the various UN resolutions Iraq was in violation of. And it was practical, because Iraq has oil resources it can use to rebuild itself, and because Saddam had no powerful friends to protect him. In addition, I believe that the long-term effect in the Middle East will be beneficial.
But I’m under no illusions that reconstruction will be easy, or that everything will turn out peachy. Better than before, yes. But only because the bar was set so damned low in the first place. It’s hard to do worse than mass graves with 11,000 people in them, y’know? And I hold out hope for a best-case scenario which is truly outstanding - a free, relatively peaceful Iraq with a per-capita income among the highest in the middle east, with an educated public and a secular, relatively tolerant government.
But colonialism? Nah. The American occupation should be seen as a necessary evil. It won’t be short, and shouldn’t be. It’s going to take years to stabilize the country, rebuild the infrastructure, and install the trappings of a liberal society. But once that is achieved, the Iraqi people should run their own country, for their own purposes.
You seem to base the morality of the US invasion on the fact that they have removed a Hitler or something of the sort.
The American justice system is built upon the premise of “innocent until proven guilty.” This is an issue of philosophical and practical validity. Anyone can accuse someone of criminal action or say that someone is going to do something wrong. But who is to say that the accuser is not a criminal with an agenda? Someone must commit a crime and be proven to have done so before he/she/they be punished—and so it should be.
Why is it that this fundamental American philosophy and modus operandi is thrown out the window in foreign policy. Are Arabs not worthy of such humane treatment? Is written in scripture that Saddam will inevitably wipe out millions with genocide like Hitler? Or is it possibly vested interests?
An invasion like we have seen in Iraq sets a precedent that dignifies any future pre-emptive invasion against whomever the press can convince is the next Hitler. What if the administration is wrong? What if Saddam learned his lesson in ’91? What if Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and wanted nothing to do with any terrorist organizations? What if they actually wanted no more trouble? I know the media onslaught has been laying it on thick and fast, but do you believe all that you see on TV and read in the newspaper?
Even if there actually was a problem in Iraq and Saddam. Even if. Any moron can launch a war. It requires no significant IQ. Solving a potential problem without having to kill innocents is the true mark of a statesman. But I guess statesman are extinct and we are left with only politicians running the show.
“Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.” Sun Tzu from The Art Of War.
This was the philosophy of the Cold war. Isolate the Soviets and beat them back so they can’t eventually declare war on the west and win.
I really can’t argue against your point. Innocent until proven guilty, but guilty of what? What would Saddam have needed to do to make the Cynics think war was just? There is no easy solution to this question.
For alot of people stopping the human rights abuses and UN violations were justification enough. I know what you’re going to say ‘youre just saying that because we can’t find WMD’, no i’m not. The Human rights abuses were considered justification for many people i personally know before the war started.
The WMD charge may have been false, so far the US has only found a few potential mobile labs and a few scientists giving competent info. No 55 gallon drums of Anthrax yet. Even if saddam did have those, i’m sure he would’ve given them to terrorists before the war started.
We’ve been doing that for a while. Yugoslavia comes to mind.
If you want my honest answer, i trust the US administration more than a cynic. Even if Saddam wasn’t planning anything i still think the Iraqi people are better off w/o him and the opportunity for a better government.
Wars require thought and IQ to fight and win. They also require understanding of the fallout and how to deal with it.
You are confusing competent statesmanship with appeasement done with the intention of handcuffing a nation you dislike. The US could’ve waited another year for inspections to work, but aside from that i think diplomacy ran its course.
You are misquoting Sun Tzu. The US followed that advice to a T with our Psyop tactics.
And didn’t that result in a win. Last I checked the USSR was no longer on the map. America gained a great deal of credibility from the Cold War. And America is now pissing that credibility away.
**
There is an easy solution to this question. I’m pretty sure I’ll have to repeat it but here goes: If Saddam invaded committed aggressions against another nation then fighting him would be just. Ignoring that the US countenanced Saddam’s plan to invade Kuwait up until he executed it, and ignoring that the CIA helped prop him up to begin with, the Gulf War was just.
And leave out the cynic tripe. Empty name-calling is a poor substitute for a foundation of logic. Look up cynic. I don’t believe that people in all their actions are motivated by selfishness. I just happen to think that the Iraq war was so motivated. If someone thinks that some specific act is selfish, does that make them a cynic? Sorry, that’s a no.
**
No, I’m not going to bring up WMD. I’m going to say that bombing innocent civilians is a human rights abuse. I’m going to say that weeks on end without restoration of power is a human rights abuse. I’m going to say that shooting unarmed protesters is a human rights abuse. “Bring peace by waging war,” right? War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery.
As for “a lot of people” having an opinion—that holds no water. A lot of people in Germany thought the invasion of Austria and Poland and France was justified. This is isn’t a comparison of Bush to Hitler or any of that—it is simply a demonstration that “a lot of people” can be dead wrong.
**
Guilty until proven innocent, right? Just ask CNN.
**
Yep, and that crap in Bosnia was just as deplorable. Still wondering why the US is getting a bad rep?
**
Do you label anyone who disagrees with the US administration a cynic?
**
Are they better off for being bombed and invaded? Are they better off for having an American puppet government installed?
Okay, so Saddam was a terrible guy. Are you telling me that the US invasion was a result of Bush’s deep concern for the plight of the poor Iraqis?
**
IQ on the part of the military commanders, yes. But not on the part of the monkey that gets on TV and says, “You have 48 hours to leave or else….”
**
You think that fallout has been well anticipated and dealt with so far?
**
You are confusing statesmanship with politics. Statesman solve problems creatively and objectively and independent of popular opinion and media hype. Politicians do what makes them look good and what pleases their masters that fund their election campaigns.
**
You mean I didn’t quote those exact words from The Art Of War? No misquote. Verbatim (at least of the translation).
So dropping leaflets over the no-fly zones and broadcasting propaganda by radio is following Sun Tzu to a T?
Here, have another read:
“Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.” Sun Tzu from The Art Of War.
Actually we lost alot of credibility in the cold war. Starting in Vietnam. the hate america left gets most of its intellectual fuel from atrocities the US committed, is accused of committing, or looked the other way on in an attempt to win the cold war.
I was referring to the question of ‘do we let saddam continue unabated in the fear he may eventually attack the US or create a north korea situation, or do we attack now and look evil’. It was a risk. Either look imperialistic and bullying or run the risk of being victimized by Saddam someday. That question has no easy answer.
Tariz Aziz says himself that the US did not give a green light. Nice try to blame the US for Saddams atrocities.
The US may have helped the Ba’ath party come to power in Iraq, but i don’t think we helped Saddam come to power. he did that himself.
The gulf war was necessary. Much as people hate to admit it, If saddam controlled 20% of the world’s oil the world economy would be held hostage. it was necessary. Pragmatism.
this is why i refer to you as a cynic. Are you going to equate a relatively free, transparent, elected government whose army relies on $500,000 missiles to avoid collateral damage and distributes of humanitarian aid with the big brother state of 1984? What next, calling Israels killing of 3 palestinians ‘genocide’? How about a drunk woman sleeping with an ugly guy ‘rape’?
Accidentally bombing 2-3k civilians is a bad thing, i can’t argue against that. however, compared to the bombing in Indochina, the US has come a long way in regards to concern for bombing innocents.
Not restoring power fast enough is a human rights abuse? do you think the US did that intentionally? Maybe Israel did it, damn jews.
Lol. we’ve been getting a bad rep since Vietnam. Facts are irrelevant at this point, hatred for the US is a philosophy in and of itself now.
Plus, NATO was behind that bombing in Yugoslavia, not just the US.
Ever since you said the US is not morally superior to the Iraqi government, which you did in a post a few weeks ago, yes i have considered you a cynic. Anyone who equates the US government with the Iraqi government in regards to morality is a blind cynic.
YES. why don’t you guys understand this? are they better off being robbed blind by a guy who doesn’t give a damn about them? Are they better off living under one of the worst govs. on the planet? The sanctions are being lifted, the gov. is being rebuild so it is less corrupt and repressive, and oil will soon start pumping that will help the economy.
Nope. It was probably a consideration, but not the motive. Bush himself said the justification was UN resolutions and a first strike.
Bush is a monkey, the US isn’t morally superior to Iraq, and you are not a cynic. Okey dokey.
I am not sure. its not what happens today, but what happens in 6-12 months. I tend to believe this will blow over the more the US retroactivally justifies the war.
True.
Yup. Psycholgical warfare was a big part of the war in Iraq. From threatening war crimes prosecutions, to having phone conversations with Iraqi generals, to giving messages to the iraqi people.
What i meant was you were quoting Sun Tzu as proof that the US wasn’t complying with his advice, but i say the US was complying 100% with his advice of breaking the enemies resistance.
Except of course, that it is you who is obscenely distorting the facts.
Avoiding collateral damage? The british were disgusted at the way the US troops interacted with civilians and purposefully moved to distance themselves from the GIs. The ICRC criticized the US of cluster bombs over villages. Humanitarian aid is a hoax so far, and scores of people are dying every day because of the inability, or unwillingness of the US to meet their obligations under the Geneva Conventions.
And your comment on Israel is merely proof of ignorance of the actual numbers.
Oh dear. It’s just sad that the rest of the world has come a whole lot further. Like, actually actively striving to go out of your way to avoid civilian casualties rather than throwing some money at them and saying ‘Shit happens’ when something happens. Your argument is rather proof against your claims than for them, since it suggests that civilian lives can be paid for with money. You still consider the life of a GI infinitely more valuable than that of a civilian.
US troops were reported removing a portrait of George Bush from the floor of the Rashid Hotel so that people don’t step on it while people were plundering hospitals.
NATO executed the operation, but it was a bombing campaign because the US insistend on one. Other nations were very willing to put troops on the ground.
Question is which economy. But if you believe all that you wrote in that paragraph, I have some acreage on the moon to sell to you.
I am not opposed to humanitarian interventions, I supported Bosnia for example. At the same time the calculus of gains and losses, costs and benefits, has to be weighed. Further, post-facto ad hoc justificaitons of unilateral action on humanitarian grounds cheapens both the claim and erodes the claimants credibility.
Consequences. Does it solve the problem or does the solution generate more problems. Contexts. A multilateral intervention backed up by wide spread support makes it easier to band wagon.
Imperial conquest generates backlash, backlash undermines the soi-disant humanitarian logic.
What hte fuck does this have to do with the quesiton.
Timing. Method. Preparation. Results.
The manner in which this was done in preparation and post war has been incompetent. Horrors? Lots of horrors in the world. If that is the rational, then we should clean up Egypt’s hell hole prisons. Invade Burma, where the Generals seem every bit as nasty as Saddam, but thankfully for them, far away from major petroleum reserves.
Given no pressing threat, nor recent humanitarian disaster in Iraq, there was no reason to rush and not build a real coalition or consensus. The mode and method unnecessarily damaged a number of interests, including US image, multilateral cooperation across a number of areas,.
This assumes that real coalition or consensus could be built. On the contrary, I think waiting longer would have just given France and Germany more time to try and build opposition to the U.S.
The ‘window’ for an attack on Iraq was short. The Bush administration grabbed an opportunity while it was available to them. The other problem is that the buildup of forces in the Gulf was unsustainable. Once hundreds of thousands of troops flowed into the region, the clock was ticking. And summer was approaching. Had the U.S. waited more than a few more weeks, it would have been much tougher to invade. And a few weeks would not have made a difference in coalition-building. You’re talking months or years. That means the U.S. would have had to withdraw its forces for the time being. And that would have made re-establishing those forces back into the Gulf very, very difficult.
Then there are the political concerns. If Bush had waited for the next fall, it would have put the invasion squarely in the middle of the election season, and he would have been jumped all over for wagging the dog.
No, given that it was a good thing to get rid of Saddam, now was about the best time you were going to find for doing it.
Imperialism and colonialism imply an ocupying force that never leaves. If, as is the plan, the US stays only long enough to get an Iraqi gov’t up and running, that doesn’t qualify as either colonialism or imperialism (ie, empire building).
Taking that out of your OP, it’s unclear to me how this isn’t just another “was the war in Iraq justified?” thread, in which case that topic has been beat to death on this board. Tell me if I’m missing something.
If you are truely talking about the idea of imperialism or colonialism in a broad sense, then I say yes, it is inherently bad. It undermines the whole idea of sovereignty. I can’t see how it’s a good idea to deprive some people of the right to govern themselves. But again, neither of the Gulf wars was colonial or imperialistic in nature.
SS:This assumes that real coalition or consensus could be built. On the contrary, I think waiting longer would have just given France and Germany more time to try and build opposition to the U.S.
That’s not a very convincing argument in favor of the rightness of one’s cause: “we had to do it quickly while we could still get away with it, before the opposition of our close allies and general world opinion became too overwhelming”.
JM:But again, neither of the Gulf wars was colonial or imperialistic in nature.
Unless you mean “colonial” and “imperialistic” only in the very literal sense of “with the purpose of acquiring a formally recognized subject colony or expanding a formally recognized political empire”, I don’t agree. If aggressive domination of other states for one’s own purposes can be called “colonialist” or “imperialist”, then I think that at least the second Gulf War qualifies.
It was often argued a little while ago that the recent war was fundamentally for the purpose of getting rid of Iraq’s (allegedly existing and dangerous) illegal WMD. These days, it’s often argued that the war was fundamentally for the purpose of freeing the Iraqis from an evil dictator. I believe that both these issues were genuinely important motives for a lot of the people who supported the war, but there is a good deal of evidence that for the people in charge of the war, a primary motive was a pre-existing commitment to consolidating US political and military global dominance. And I think it’s fair to call such a motive “imperialistic”.
Specifically, the Administration appears to be committed to the doctrines of the Project for a New American Century, a neoconservative group founded to “rally support for American global leadership” and for “maintaining U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests.”
Their position is that the US should be maintained as the only global superpower—including the use of unilateral aggression to maintain what PNAC sees as US interests. They say in so many words that the invasion of Iraq is not an end in itself but a means of increasing US control in the Middle East: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
That, I think, can be fairly described as an “imperialist” attitude: “we need to have more US control in this region, and we can use the Iraqi regime to justify it”. As for whether this attitude significantly influences the current Administration—well, PNAC’s views are explicitly espoused by, for example, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Jeb Bush. The Iraq invasion is now being spun as a war of liberation—as, before the invasion, it was being spun as an imperatively necessary response to the immediate threat of Iraq’s WMD—but its fundamental purpose appears to be a perceived need for increased US power and control in the region and the world.
I agree with the OP (and I’ve made this point before) that the question of humanitarian intervention is a vexing one; how do decent law-abiding countries reconcile the frequent contradiction between respect for national sovereignty and respect for human rights? That’s a significant issue, but I don’t think it was the issue that actually motivated the Iraq war.
Well, I think there is great value when debating to use words as much in there literal sense as possible. If not, then it is necessary to explain specifically what is meant. There are a few threads on this board right now that are suffering precisely because the term “fascist” is being used in a way that the large majority of the posters disagree with.
We’ll have to wait and see how the situation in Iraq turns out, but to call it an imperialistic action at this point smacks of reading one’s own political views into the situation.
That’s sort of right. They didn’t green-light the war, they informed the government the US did not intend to get involved in Arab-Arab disputes.
Rather than go point-by-point through the list, I’ll try a different tactic: aren’t most of the problems in the Middle East now the result, or indirect result, of imperialism/colonialism? Africa, too. It’s the same system that was in place when the British, French, etc. were running things: a few powerful elites allied with Western companies control the natural resources and get rich off them while denying the majority their rights, and this is condoned or ignored unless it becomes a threat to the prosperity of the West.
I imagine this sounds cynical, but my point right now isn’t that there was no motivation to the Iraq war besides oil (I don’t think that’s quite true). My point is that imperialism is the cause of many of our current problems, and more of it won’t solve them.
Calculus, I bit into this argument in the hope that you would take up points logically. You are disappointing me.
**
The Cold War was a cold war with the USSR. The Vietnam war was a hot war against the perceived evil that was communism at the time. See, cold refers to the lack of armed conflict. Vietnam did cost America credibility but was not a part of the Cold War. The Cold War was primarily an economic battle that America won through industry and that the Soviet Union lost through the short-comings of Communism. Understand?
**
I know exactly what you were referring to. I’ll copy-and-paste what I wrote again:
"I’m pretty sure I’ll have to repeat it but here goes: If Saddam committed aggressions against another nation then fighting him would be just."
I knew I would have to repeat that.
**
As clearly as I have stated it, you still manage to get confused. I said that the ’91 Gulf War was justified.
Instead of taking up the crystal clear statement of what would justify fighting Saddam, instead of recognizing that I did not disagree with the Gulf War that repelled Saddam’s forces from Kuwait, you launch into a hyper-sensitive defense of the US involvement in the initiation of the invasion by Iraq, linking some article that centers around the idiot that screwed up the scene essentially saying, “I didn’t understand what was going on….”
**
You still haven’t looked “cynic” up in the dictionary have you?
The Big Brother state of 1984 was an illustration of how mindless propaganda can be used to manipulate the people that constitute a society. Quoting the price of missiles as demonstration that the US administration cares about the poor Iraqis is laughable. It demonstrates how much the administration is looking after arms manufacturers and dealers, but since Iraqis still got ripped apart and incinerated, I don’t think it demonstrates any of the deep care and concern that you seem to be convinced of.
And then you compare my statement to the killing of three people as genocide? And two people having sex as rape? Is this what constitutes your argument?
**
Accidentally? And you really think you aren’t brainwashed, don’t you. If something happens that was not intended and not anticipated as the result of any action, than that could be called accidental. You really want to try and tell me that when a nation consciously and deliberately launches an invasion, they expect that there will be no collateral damage (euphemism for innocent people being ripped into pieces)? Launching a war that will inevitably take innocent casualties is deliberate. To say that those deaths were accidental is just plain denial of responsibility.
But I am glad to hear that they have come such a long way in their concern. Or is their concern simply for how they will look in the wake of such pre-emptive violence?
**
The US invaded intentionally. The loss of power and general public services was a direct result of the invasion. Who is responsible if not those who intentionally invaded? Or did they just not have the understanding of the fallout and how to deal with it? (Remember where you were implying that the US administration did have the IQ to deal with such factors?)
**
Laugh it up, sunshine. There was a good reason for the bad rep from Vietnam. And there’s been many good reasons since. But facts are irrelevant aren’t they? Facts are irrelevant? Now that is a joke. Perhaps you would like all criticism of the US to be some vague and unexplainable conspiracy, but the fact is that there is basis to a great deal of it. Hard to swallow, huh?
Oh, and on those NATO bombings—there weren’t any US aircraft dropping bombs?
**
It’s nice to know that you are following my posts. I’m flattered. But you still haven’t looked up “cynic” in the dictionary. That much is at least clear. A cynic is someone who regards all of people’s actions to be driven by selfishness. Someone who thinks that an administration is corrupt and that the political system that bred them is flawed is not a cynic. My views may grate on unthinking patriotism, but they are not cynical. I happen to think that people’s motives, even when ridiculously misguided, are rooted in trying to do the right thing.
**
The US isn’t robbing them blind? Bush gives a damn about them? The world’s only super-power violating international law isn’t one of the worst governments on the planet? Those sanctions are being lifted—so that the US contractors can make a killing? A puppet government is less corrupt and repressive? The oil pumping will help who’s economy?
**
Oh, so the US should invade Israel for violating US resolutions?
First strike? Guilty until proven innocent?
**
Wow! Incredibly compelling argument. Did you think all of that up on your own?
**
Or perhaps it will all blow over when the invasion is retroactively justified by the short-attention-span-media when they conveniently forget all of the premises for the war.
One more time:
“Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.” Sun Tzu from The Art Of War.
Remember that fighting that CNN thought was so grand?
Since when is the rightness of a cause determined by how many other countries agree with you? I don’t think anyone can seriously look at the opposition of France and Russia and claim that it had anything to do with a moral anti-war position on their part. They were serving their own interests. Period. So, it came down to Realpolitik. Weigh the advantages and disadvantages of waiting. I’m convinced that this was the best time to do this. Or actually, about three months’ sooner would have been better. Saddam had a little too long to prepare his departure.
Well, my position, Sam, is that given there was no present threat from Iraq – I dearly hope you’re not going to return to your prewar claims now – and that given other issues, in my estimation, were and are more important to the US strategically and economically, that failure to put together a coalition would not be a bad thing at all.
However, it is further my estimation that if we abstract away from the present Administration’s bumbling incompetence in the fields of relationship management, then I do not see it as impossible to put together, with the proper groundwork, a coalition.
Proper groundwork. Like that of James Baker back in 1990. Real efforts, attention to public image, rather than the Fuck You We Know We’re Right attitude of the Neo Con crowd. Efforts to put Saddam on the spot, rather than rushing ahead heedlessly and (righfully) looking as if one is heedless of all evidence, gunning for war.
Well, doesn’t that fucking recommend itself as good statesmanship.
Yes, they ‘grabbed’ an opportunity – at what cost?
What drivers for the bloody policy?
Security? Fucking crock that was.
Human Rights? Bull shit. Post facto, ad hoc excuse. Bloody Burma / Myanmar is actively about as nasty as Saddam, N Korea, Congo-Kinshasa. All more present threats to their own people.
Well, if we take that as the given, yes, but they should not have gotten themselves clumsily, in fact with drooling incompetence, into that bloody position.
This sort of idiot driven, thoughtless clock work military set up driven statecraft is what started WWI, Sam, there is nothing – absolutely nothing to recommend it.
There was no good reason for this to happen the way it did. None at all. No present threat, nothing. Bloody idiocy that’s raised the costs of doing business, unnecessarily spoiled relations with key allies and done literally nothing to improve security.