War via Alliance with Israel?

Great Debates
1

I had this idea with regards to the pending Iraq war.

Here are some of my assumptions in what follows:

The war has net benefits and net costs to various people, but on the whole it would be a net benefit.

If the U.S. could take some actions that cause an increase in net benefits, and/or decrease in net costs, it should do so.

Some of the costs of the war will be due to anti-Americanism, hich will decrease the amount of happiness people feel, and which will decrease the economic interactions between supporters of the war and those who opposed it, and that this decreased economic interaction will decrease everyone’s material satisfaction, and that this is bad.

If some of the people that feel this way could be persuaded to think otherwise, it would be good to do so.

So, I propose this plan:
The U.S. makes a mutual defense alliance with Israel. It does not need to be a blanket acceptance of everything done by Israel, of unlimited Settlements etc. , just a recognition that if some other nation fires IRBM’s at Israel, that the U.S. will help retaliate.

Make it retroactive to 1991.

Ask Iraq to forthwith come to an armistice with Israel.

If this is not forthcoming, announce that due to the state of War between Israel and Iraq, and our treaty with Israel we are invading.

Some factual questions, which I did not bother to research before penning this oeuvre:wink: :

Is there any precedent for a retroactive alliance?

Is there an armistice in effect between Iraq and Israel? I take it there is not.
A less factual question is: Who would this persuade? My first thought is: Not many. Surely not many Yemenis, Pakistanis. Perhaps only a few Belgians, but perhaps some Indians, some French, some English. But even if it persuades only a small percentage of the world, it could still be beneficial. And perhaps might it be persuasive? After all, I think there was a change in Isolationist thinking in the U.S. after Pearl Harbor. A lot of people change d their minds regarding the the U.S. getting into a European war, and I don’t think it was due to a fear that the Germans would aide the Japanese.

2

<mild hijack>Serious question. Do you play Civ III?? If you don’t you should, it has all sorts of Mutual Protection Pacts, Military alliances, etc… A very interesting and involved game.</mild hijack>

3

I’m not sure if there is a formal treaty or something along those lines with Israel, but Israel is basically an American protectorate as it is. I don’t see what Israel really has to offer the US in mutual defence, or why the US would even need a country as small and far away as Israel backing them up.

The idea that war should be used for profit, as you have said would be a good thing, raises some serious ethical questions in my mind. Im not convinced lives should be placed in danger just to secure new business interests, but hey, thats just me. It already seems like that is one of a couple motives behind The White House’s war plans.

Also, finally, i dont understand how anti-american sentiments can have a significant impact on the economy? could you explain that more please?

4

So, this is the “If we’re going down, we’re taking Israel with us” strategy? Israel’s going to get blamed for this war by enough people without us coming right out and saying they’re responsible.

5

no, no, nothing of the sort. I don’t imagine that this would endanger the Israelis any more than they currently are. It would not be a sham on our part, for example a Scud being launched in answer to conclude an armistice would result in immediate bombardment. On the other hand, an armistice between Iraq and Israel would be a benefit. Perhaps that occurance would allow the U.S. to delay, save face, give us time to accomplish some of the benefits of the war without going to war.

As anti-American sentiment increases, fanatics attack Americans and American property. People act hatefully to American business people and tourists, causing them not to travel and conduct business. Nationalists organize boycotts, tarriffs, restrictions on trade and immigration.