January 26, 2003
WAR
The internet is a wonderful place. I almost wrote 'invention,' but it is, in fact, a landscape, a space to explore. We have, at our fingertips, all of the combined wisdom (and idiocy) of our species throughout our long struggle up towards enlightenment.
The internet is also a horrible place, for there are dark rooms and hidden sewers where all of the festering evil we humans commit upon each other are exposed for those with the stomach to witness it.
I have spent much time in these disgusting realms in the days since September 11th, 2001. I have forced myself to endure many videotaped nightmares. I have seen Africans hacked to pieces with machetes, watched mere boys shot in the street and left there like dogs by other Kalashnikov-wielding children. I've seen a mass execution by firing squad, men tied to poles set against a gorgeous beach while picnickers cheered and danced. I've seen a man's hands cut off in front of his very eyes.
I've seen photos of blackened lumps in a morgue in Bali, the charred and twisted remains of happy young men and women in the prime of their lives. I've seen the unimaginable carnage in the few seconds after a suicide bombing in Israel, dead and dying old men and women looking down at their shattered bodies in disbelief, and yonder the head of the perpetrator smiling joyously on the sidewalk. I've seen the rage and joy of pre-teen children as they throw stones at their murdered neighbors accused of collaboration in Palestine.
I've seen emergency workers with shovels cleaning up what's left of people after a Serb mortar attack on a marketplace. I've seen the almost unimaginable cruelty of Chechens screaming Allahu Ackbar! as they decapitate a Russian civilian with a small axe in a forest clearing, and I have watched them cut the throat of a Russian boy soldier with such horror and disgust that I was sick for the rest of the day. I have seen these things, and more.
There are two images I will never forget, and I expect I will think of them often in the days and weeks to come. For in the front row of this parade of horror and depravity, I have watched a fundamentalist Islamic crowd stone two women to death. They were covered head to toe in shockingly white linen ' the better to see the bloodstains. Taken into a field and buried up to their waists, they looked like odd white sails on a sand horizon, until the stones began to fly, leaving red carnations where they landed. One of the women just crumpled, bent at the waist, and I still pray that this person was knocked unconscious within the first minute or so. The other did not go peacefully into that good night. She died fighting and struggling, enduring the most sickening lurches as the unseen stones fell on her, twisting under that now-scarlet hood, trying to protect her face as best she could, as hundreds of her friends and relatives vented their rage, calling out the name of their god as we would cheer on the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Allahu Ackbar! Allahu Ackbar! Allahu Ackbar!
I will not forget that image.
And I will not forget another one, either. As long as I draw breath, I swear I will never forget the sight of two people holding hands, and leaping from 108 stories above the hard concrete sidewalks that I myself have walked, gawking skyward at one of the wonders of the world. I will not forget them. I will not forget their fall, the spin that finally tore their hands apart as they fell forever, forever down that quarter-mile. I will never stop wondering what they said to each other in that last moment, or their cries to each other as they launched themselves to their deaths, having watched their friends take the same leap a few moments before. I will never forget what an unimaginable hell that their cozy office, full of coffee mugs and pictures of grandchildren, had become in order for them to make that choice, with the ruins of their friends visible on the streets so far below them.
Now let me explain why I have sought out such despair and horror, endured again and again the rising bile, the nausea, the sickening unclean sense that is cured only by a long, hot shower.
I do it because I want to see what is, not what has been fed to me. I have worked as a scientist and a television editor, and both of these professions have driven me to seek out the reality, the raw data, the source footage. I want my worldview and my opinions to reflect facts, not wishes ' no matter how unpleasant the facts, or how comforting the wishes.
One of the reasons that September 11th remains so shocking and clear to us today was that it was all raw and unedited during those first few hours. Bland, chatty newsmen were rendered speechless, a tough-as-nails mayor broke down and wept, congressmen spontaneously broke into God Bless America because they didn't know what else to do, and people sent in video of jets flying into buildings, broadcast unedited as their friends screamed Jesus F------g Christ!! on network television. It was raw. It was real. It stayed that way for perhaps 48 hours, until people like me (but not me) got a hold of it and turned it into America Mourns with slow-mo flags snapping and moving dissolves of weeping bystanders superimposed over somber musical chords.
Now that awful, enraging footage is being held back, so as not to inflame public opinion. We are about to launch a war in which people will die at our hand, and we have done a dreadful job of making the case for such an action. No cold-blooded, clear-eyed look at what we oppose in this conflict could do anything but inflame public opinion.
Those who criticize the United States from within clearly have not seen any of these horrors I have mentioned, for if they had it could not but mitigate their rhetoric, and put some perspective into their arrogant and affluent lives. Those who actually endure such daily horror as can be found in the world want one thing and one thing only: they want to come here. They want to come here NOW.
We never see these grotesque realities on US television, and yet our news media has not been shy about reporting the effects of US bombing campaigns, never missed a chance to show us the weeping civilians wailing over children lost in US air attacks, never blanched at showing charred Iraqi soldiers hanging out of tanks destroyed by our weapons.
However, by showing only our actions, by showing only what we did to Iraqis without presenting the horrors they inflicted on Kuwait, we have made an editorial decision, that being: The US is the cause of, and not the remedy to, much of the suffering in the world.
That said, in a democracy we are responsible for the actions of our military. Reporting on the consequences of our actions is disturbing and demoralizing, and yet it is well and proper that they do this. We cannot turn our backs on the actual consequences of our actions as Americans. We need to see and hear the result of our military operations, for if we do not we will lose the shock and outrage, the human compassion and decency that so often stays our hand. We, as a nation, learned in Vietnam that war is not jingoistic glory. It is also not a videogame. It is concentrated, unleashed pain, agony, grief and horror, and real people, people who love their children as much as we do, are going to suffer and die because of the actions we are about to take.
Unlike our political opponents both here and abroad, we need to fully and completely understand and accept the consequences of our position. And those consequences, when making war, are the most solemn and heavy responsibilities we can bear as a people.
Those protesting this war do not seem to get this at all. Not only have they failed to make an argument based on fact and historical precedent, they have stooped to the most childish and infantile posturing and rhetoric imaginable. Their chanting has all the mindlessness and cruelty of a kindergarten cabal; their slogans and slanders and taunts seemingly exclusively ad hominem. Watching them on C'Span for as long as you can bear, you rapidly become convinced that they have no point to make at all, other than that the United States is, by definition, the source of all evil and injustice in the world. Conscientious liberals admit in private, and indeed, more frequently in public, to the paucity of thought, the irrationality and sheer lunacy of those who march in our streets in opposition to war with Iraq. I see the absurd posturing of these suburban socialists, listen to the inane chanting from these mall Marxists, watch them return to their Lexuses and their minivans and their SUVs and find myself stuck with Life During Wartime running over and over in my head:
This ain't no party
This ain't no disco
This ain't no foolin' around
This ain't no Mud Club
No CBGB
I ain't got time for that now
As we enter the eve of this war, I am myself torn by a paradox in human nature that has confused and baffled minds far greater and more refined than mine. How can human beings be both so good and so bad? How can the SS and the Salvation Army be staffed by the same species? What exactly is our nature, anyway?
This has been debated for ages, but to me the most cursory look at the world can quickly and clearly provide a powerful clue. The single definitive trait of Homo Sapiens, our greatest ' indeed, only -- strength as a species, is our limitless adaptability. No other creature before or since can live anywhere, (or eat anything) and thrive. From the bleached sands of the Sahara to the ice floes of the pole, we can adapt and prosper. We can be found in every latitude, in the far reaches of space, and at the bottom of the ocean. We appear to be infinitely programmable, and so we adapt to anything.
In societies where cruelty and domination rule, we are capable of the most unspeakable acts of torture, repression and murder. In the streets of revolution-torn Africa, in torture chambers in South America, in the killing fields of Asia, the Gulags of the steppes, the European death camps and the Confederacy's cotton plantations we see refined and perfected barbarism and inhumanity.
Some say this is just human nature. And yet, and yet, in those few historical moments where freedom and prosperity and democracy are allowed to flourish and grow, we are startled by the near total absence of such plagues. No democracy has ever declared war on another. They may have endured hunger, but no true democracy has ever faced actual famine. Individual crime and atrocity have sadly not been banished, but bloodshed and massacre in the streets day after day are unimaginable. Entire communities and nations have been built and survive on deeply cherished ideals of liberty and freedom.
Where the people rule, soldiers do not come jackbooted in the night. Decency, trust, respect and cooperation are the coin of such a realm, and their by-products are equality, prosperity, and happiness. And by any measure, the most free and prosperous and inventive of these societies may be found in the United States of America.
We have managed, as a nation, to build and maintain what might best be thought of as a bubble of freedom, safety and opportunity. We have paid for this privilege through two and a half centuries by wars that have taken the best of our sons and fathers, and now our mothers and daughters as well. We have for two hundred and fifty years found our voice and our memories intact, and now stand at the doorstep of a new millennium facing a world that has once again largely chosen to ignore the lessons of history.
We and two or three other nations, old and true friends who have stood by each other in the presence of such enemies before, now face an adversary in the full bloom of romance with death and destruction; an enemy willing ' eager -- to spray our cities with a virus it has taken armies of scientists and doctors, working diligently through centuries of research and learning, to eradicate from the blood-soaked rolls of history. We face fanatics who would bring down the entire world, themselves included, in a radioactive Armageddon, secure in their own twisted souls of the heavenly rewards of sexual gratification and revenge for their many abject failures. We face people such as this, people who are so far beyond the pale of human mercy and so corrupted by black and bitter rage that they must be killed, for nothing else will stop them, nothing ' as they tell us at every opportunity.
We have blithely ignored them for many years, turned a deaf ear to their warnings and fatwahs, turned an even more blinded eye to their procession of assassinations, massacres, bombings and attacks. Despite our recent and proven record of aiding and defending innocent Muslims in Kuwait, the Balkans, and elsewhere, we have been singled out as a Satan, a nation of sub-human infidels, and been the target of slander and incitement to murder that would have shamed the most fanatical Jesuit in the Spanish Inquisition.
There are those of us who have the courage to actually listen to their unedited rhetoric, view the video records of their atrocities, and face the fact that these people are sworn to kill as many innocent civilians as they possibly can. Some of us, in the months since September 11th, 2001, have chosen to take them at their word.
So let us gather the moral courage to take a factual, cold-hearted look at the reasons why this war with Iraq is the necessary next step in this conflict; one that needs to be undertaken without delay.
First, and most importantly, we can plainly state the prima facie cause that makes up our first argument in favor of invasion:
1. The impending military action is not the pre-emptive opening of hostilities against a sovereign nation, but rather the continuation of hostilities begun by Iraq in 1990 with their invasion of Kuwait; said resumption being a direct result of repeated and flagrant violations of the ceasefire signed by Iraq in 1991.
So much for the 'pre-emptive' attack criticism. This upcoming military action is indeed the product of a pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation'that nation being Kuwait. Saddam Hussein took his country to war in a naked grab for oil and glory. He was handed the worst military defeat in modern history, a defeat so complete and total that US forces began to hesitate to fire on Iraqi units that were so spectacularly and completely routed.
The United States acquiesced to international law in the form of the UN resolution limiting military action to the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The Iraqi leader, facing complete and total defeat, entered into agreements as a condition of ceasefire, and has failed at every turn to honor those agreements, bringing his country to ruin and starvation by doing so.
It's really just that simple.
Second, the current resolution is clearly worded so that the burden of proof regarding disarmament is on Iraq, and not on the success of the weapons inspectors. UN 1441 makes it clear that anything less than full and complete cooperation ' this means things like meeting us at the airport and handing over the uranium-enrichment centrifuges that we know they have ' is a material breach of UN1441 and will be met by 'serious consequences' (and we should perhaps rename the Nimitz the USS Serious Consequences.)
So:
2. Failure to turn over known WMD components, and not the failure of UN Inspectors to find them, puts Iraq in material breach of UN Resolution 1441 and authorizes the US and her allies to enforce previous UN resolutions by means of military force.
So much for the legal niceties. Now let's get down to brass tacks.
On Tuesday, September 11th, 2001, the United States was suddenly and deliberately attacked by forces of Islamic extremism in an act of barbarity that stunned the world.
In order to grasp the full meaning of that attack, we would do well to change our terminology to better reflect the reality we face. We should be thinking and discussing the upcoming conflict not as the War on Iraq, but as the Battle of Iraq. For it is indeed that: a major ' hopefully, the major ' battle against Islamic fundamentalism and the tactic of terrorism that they have employed against the US and others in their rage and shame at their own manifest failures.
Let us then examine the evidence and motivation that firmly places Iraq as the key component in an alliance of terror directed against the West in general and the United States in particular.
We should begin by having the honesty and integrity to admit that the direct connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda prior to the events of 9/11 are tenuous and murky at best. We should also acknowledge that despite feverish claims to the contrary, Saddam Hussein is a totalitarian dictator exclusively concerned with his own power and in no way is he the Muslim Saladin he makes himself out to be. It does indeed seem likely that Osama bin laden and Saddam Hussein detest each other (and soon we shall be able to refer to both of them in the past tense.) But to say that this is enough to prevent them from allying themselves against the United States is self-delusion of the highest order.
For the full horror of a terrorist nuclear attack upon the United States to come to fruition, our enemies need both the means to produce an atomic bomb and a delivery system for it.
Anyone who doubts the willingness and ability of Al Qaeda to deploy and use such a weapon has frankly not been paying attention and is unworthy of this debate. They have, in public statements, on web sites, in training videos and operations manuals, shown a persistent and desperate attempt to obtain such a weapon. We have only to look back to that clear blue morning should we have any doubt whatsoever that such people would do everything in their power to kill as many of us as possible. Let us not forget that without the heroism and professionalism of our police and firemen, and the most well-managed, successful emergency evacuation in history, that death toll that day could have easily reached twenty or thirty thousand. There is a great deal of evidence that other terrorist teams, both here and abroad, were thwarted by the quick grounding of the commercial fleet by the FAA. Who knows how many others might have been killed that day, and where? Or how many unsung victories we have won in the months since that terrible day?
A small nuclear device can be fit into a suitcase. We need to face the stark, brutal fact that in a free society there is no defense against such a weapon. This war cannot be won, and our cities and people saved from nuclear annihilation, by playing defense.
Fortunately, constructing a nuclear weapon is not easy. In fact, it took the United States the better part of several years and billions of 1940's dollars to construct an operational nuclear device, using the full resources of the world's richest nation and the best theoretical and practical minds on the planet.
Not only must the bomb maker get his or her hands on large quantities of a rare and tightly controlled substance ' uranium or plutonium ' they must also overcome huge engineering problems in terms of hardened materials and exquisitely timed explosions needed to implode the fissile material to critical mass.
A finished nuke can fit in a suitcase, but to build one takes a factory, indeed, takes a nation: money, massive equipment, large work areas, armies of scientists. These things, unlike suitcases, can be found, targeted and destroyed.
There can be no question whatsoever that Saddam Hussein has been desperately seeking the means to build such a weapon. Let's make sure everyone heard that: There can be no question whatsoever that Saddam Hussein has been desperately seeking the means to build such a weapon. Really astonishing piles of independent records and sources confirm this without question. From Iraqi defectors who actually had hands-on experience with the programs, to intelligence reports of the import of the required equipment and raw materials, to the reams of evidence that prior inspectors discovered in their seven years of investigations, to the unabashed statements of Saddam Hussein himself' Saddam has brought his country to ruin for no other reason that his obsession with owning a nuclear bomb.
Had the Israelis not bombed the Osirak reactor in 1981 (and endured world condemnation for it at the time), then without question Iraq would have had a nuclear weapon during the 1991 Gulf War. It is impossible to imagine a man such as Saddam not using such a weapon when faced with the greatest defeat in military history. Whether he used it in a Scud attack on US troops, to contaminate Kuwaiti or Saudi oilfields, or, more likely, to use against Tel Aviv to ignite a holy war against the hated Jews, the result would have been catastrophic, indeed, in the likely case of a nuclear response from Israel, unimaginable.
We can therefore sum up the next argument for attacking Iraq as follows:
3. Saddam Hussein has the means and the motivation to develop nuclear weapons, and there is irrefutable evidence that he has tried to do so. He has shown staggering errors in judgment and a belief in his own personal infallibility by attacking Iran, Kuwait, and Israel. Iraq attaining nuclear capability therefore provides a potent and immediate threat to our allies in the region and the vital interests of the United States.
Like all dictators, Saddam runs a state apparatus ruled by fear. There is no one in his military command structure, or indeed among his party or even his sons, who are willing to give him real information, because most of that information will be bad news. This, coupled with his clinical paranoia and narcissism, have led him to absolutely appalling errors in judgment, such as assuming that the Iranian people would join him in his war with Iran, the miscalculation over Kuwait in 1990 and the subsequent evasion of his obligations in the years since.
Furthermore, the people who have had first-hand contact with Saddam Hussein all speak of his messianic complex. He cares not a whit about world opinion, and indeed seems preoccupied with how the people -- particularly the Arabs -- of 500 years hence will record him. Saddam, to put it plainly, plans to make a big splash on the pages of world history. In this he is no different than Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot. There are no legal or behavioral inhibitions on totalitarians such as Saddam. He does whatever he wishes, and every action is met by terrified praise and false adulation from a population cowering in fear.
Therefore, it is not only likely but probable that Saddam will be tempted to use such weapons to strike back at those who have committed the unthinkable crime of embarrassing him before the world. And this is where Al Qaeda can provide him with not only the delivery mechanism, but also, to Saddam's irrational and misinformed mind, a form of plausible deniability. His success with The Big Lie these past 11 years has emboldened him to believe ' with ample justification ' that there are legions of useful idiots ready to rally to the defense of anyone who dares attack America.
So we may summarize our fourth cause as follows:
4. Saddam Hussein shows irrefutable signs of mental impairment in the form of Clinical Paranoia and Narcissistic Disorder. Given control of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction, his temptation to use them against the US on American soil is not mitigated by normal behavioral inhibitors, and indeed is amplified by his aberrant mental state. This poses a potent, immediate and intolerable threat to the safety and security of the people of the United States.
A close corollary to this argument can be made from the fact that Saddam routinely tortures, murders and gasses his own people. We may disagree violently with the Chinese, the Russians, the Pakistanis and the French, among others, but we do not unduly fear nuclear attack from such nations because each of them can be deterred by the unimaginable rain of destruction we would unleash upon them in return.
A self-absorbed Narcissist such as Saddam does not see people ' even his own people ' the way we do. They are objects to men like Saddam, props and extras that enhance the panoply and glory of their own lives. Brave German generals disobeyed Hitler's orders to destroy everything that remained intact in Germany during the final weeks of the Third Reich. Like all dictators, he saw the impending end of his own life as the final curtain on his nation's history'and what happened to the extras in his biopic was completely irrelevant.
Saddam has taken the cradle of civilization, one of the most enlightened and educated populations in the middle east, and driven it to utter ruin in the service of his own vainglorious ambitions. The money designated to feed and care for his people under the UN sanctions he has used to build mad palaces of sickening opulence under the noses of his starving children. And yet there are those that say the threat of reprisal against his nation is sufficient to keep him in line.
Nonsense. Saddam has to die someday. And when he goes, he clearly means to take whatever he can with him. Therefore:
5. Saddam has repeatedly shown his contempt and bitter disregard for the welfare of his own people. He has totally neglected all of the misery they have endured since his ascension to power, and is therefore undeterrable and immune to fear of reprisal against his nation and his people.
No one disputes that nuclear weapons are dangerous. No one disputes that Saddam is dangerous. So why do legions of people argue that Saddam with nuclear weapons is somehow not dangerous?
Those, as I see them, are our primary casus belli. Now let's deal with some of the reasons why people oppose this war.
Innocent people, innocent children will die in this war.
That is true. Innocent people will die at our hand. But let us never forget that action is visible and direct, but that inaction also bears consequences.
We will do everything in our power to limit civilian causalties in this war. In fact, during the days and weeks ahead, we will see something unheard of in military history: a campaign designed not only to minimize civilian casualties, but one aimed at killing as few enemy soldiers as possible. We have already dropped leaflets on Iraqi regular army units, telling them that if they remain in their positions they will not be harmed, but if they mass for a counterattack, we will destroy them. The Iraqi army has recent experience in this matter, both with our destructive capabilities and our generosity and kindness to prisoners of war.
Saddam's miserable, poorly-fed and disgracefully-led conscripts have no love for the man. That is why he consolidated what loyal soldiers he had into the Republican Guard. This body, too, became understandably unreliable after Saddam's bloodthirsty and paranoid purges, so he created the Special Republican Guard, a further decimated cadre that may in fact fight for him, since they are the predators at the top of this dictatorial food chain, and therefore have the most to lose and, certainly, the most to fear from an outraged and oppressed populace.
I fervently hope that Iraqi regular-army conscripts decide to sit this one out. No one who watched them surrender, kissing the garments of American sergeants, could feel anything but compassion and pity for these men. I do believe that those that do choose to fight will be the hard core element of Saddam's blood-stained police state, the sadists and executioners who have tortured and murdered their own people on Saddam Hussein's orders for decades. Don't forget that. Don't forget the number that have disappeared in the night during his monstrous reign of terror. Don't forget well-documented, disgustingly common accounts of the children tortured to death in front of their parents, of girls raped in front of their fathers, not to mention the roll-calls of horror that will emerge when that evil is finally swept away.
And finally, don't forget your friends and family, the good people you work and play with, the innocent men, women and children of New York or Los Angeles or Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Boston, or whichever city we may condemn to radioactive vapor because we were too cowardly and indecisive to act on what we knew to be a threat.
We have thousands of nuclear weapons'it's hypocritical to say Iraq can not have them also.
We have had nuclear weapons for almost sixty years now. They have been used, twice, within the first days of that ownership to end the most horrible war in history and prevent many times the number of casualties, on both sides, that would have been lost had the war continued through the invasion of Japan. Despite many provocations, they have not been used since then. We have had chemical weapons for even longer.
Saddam, on the other hand, used his chemical weapons the instant he got his hands on them: first on the Iranians and then on his own Kurds ' this after not once being used by any nation during all the desperate years of World War II. What does that tell you?
Many adults are given alcohol, credit cards, automobiles, guns and jet aircraft, once they have shown themselves worthy of the responsibility. We do not put these things in the hands of four year olds, and with very good reason. It may seem hypocritical to you; to me, the idea of keeping a drunken second-grader from waving around a loaded automatic while behind the controls of a hurtling 747 just makes sense.
This war is all about oil.
Demonstrably false for the reasons listed above. Nevertheless, let's grant the premise. Oil is the only power source currently available to meet the needs of our post-industrial society. Not only our automobiles depend on this oil: it is also a primary source of electrical energy in this country, and is essential to the plastics we use in everything from MRI machines to CD players.
To say this war is all about oil is factually identical to saying that this war is all about maintaining our society and lifestyle. If that is not worth fighting for, what is? One may find that offensive ideologically, but as I see it, to be true to such a philosophy you must either drive a solar-powered electric car, ride a horse or a bicycle, or walk. You must remove your home from the city power grid. You must discard all plastic items. You must also abandon television, radios and movies, all of which rely on electricity generated by oil. You must forgo modern medicine, surgery and dentistry, likewise driven by oil-fired electricity at many stages. You must grow your own food.
Do all of these things, and you will have my frank admiration for your dedication to a moral cause. Do anything less and you are a hypocrite mouthing an easy lie in an attempt to strike a pose of moral superiority.
Furthermore, people who apply this argument are usually accusing us of stealing the oil. Now I suppose it's theoretically possible that everyone else at the gas station gets a wink, a nod and a don't be silly hand gesture when they try to pay for their gas -- me, I'm shelling out $1.83 a gallon for the privilege.
There has been a river, a Mississippi of our fives and tens and twenty-dollar bills flowing into the middle east for decades now. The idea that most of this has been squandered on scores of madly extravagant palaces, solid-gold toilets and leggy hookers should only further direct all fair-minded people toward the cause of Invasion. One of the many reasons I support this action in Iraq is because the people of that nation are sitting on a significant hunk of loose change. It is indeed being stolen from them -- and I for one am convinced that once we deal with the thief that stole it, those revenues will be of enormous benefit to the people of Iraq, and aid them in the rebuilding of their country.
It is true we depend on oil for our lifestyle. However, if you look at it objectively, you might agree that oil does no one any good hundreds of feet below a barren desert. For us it helps power our society; for them it is a valuable commodity and a legitimate means of transferring a lot of our cash into their pockets. My car does not care where that oil comes from, but I do. And if my $1.83 / gallon can in the future go to the people of Iraq, I would find that both a blessing and a relief.
Still, the whole point is, as I mentioned, logically flawed -- fatally flawed. Gas is cheaper now, in adjusted dollars, than it has ever been. Evil Oil KKKorporations don't need more oil on the market: it depresses the price. More of something makes it cheaper; less of something makes it more expensive. Although I do understand why this confuses some people -- the whole supply / demand concept does seem to give the far left a great deal of trouble.
When gasoline is $13 dollars per gallon and lines stretch for miles around empty service stations, THEN will I begin to reasonably suspect this political decision has oil-based overtones.
We need a 'smoking gun' from the UN inspectors.
The problem with a smoking gun is you can't find it until it's gone off.
It is clear from documented reports of bribery attempts on UN Inspectors on the part of the Iraqis, to French inspectors tipping off Saddam about team destinations, that to accept this argument we de facto lose the game. This is why it is so popular. It ignores reams of testimony from defecting scientists, and all of the other evidence stated above. In fact, it raises the question that ignoring such a mountain of existing evidence requires such a willful burying of one's head in the sand as to make any proof insufficient. To such people, the smoking gun they require is a pile of radioactive rubble where Tel Aviv once stood, or legions of dead commuters in the London Underground, or the wildfire spread of smallpox through greater Chicago and beyond. Scores of independent sources repeatedly and emphatically demonstrate that Iraq has massive quantities of biological and chemical weapons, and is working frantically to attain nuclear ones.
Those unconvinced by the existing evidence will be convinced by nothing less than their actual use against our military or civilians.
To hell with those people.
North Korea admits to having nuclear weapons and is threatening the region. They are a greater threat and must be dealt with first.
That a rogue nation can threaten the three most prosperous economies of Asia with nuclear blackmail (although, admittedly, China would not likely be as threatened as South Korea or Japan) does indeed raise a troubling question. And that question is, with such a clear example before our eyes, who can not believe that removing such a powerful lever from the hands of Saddam Hussein should not be job #1? North Korea already has these weapons. We cannot undo that. We can only prevent that from happening in the future.
Our options are dramatically reduced, and the consequences of miscalculation on either side astronomically raised, by such weapons in the hands of such an unbalanced, isolated and desperate regime. This is precisely why we must intervene in Iraq.
It is hypocritical and contradictory to negotiate with North Korea, which already has nuclear weapons, and advocate war on Iraq, which does not.
I will grant that it may appear so at first glance. But consider these two points:
First, we relied on negotiations, diplomacy and signed agreements in order to prevent North Korea from obtaining these weapons. They developed them despite these negotiations and in direct violation of these international agreements. There are those who oppose this war, who say we should try this spectacularly unsuccessful strategy with Iraq. I would like to sell these people their next automobile.
Second, North Korea thinks they can pressure us while we are preoccupied with Iraq. They are betting their empty, crop-free farm on this. They want us to become alarmed, right now. They hope to blackmail us before the last vestiges of their state collapses around them. That is a trap we have so far avoided.
There is a reason we treat Iraq in one fashion and North Korea in another. It is a very simple reason. In the case of North Korea, time is on our side; with Saddam, time works against us. This is not hypocrisy, it is sound and cogent strategic thinking.
And finally,
The United States has no right to launch a pre-emptive attack; we can only respond if we are attacked.
This is the most pernicious and dangerous argument of all, because it plays directly into our natural revulsion at being an aggressor and causing the deaths of innocent civilians.
As I mentioned, I see both Iraq's attack on Kuwait, and the Islamicist attacks on 9/11, as the pre-emptive attacks that started this pending conflict. But perhaps you do not buy that argument. Well, consider this:
We were attacked before, on December 7th, 1941, by a vast navy that had been assembling for years. We watched the Japanese build the Pearl Harbor fleet. We did nothing. We ' the French and English especially ' also did nothing as a bitter and vengeful Germany grew stronger and more daring. Appeasement was all the rage back then.
In the years following that naval sneak attack, and after a war in which unchecked militarism nearly brought civilization to ruin, it made sense to think that we could stay free by being strong enough to deter or repel any invasion. We would do ' indeed, we have done ' whatever it took to create a defense so formidable that the mere idea of defeating it has become unthinkable, and to willingly provoke it becomes an act of state suicide.
Those days are gone.
We face an enemy willing ' eager ' to carry a suitcase into Times Square, press a button, and in one millisecond inflict more casualties on the United States than we have seen in all the wars of our history, combined.
It is an image so horrible that many simply refuse to believe it.
Believe it.
We ignore September 11th at our mortal peril. We no longer have the luxury of watching an enemy build military and naval strength over years or decades. We no longer face uniformed divisions massing at the borders. We face instead a group of depraved murderers to whom nothing is off-limits, who fear no earthly retribution, who love and glorify death for its own end and who hate not only all that we do, but all that we are with a black bitterness that we cannot begin to imagine.
I believe we are standing at a doorway in history, squinting at forms we can barely make out in a dark room. We will, in the years to come, look at the confusion and doubt of the present hour as a turning point in the history, and indeed the identity, of our nation and ourselves.
For we are waking up to a simple reality. In a new millennium where a few diseased people can carry a suitcase with the power to kill millions, the lesson we must learn is simply this: the only way we will be safe, prosperous and free is when everyone is safe, prosperous and free.
Critics of this War on Terror call it 'eternal' and 'never-ending' as a means of discouraging us from fighting it at all.
But there can be an end to this war. It will end when all people are inside the bubble we have built for ourselves and our children ' warm, well-fed, free to pursue their dreams and ambitions, their minds and bodies and women liberated, racial and tribal hatreds put aside, and so on.
The quiet idealist that resides deep inside in me, on a speak-when-spoken-to basis, actually believes such things are possible. After all, it works -- pretty well -- for us, and we Americans are children of all the world. We know what such a society looks like, and we have documents of such stunning clarity and hope as to show anyone the way.
The conservative I have become, however, is certain that if it happens, it will happen because of the actions and sacrifice of US Marines and not because of middle-aged naked hippies spelling PEACE on a golf course. It will take decades. It may take centuries.
Can we force freedom and democracy on people? It seems, from the example of Germany and Japan, that indeed we can. These societies once harbored fanatics no less dedicated to our destruction than the ones we face today. Now they are our trading partners, and often our friends and allies. The point at which it becomes necessary to force such a regime change will be determined by how ugly the swamp has become. And can anyone seriously argue that the people left after the defeat of the Nazis, Japanese Imperialists or American Confederates are not far better off today than they would have been if they had won?
I am not an ideologue in this regard, and I certainly don't want to send our sons and daughters out to fight and die for anything less than our safety and survival. But that, to me, is looking like what it might come to. Each success makes the next case easier, and each triumph further shames and silences our critics.
Sixty years ago, we were willing to sacrifice millions of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines to keep our homeland safe. Such a task may be before us today. With our soldiers' skill, training and professionalism, and our unparalleled technical innovation and creative genius, we will not need anything like millions of soldiers. But it will not be without cost ' it will only be necessary.
In this, I am guardedly optimistic due to our recent victory in Afghanistan. Not the military victory, magnificent though it was.
No, I am thinking of things like the reopening of their soccer stadium, the field where I have seen -- through the camera obscura of the internet -- women in burqas forced to kneel and then shot through the back of the head for the crime of adultery. Kids play football there again. That's a win, Noam Chomsky, you lying son of a bitch.
Little girls march to school in the morning, singing. That's a win, Robert Fisk. Old men wept as the Afghan national flag was carried by an actual Afghan army during their first free National Day in two generations. That is a win for the Good Guys, too, Harold Pinter. I hear of Special Forces sergeants organizing little league teams and I just smile like a little kid.
I'm smiling because, at last, we have dragged ourselves back from the mud and filth of the Cold War, from allying ourselves with what was only marginally the slightly lesser of two great evils in our proxy wars in Asia and South America and Africa. I'm smiling not just because of my bursting pride in the dedication and skill of our military, but in the essential kindness and compassion of these kids of ours who just want to do the right thing and come home. I'm smiling because I start to see before us an age where, in the words from the 1963 movie The Ugly American, we are no longer 'so busy telling people what we are against that we forget to tell them what we are for.'
We have a long and difficult road to travel in these coming years, and there will be ample opportunities for us to fall off the path. But I reflect on our own greatest peril, the dark days of our own Civil War, and I draw comfort from something not often remembered about that turning point in our history.
In the early days of that conflict, Abraham Lincoln saw one objective, and one only: he must save the Union. That was what marched the men in blue off to Bull Run: Save the Union. Lincoln said as much when contemplating the Emancipation Proclamation:
'My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.'
But as the war dragged on and victory continued to recede, Lincoln found a new voice. Southerners could be counted upon to fight because it was their homes and institutions under attack. One poor captured Rebel, when asked why he was fighting on behalf of the rich plantation owners' right to keep slaves, replied, 'I'm fighting because you're down here.' Lincoln needed something with that emotional imperative, and he found it.
He found it after brave Negro soldiers -- like the men of the 54th Massachusetts Regiment, immortalized in the movie Glory --showed to their northern skeptics that they were as gallant and effective soldiers as any in the Union Army. He found it in the words of Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth. He found it by turning the dirge 'John Brown's Body' into the inspirational 'Battle Hymn of the Republic.'
Lincoln turned the Northern cause into a crusade to set men free.
If we have the courage of our convictions, if we do indeed feel that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is worth fighting and dying for, then we may find that freeing the world is in our national interest, regardless of the cost.
So on the eve of this new tempest, let us remember, together, a final image ' to me, the most hopeful of all.
Let us remember Afghanistan.
Let us remember that the brutal Soviets we so sullied ourselves fighting during the Cold War had installed in their southern neighbor a puppet dictator, who ruled small enclaves at the point of a tank cannon and tore their nation into civil war that culminated in the atrocities of the Taliban. Let us remember the million Afghan civilians who died forcing off that yoke.
Let us remember an image from that ruin of a nation, in June of 2002, at a meeting hall in Kabul. Inside were all manner of warlords, refugees, opposition leaders, even their old king. Women demanding positions of power, wizened old tribal leaders opposing them at every turn, mullahs and warlords making veiled threats and all the rest of the unruly, loud, preposterous accoutrements of democracy that make up a Loya Jirga or a US Congress.
And let us remember the image of US soldiers, forming a cordon, a bubble of security around this howling, screaming catfight. Not inside. Not dictating terms. Not so much as laying a hand on a gavel. But rather outside, armed and powerful, seeing to it that the future of that tortured country rested in the hands of their own people, protecting this newborn, imperfect, and astonishingly fragile proto-democracy against the legions of Taliban, Al Qaeda and petty warlords who would like to see nothing so much as its failure. Remember them guarding the life and pure, undiluted courage of Hamid Karzai. And remember our soldiers giving them, day by painful day, another week, another month without torture and repression so that they in all their infinitely adaptable humanity have the time to come to find such things intolerable.
Remember that, and smile. Because that is America at war.
Posted by Proteus at January 26, 2003 8:20 PM
Welcome to the Eject! Eject! Eject! commenter community. Please read and understand the following:
1. This is not a public square. This is a dinner party on personal property. Good conversation is not only tolerated but celebrated here. But the host understands the difference between dissent and disrespect, even if you do not. Louts will be ignored until the bouncers can show them the door.
2. This is a voluntary online community. Your posting of any material, whether in comments or otherwise, grants to William A. Whittle, Aurora Aerospace, Inc. and their affiliates, a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, worldwide license to use, sublicense, reproduce or incorporate into other material all or any portion of the material posted, for commercial or other use.
3. If a comment does find its way into a main page essay, print, or other media, every effort will be made to credit the individual making the comment. So chose your screen name accordingly, SLNTFRT33@yahoo.com!
Now let's see some distributed intelligence and basic human decency! Don't make me come down there every five minutes!
Comments
Proud to link to this one, Bill.
Posted by: Bill Peschel | January 26, 2003 8:47 PM
Well, I promised I'd tried to be more brief in the future and I just couldn't do it. I just really wanted to nail this one to the wall.
Better bring that pack lunch after all. Sorry.
Posted by: Bill Whittle | January 26, 2003 8:59 PM
This is now officially one of my reference articles. I have never seen the case so beautifully made and I have never seen a clearer, more appropriate or more beautiful vision of our future as Americans, if only we dare choose it.
BRAVO!
Posted by: Emperor Misha I | January 26, 2003 9:58 PM
Bill, write us a book already!
Posted by: scarshapedstar | January 26, 2003 10:30 PM
Thank You
May God bless us everyone.
Posted by: Archer | January 26, 2003 10:32 PM
Bravo!
Posted by: Mrs. du Toit | January 26, 2003 11:13 PM
The first eight paragraphs had me near tears, the remainder left me glad I know of someone named Bill Whittle who shares himself with all of us and asks for nothing in return...except, perhaps, that we share in his hope and vision for the future.
Posted by: addison | January 26, 2003 11:21 PM
Bill, a note for you. Typo, 3rd paragraph, "did no go peacefully" and then you can erase this.
Posted by: Howard E. Morseburg | January 26, 2003 11:31 PM
whoops, 6th paragraph, story about women stoned...
Posted by: howard e. morseburg | January 26, 2003 11:33 PM
Bill,
I could go on and on about what a great, great article this is, but instead I'll just pose a question:
Would you object if this article was printed, photocopied multiple times, and then left about (properly attributed to the author, of course) in dorms, coffee shops, bookstores, etc., in a small college town in the Midwest?
Posted by: Xenophon | January 27, 2003 12:02 AM
Bill, these same thoughts run rampant through my head, and I write them down, but not near as well, not even close.
Before the Vietnam war, there were always stories about communists visiting small villages, then publicly executing the mayor or village elders, hanging the body where it could be seen. Reporters visited there, but the photos they must have taken never were published.
When, during the Vietnam war, the pictures in the local papers contained only photos of bodies of those we killed, I wrote the LA Times and asked why these other 'real' atrocities were never shown. No answer, of course. My Lai (sp.?) was there, but never, never what the enemy did.
The picture emblazoned in the minds of the world later...the angry, tortured Chief of Police in Saigon putting a bullet through the head of a captured terrorist! He was condemned for that, when all around the city were bodies of the innocent civilians who died at the hands of this man and his cohorts. Would that I had been there and had the courage, even if it took anger, to do the same thing.
Twelve days before the towers fell, we were up there at night, enjoying the beautiful sight of an innocent city, the George Washington bridge to the north, and the bridge across the Narrows to the south, the Lincoln Tunnel just below us. We were driven there by an Arab, a man who came to this country to enjoy 'freedom', and you are right, half of the nation of Iraq would probably leave, if they had somewhere to go. Many are here now, a huge colony of them in San Diego, people who fled the tyranny of Hussein.
You've got a touch, Bill. I hope thousands get to read your material.
Posted by: howard e. morseburg | January 27, 2003 12:11 AM
Just wanted to say thank you, for all that you have written here. You express wonderfuly what the best of America is, and help to remind us all of it.
Posted by: Aaron Pohle | January 27, 2003 12:12 AM
Bill, I know you've said that all these people have a right to say all these silly things about "No War For Oil" etc., and intellectually I agree with you.
Yet, viscerally, I'd like to have your essay, every single word, tattooed on their worthless hides, so that they have to read them every single time they have a bath or take a shower (in Harrelson's case, I'm told, that would only be once a year, but never mind).
You should send this essay to the Telegraph in London, so that others might be exposed to it. I bet they'd print it.
Posted by: Kim du Toit | January 27, 2003 12:41 AM
Brilliant! You need to put all these essays together and release them in a book! I'd also like to know (like Xenophon) if you'd allow us to reprint this essay (properly cited and sourced) to distribute (in my case at a major university in Los Angeles).
Posted by: Greg Douglass | January 27, 2003 1:13 AM
I'm Speechless. (Even more than usual.)
Posted by: Just Some Poor Schmuck | January 27, 2003 1:23 AM
Bill, thanks for this moving essay, I think few people will read this without occasionally fighting their tears. I'll have my wife and family read this, and anyone around me who does not understand yet.
There's a great dearth of good info and arguments in Europe: this piece is invaluable.
Great work!
Wijnand van de Beek
Amsterdam
Posted by: Wijnand | January 27, 2003 1:51 AM
Terrific!! Thank you once again, Mr. Whittle. You said it all.
If _this_ doesn't convince the peaceniks, then only piles of corpses and the rubble of our cities will. And then they'll only be convinced to be Quislings under the tyranny they'd have us surrender to. To Hell with them.
Posted by: Steven Malcolm Anderson | January 27, 2003 3:01 AM
Dear Mr. Whittle: What a master of eloquent argument you are. You say so much that needs to be said, and so well. Are you a reincarnation of G. K. Chesterton?
Posted by: Steven Malcolm Anderson | January 27, 2003 3:18 AM
Bill
Excellent, as is your usual. I'll be linking to it. By the way, the UNSC resolution is 1441, not 1440.
Posted by: Jeff Brokaw | January 27, 2003 4:35 AM
First off, I should preface this by saying no-one has to give an argument *against* an attack on Iraq, but that those that want one have to give reasons *for*. Plainly, such reasons are hardly convincing, or Bill's piece I'm replying to wouldn't exist. Moreover, there would be no need to "redouble efforts" to "win the propaganda war" (senior advisor to Tony Blair) in face of stern opposition all around the world if the original reasons stood up to any kind of scrutiny. Keeping that in mind, I'll bite. Comment is interspersed.
>
A bit like the US invasion of Panama, although that didn't have a remotely credible pretext. And the Israeli invasion of Lebanon makes Kuwait look like a tea party.
>
The United States is required to follow international law by virtue of the constitution. So, no cookies and milk for that piece of back-breaking flexibility.
>
No, the sanctions have performed that duty (the Gulf slaughter you no doubt praise didn’t help). Saddam Hussein hasn’t killed nearly a million of his own people. The UN oil-for-food programme is one of the “best run programmes [the UN] has seen in almost 40 years” according to the previous head of it (who incidentally, resigned in protest like his predecessor, calling them “genocide”).
>
Explain how you can prove a negative please.
>
UNS/RES 1441, actually. So much for “facts” which you supposedly laud.
>
"Evidence" which you haven’t presented. In fact, any evidence which has been presented has been shown to be utterly false. Rational people should then take that into account when considering the veracity of any “evidence” which is alluded to by the same people who produced such “evidence” in the first place.
>
“Serious consequences” which are to be defined by the Security Council, not the US alone. After “all peaceful means have been exhausted” according to the UN Charter, which obviously hasn’t happened, since the United States is blocking those, which are readily available.
>
"Known"? See above.
BTW, arguing that the US is upholding UN resolutions by breaking the UN Charter and ignoring the UN is pretty hilarious. For that reason alone, you cannot be taken seriously.
>
Nice attempt to link Sept 11 with Iraq (which had nothing to do with it). I’m afraid rational commentators require a little more evidence on that score than rhetoric. Therefore, I’m ignoring the "Sept 11 is Iraq" chatter as I could discern no demonstrable argument within it. After all, none of the hijackers were Iraqis (nor Afghans), and 19 were from Saudi Arabia, an ally.
>
Sounds a lot like Iraq. Oh, wait a minute, that's a ruined Third World country.
>
Since Israel isn’t in ruin (nor Pakistan, India, China or the rest), just on sane analysis alone, this cannot be the “reason”. Therefore, we look for the other, actual reasons, which are pretty clear.
>
Thanks to the help of the West, when he was a favoured ally and trading partner.
>
He doesn’t have “the means”, for obvious reasons. The motivation is thus largely irrelevant.
Addressing your points, he attacked Iran with the support of the United States. Therefore, that wasn’t against the “vital interests” of the “United States”.
[NOTE: By the way, if you want to the taken seriously, you should define “United States”. Do you mean the geographical US, the people of the US, or small sectors of “special interest” (i.e. weapons manufacturers, oil companies etc)? Because certainly, only one sector gained from supporting Saddam in the 80’s. Strangely enough, that is precisely the sector now calling for his removal. That ought to raise some questions about their motivations, unless of course, you operate on blind faith]
He invaded Kuwait when he thought he had tacit approval to do so from the US (looking at the record, that doesn’t seem unreasonable). He attacked Israel after the invasion.
Since, a) he doesn’t have that support now, b) doesn’t believe he has tacit approval to invade anyone and c) understands that attacking or invading anyone would bring about his immediate destruction, it follows de facto that d) he isn’t a threat to anyone in the region.
Plus, with the exception of Kuwait and Israel, the “region” overwhelming opposes war. By simple logic alone, the US cannot claim to be defending a region that is opposing that defence voraciously.
>
For any of the above to make the slightest sense, you’ll first have to provide evidence that deterrence wouldn’t work. That will be difficult, since it worked even in 1991, when he was exponentially more dangerous. I’m assuming the reason you haven’t mentioned any such evidence is because you feel the psycho-babble suffices. I’m afraid it doesn’t.
>
Justifying war on the basis of counselling? That’s a new one.
>
To keep himself in power, which is routine for dictators. Also, the US supported all three then, so it cannot possibly care about such atrocities now.
>
As can Saddam (was in fact, as I’ve stated and as even US intelligence analysis agrees).
>
I assume this debris is thrown in simply to make this piece longer and give the impression it is well thought out. Unfortunately, such efforts are ridiculously transparent.
>
This is repetition. For the third time, I believe.
>
The actual record reveals that the UN oil-for-food programme is described as “excellent” and the UN-SG has reported no problems with it. Regardless, the system actually only provides for about $100 per year to feed and provide medical treatment etc for every Iraqi. Hardly sufficient by any reasonable measure.
>
Actually, the threat of reprisal is against him and his position (a fact you are studiously avoiding with laudable delicacy), not the Iraqi people (although of course they will be slaughtered to achieve it). One is a lot different and you know it.
In addition, your use of the phrase, “there are those” (a group which includes all of US intelligence) simply demonstrates where you place yourself on the spectrum of rational debate.
>
As did Stalin, when he died. He of course immediately shot off the nukes… oh wait, no he didn’t. Nukes and a delivery system Saddam doesn’t have of course, so the analogy isn’t entirely accurate, but it suffices to make swiss cheese out of this ridiculous justification.
>
A non sequitor which is also, happily, yet another repetition.
>
Well, I’m not sure who these “legions of people” are. Ignoring them (since I haven’t seen anybody sane pose such an argument), I guess you might be referring to the same sorts of people who were vigorously opposed to the Rumsfeld Reaganites (the same ones in power now, with remarkable continuity) in the 80’s, who were providing Saddam with the means to develop nuclear weapons. I assume such people would be opposed to allowing Saddam to develop nuclear weapons now, for the same principled reasons.
Strikingly, they also haven’t altered their positions 180 degrees without a word of contrition, which cannot be said for some.
>
That's it? See preface.
>
Huge numbers of innocent people will be killed by the United States and Britain, consciously. Just as much as they have under murderous sanctions, which are acknowledged to have strengthened Saddam Hussein whilst weakening political opposition. A fact the "liberators" have yet to apologise for, which blows a hole in their claim not to have any quarrel with the "Iraqi people".
>
Interesting. Will targeting water supplies and sewage treatment facilities etc be on the menu again? Oh, I say targeted in the sense that they were deliberately destroyed, as the factual record reveals amply reveals. You can choose not to look at it, but that’s your problem.
>
Not wanting soldiers to fight an invasion of their country is not the same as not wanting to kill them, which is altogether different. The psy-ops are used for the former, not the latter. Also, the record of 1991 (and elsewhere) so massively documents the exact opposite of what you're arguing I'm surprised you can do it with a straight face.
>
Actually, I will forget that, since it is utter nonsense. The soldiers of Iraq’s army are almost overwhelmingly conscripts, who likely despise Saddam Hussein. Those will be the people killed. Others may be attempting to defend their country from foreign invasion. Those will be the people killed as well. To slur that anybody killed is basically a puppet of Saddam is grotesque. Likewise, the victims of Saddam's "blood-stained police state" are also the victims of sanctions, which were imposed by the same people now trying to invade Iraq.
>
Which the US gladly supported when it was occurring on far worse levels. Therefore the US cannot be concerned about it, since virtually the same people who didn’t care then are in power now.
>
“We” again. Please define, since US intelligence does not believe that there is a threat from Saddam, except in the event of a US attack. Therefore, the “threat” which you say needs to be countered would actually be brought about by an invasion. Again, just on presupposition you have no argument to speak of. Consequently, until you present an argument that is even remotely convincing that Iraq poses a threat to the United States (beyond dismissible rhetoric), there is not even the remotest shred of argument contained herein, as far as I can see.
>
Again, nobody wants Iraq to have nuclear weapons, so you're "refuting" an argument that doesn't exist. Everyone sane wants UN resolutions to be upheld, in particular, UNSC/RES 687 paragraph 14, which stresses the need for a “nuclear-free” Middle East. Israel flouts this with impunity (backed by the US), and until that hypocritical stance is resolved, naturally US motives will be called into question. Once again, this is exactly why virtually everyone is vigorously opposed to Saddam being allowed to develop nuclear weapons and also the reason why they rightly stressed that the West and those currently in power in the US shouldn’t have helped him to do so in the first place.
>
Actually, Japan was on the verge of surrender and the US rejected the same ceasefire terms before the bombs that it actually accepted after the bombs. Any honest person would also separate the two attacks, since even if you could argue the first was justified (I don’t think so, but you could argue it), the second clearly wasn’t and obviously timed to threaten the Soviet Union which was due to enter the war 60 days after the surrender of Germany. Nagasaki was 58 days after. The declassified record is quite clear on this, which again, you could ignore, but that doesn’t make for rational argument.
>
That since he had US support to do both, he felt he was immune from any punishment.
>
I assume that this childishness is meant to mask the lack of argument.
>
What reasons? You can delude yourself by hoping no-one will notice US oil companies drilling and exploring the 2nd largest reserves in the world after the end of Saddam, but saying "nyah nyah nyah it's not about oil!" is hardly convincing.
>
Right, go on...
>
....so it is about oil. I'm glad that one was cleared up. I enjoyed the intellectual dance around it by the way. Again, very transparent.
>
Or rather, it is so popular because previous inspections resulted in finding and destroying roughly 85-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and its means to produce them. It therefore follows that a tougher inspections regime would discover at least some evidence of WMD, if it remained. The fact that it hasn’t ought to, again, raise some interesting questions about the basis for war.
>
And when such people pass information to the inspectors, it is funny how there is never anything there isn’t it?
>
You’re jumping from step (1) to step (27). Firstly, if Iraq is burying biological or chemical weapons in the sand (even assuming it has them, and no-one thinks it has nuclear weapons), that isn’t a concern. Secondly, before you get to “actual use”, you’d have to demonstrate, a) that Iraq wants to attack the US, b) Saddam Hussein wants instant annihilation, because that would surely result, and c) that it has the means and ability to do the former. You haven’t even come close to that, for obvious reasons: you can’t.
>
It doesn’t. Article 51 of the UN Charter says “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security”. This is conventional international law, which is US is obligated by “solemn treaty” to uphold.
Customary (as opposed to conventional) international law would perhaps be flexible enough to accept a response to a demonstrably immediate and perilous threat, where the UN-SC has no time to react. For example, you could argue Israel’s attack on neighbouring Arab states in 1967 fits this definition. I wouldn’t agree with that argument (I think the documentary record and even public statements by Israeli officials show differently), but you could at least argue it. Clearly, that isn’t the case with Iraq. Therefore, conventional law applies, and the US has no right to a “pre-emptive” attack.
Furthermore, if you don’t want to follow the UN Charter, fine – have the honesty to say so, withdraw from the United Nations and the rest of the world can be spared the ignominy of having to endure all the lying.
>
It is called “appeasement” now, but it was “support” then. The US actually sat back and had a nice period of profitable neutrality from 1939-1941 while most of Europe was embroiled in a life-or-death conflict and Russia suffered horrendous casualties. Britain and the US gave support to the Nazis all throughout the 30’s, and supported fascist tendencies after the war (Greece etc). Still does in fact (see Chile, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia etc). Since no such support (or “appeasement”) exists vis a vis Iraq, sensible people can disregard this woefully lacking historical analogy.
Oh yeah, a wake-up call: Saddam isn’t Hitler.
>
Actually, it made sense to create the United Nations, which is what was done. What doesn’t make sense is undermining the UN, which is what the US is doing.
>
Which has nothing to do with Iraq.
>
Rather, I presume the CIA can imagine pretty well, since it was fermenting that bitterness and hatred when it suited its own ends. Oh, and that has nothing to do with Iraq.
>
Which has nothing to do with Iraq.
>
Precisely why the United States should reverse its policies of supporting harsh regimes which “block democracy and development”, resulting in a “campaign of hatred against us” (according to the National Security Council declassified record, answering the question “why do they hate us?”, posed by President Eisenhower).
I’m ignoring the rest because it has squat to do with Iraq (which is supposed to be the point). If there is any argument there which you could clarify, I'd be glad to address it.
Posted by: Mark Tinsley | January 27, 2003 4:51 AM
Magnificent! You don't come up to bat that often, but when you do, you belt it out of the stadium...
Posted by: Gerald Owens | January 27, 2003 5:05 AM
This is the first time I've visited your site. What a tremendous experience it was to read your essay. It takes a great soul to see great things. You've given voice to our best hopes and motivations. I only hope this view can be communicated far enough and often enough that we as a nation and then the world "have time to adapt to it."
Posted by: Judith | January 27, 2003 5:28 AM
Just one (among dozens) of factual inaccuracies in Mark Tinsley's comment: The US constitution does not "require" the United States to follow international law. Rather, what the constitution says is that international law is applied by the courts as part of the law of the land but, as the Supreme Court has said on numerous occasions, this application is expressly subject to subsequent acts of congress and to the constitution itself. Accordingly, for purposes of the US constitution, the act of congress authorizing the use of military force against Iraq governs, regardless of any international law to the contrary.
Mark Tinsley should perhaps take steps to apprise himself of the relevant legal position before seeking to argue that it supports his position.
Posted by: Haruspex | January 27, 2003 5:43 AM
Whoever "Mark Tinsley" is -- I see no e-mail address or webpage -- he's plagiarizing Robert Fisk; see http://www.atlanticblog.com/archives/000504.html#000504.
Anyway, the argument seems to rest on:
1. Iraqi suffering is caused primarily by sanctions, which were imposed by the US/UK.
2. Since the US has been reluctant or inconsistent in fighting authoritarianism in the past, it has no right to do so now.
3. It's all a put-up job by sinister forces in the Bush Administration.
One lie, one non sequitur, and one paranoid conspiracy theory.
Is attacking Iraq the best risk-management strategy? Probably not. It's just the best one we're going to get out of this Administration. It will all be over with very soon, and there will be very few civilian casualties. Some people are more afraid that it _will_ work than that it _won't_. Watch for their reaction after we've won.
Posted by: Jay Manifold | January 27, 2003 6:06 AM
"And can anyone seriously argue that the people left after the defeat of the Nazis, Japanese Imperialists or American Confederates are not far better off today than they would have been if they had WON?"
Well, we do have the case history of a nation that defeated the US at war: Viet Nam. What's the communist government there doing? Everything it possibly can to get on the good side of America. Are the Vietnamese better off or worse off by defeating the US?
Posted by: Jabba the Tutt | January 27, 2003 6:13 AM
Harusprex,
"The Constitution of the United States declares that treaties approved by the Senate are the "supreme Law of the Land" and requires the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". The UN Charter is a "solemn treaty" ratified by the Senate in the aftermath of World War II"
I'm quoting from memory the Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale, BTW.
The US cannot authorise actions which violate the UN Charter without first abrogating pro tanto the treaty it signed to establish the charter.
As for the "dozens", point 'em out.
Posted by: Mark Tinsley | January 27, 2003 6:23 AM
One thing that amazes me about people like Mr. Tinsley is that they can simultaneously decry the cost of the sanctions AND say that we should continue to avoid war until "all peaceful means have been exhausted". Sometimes, the peaceful means have a higher cost than the war ever will. Whether you place responsibility for the cost of the sanctions on the US (as Mr. Tinsley does) or on Mr. Hussein (as I do), it is clear that their usefulness has been exhausted. Mr. Tinsley, if you have another option that isn't even more naive and morally bankrupt, I'd love to hear it.
I'm sure everyone will feast on this post, but a few of Mr. Tinsley's comments hit me as being particularly hilarious...
>>Firstly, if Iraq is burying biological or chemical weapons in the sand (even assuming it has them, and no-one thinks it has nuclear weapons), that isn’t a concern.
...and my hovercraft is full of eels.
>>Saddam Hussein hasn’t killed nearly a million of his own people.
I suspect that between the Kurds, Marsh Arabs, Shiite rebels, and various political opponents, this statement is already false on its face, even if you don't blame Hussein for the cost of the sanctions. Add in the cost of the Iran-Iraq war, and he's responsible for several million deaths. Pip-pip, cheerio -- we can work with the chap! He opposes the U.S., so he must be a man of the people, what?
>>Or rather, it is so popular because previous inspections resulted in finding and destroying roughly 85-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and its means to produce them.
Hmm. So the original resolution only required 85%-95% of the weapons to be destroyed? Seems like an oversight to me...at least we're clear that he has the weapons.
>>To keep himself in power, which is routine for dictators. Also, the US supported all three then, so it cannot possibly care about such atrocities now.
Bzzzt! Wrong again, bonzo...I care. No doubt we did deal with some unsavory people in the past. With the Soviet Union gone (no doubt to Mark's dismay), we have a unique opportunity to put things right.
>> For example, you could argue Israel’s attack on neighbouring Arab states in 1967 fits this definition.
Hmm. If armies of countries who have called for your people's extermination massing on your borders isn't sufficient rationale for a preemptive attack, what is?
>>Precisely why the United States should reverse its policies of supporting harsh regimes which “block democracy and development”, resulting in a “campaign of hatred against us”
News flash: The Cold War is over, and we don't need those dictators as allies anymore. Good to see we're on the same page, Mark!
At least try to be coherent.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 27, 2003 6:24 AM
What is soul destroying is that the opinion formers of our society are so keen to espouse the cause of the enemy. I can understand Muslims in our midst when they do so; they are after all required to do so by their religion. But why are academics, church leaders etc blaming the US for threat to world peace, while supporting brutal regimes in the world?
What these people do not realise is that if a rogue state like Iraq gets nuclear capability, then Iran, its sworn religious enemy will surely acquire it as well. And both of them have made publicly clear that they will nuke Israel, given the opportunity. Given this, it is most likely that Israel will use its nukes while it still has the chance. Hello nuclear war in the ME, with a good chance of it going global.
I have often wondered if WWII and the attendant 60 million deaths could have been averted, if the Allies had forcibly prevented Germany from re-arming , as was required by the Armistice agreement.
A very similar situation pertains today, except that now we have nuclear weapons. Iraq is required by the Gulf war armistice agreements to disown all WMD capability. I dread to think what would happen if the US, the only nation capable of shouldering grownup responsibilities, was to listen to these half-baked students and political/social studies academics.
History does not always repeat itself but those who do not learn from it, may find themselves condemned to a much worse fate.
Posted by: J.Shearer | January 27, 2003 6:28 AM
I inadvertently left my name off of my earlier post -- the 6:24 am post is mine.
Posted by: R. Devlin | January 27, 2003 6:34 AM
Jay Manifold,
>
I wasn't aware identification was required to supply an argument.
http://www.atlanticblog.com/archives/000504.html#000504. >>
No doubt the fact I read that article *today* (and on Sep 2001) means it was fresh in my mind. Regardless, the point stands, unless of course, you'd like to critique the argument, rather than the source? I wasn't aware footnotes were required (this comment piece doesn't seem to have any), or I would have supplied them.
>
You disagree with both previous heads of the UN humanitarian programme, UNICEF and Save the Children? Fair enough.
>
On the contrary, the US has every right. But due scepticism should be applied when virtually the same people who were in charge supporting authoritarianism in the past are in charge now. Especially when not a word of contrition about that past behaviour has been heard. Of course, as I said, you can operate on blind faith if you like.
>
Fair enough, but since you concocted the argument you are deriding out of thin air, I don't believe I need to comment.
>
Again, on the contrary, it will likely be a pushover. You can only believe there won't be massive humanitarian consequences by dismissing all rational studies on the matter. Sane people, however, do not do so.
Posted by: Mark Tinsley | January 27, 2003 6:41 AM
Bill: Sweet! ;)
As for "Matt Tinsley," I figured him for a fool when he said "define 'United States'." Oh, hah hah, how clever and postmodern.
Posted by: Andrea Harris | January 27, 2003 6:41 AM
Your article brougth shivers to my spine! Very well said, and duly linked to... Let's get this to the top on blogdex!
Posted by: Maarten Schenk | January 27, 2003 6:44 AM
I really IS hard to admire or countenance a hit 'n run fisk posted on somebody else's weblog, without the stones to leave an email address. Makes you wonder how confident "Mark Tinsley" really is in his arguments. And if he truly sought to persuade, snide quips and rhetorical cheap shots -- um, aren't the way.
I wonder how he would run a country?
Posted by: Whackadoodle | January 27, 2003 6:47 AM
I hate being wrong. (see last post) In a way, it's good that I don't have your talent, cause I'd be too busy being happy to blog. :)
As for Mr. Tinsley: let's review.
The United States does NOT need to justify the defence of itself and its interests against an individual whose desire for aggression towards the United States and its interests are well- documented. Even if they did, I would certainly hope they would rely on a less corrupt institution than the UN Security Council, which is now an official joke on the scale of the League of Nations.
Saddam has stolen as much money as he can from his people, taking the cash they need to buy food and use it to build weaponry. If the sanctions were removed, he would no doubt accelerate his weapons program, as opposed to feeding his people. To believe otherwise is incredulous.
The terms of the Gulf War and UN Resolution 1441 dictate that, as the loser of the Gulf War, Saddam must meet conditions. He has failed, and this failure will be documented shortly after the United States commences its attack on Iraq. Fair warning has been given to the Security Council that we possess this evidence, and we no longer care for their desire for firther evidence, especially given that even during the Kosovo conflict, NATO "allies" were passing our information to other interests, information which made its way back to the Serbs. Thank you, but no. The United Nations can do NOTHING to stop America, and seeing as how America pays most of its budget, this is as it should be.
Building a nuke is difficult for individuals, as Bill pointed out. HOWEVER, given advances in science and help from current nuclear powers, to say nothing of research, it is possible for billionaires with illegal nuclear fuel (ie. SADDAM) to eventually build a bomb. You seem convinced that only superpowers can build the bomb, and only little wit can excuse your ignorance about the scientific capabilities of Iraq. They have SMART PEOPLE with OIL MONEY and a PSYCHOPATH DICTATOR, and are thus a THREAT.
Saddam destroyed the Kuwaiti oilfields, causing massive environmental devastation and risking the further wrath of the United States: doesn't this give you even the SLIGHTEST hint about his murderous ability to spite his neighbours, even if it means his death?
You seem to regard Saddam: and more importantly, his psychopath kids, as people who can possibly be contained and from whom a threat of war in the future, one with megadeath weapons, is not possible. This contemptible idiocy seriously makes me question your connection with reality. The United States HAS NOT used megadeath weapons since Nagasaki, and, as you will notice, generally only kills monsters. There is no South Korea to balance off Saddam's maniac ambitions save Israel, and even that will lead to substantial political problems for all concerned. We're invading Iraq, and putting down their dictator. Let the world pick sides as they wish.
Posted by: trevalyan | January 27, 2003 6:53 AM
Mark Tinsley may have been quoting a Yale professor correctly, but he was not quoting the US constitution completely, or at least in a manner consistent with US Supreme Court opinions on what the "supreme law of the land" clause means. These opinions make clear that treaties, as US law, can be superseded by subsequent congressional legislation.
But one doesn't even need to get that far: According to the UN's own records, more than two-thirds of UN member states have engaged in no fewer than 261 armed conflicts since the founding of the UN. Of these conflicts, only two (Korea, Kuwait) have been conducted with the authorization of the UN security council. If the US should "abrogate pro tanto" the UN Charter by commencing hostilities against Iraq, it will be in good company, including the company of virtually all of its European allies. Of course, Resolutions 687 (1991) and 1441 (2002) provide the US with sufficient authority to commence hostilities, so US action will actually present far less of an affront against the Charter's prohibition on the use of force that have other actions, notably NATO's action against Serbia ion behalf of the Kosovars, of which I suspect Mark Tinsley approves.
Finally, Haruspex is a busy professional and does not have time to refute all the errors in everything he reads. But Tinsley's arguments regarding the effects of sanctions seem particularly misplaced -- child mortality and other welfare indicators have actually improved since the introduction of sanction in those parts of Iraq not subject to Saddam's control. It is only the areas where Saddam is in control that show deterioration. Logic dictates that something other than sanctions is responsible. Could it perhaps be Saddam's rule?
Posted by: Haruspex | January 27, 2003 6:55 AM
R. Devlin,
>
Presumably you would agree that since East Timor has experienced massive atrocities on behalf of Indonesia, it therefore follows that we should support Indonesia grinding the East Timorese into dust, in order to prevent them experiencing further atrocities.
>
Precisely why the sanctions should have been lifted when it was clear they weren't disrupting Saddam Hussein but slaughtering the Iraqi people. Nobody other than the US and Britain see any point in continuing them just for that reason alone. Of course, military sanctions and trade and legal barriers preventing the development of weapons of mass destruction (thanks to Western companies) are a different matter. Those can be easily implemented, as can reducing the "inspiration" (in the words of the former head of the US nuclear command) for other nations in the Middle East to attain WMD - just tell Israel to sign the NPT and accept inspectors.
>
"I" don't place the cost of the sanctions on the US. I'm simply quoting others, since I haven't been to Iraq. I rely on such radical outfits as Save the Children, UNICEF and left-wing heretics such as Madeline Albright and the former heads of the UN humanitarian programme in Iraq.
I'm sure everyone will feast on this post, but a few of Mr. Tinsley's comments hit me as being particularly hilarious...
>
So you *are* concered if Saddam buries weapons in sand?
>
Glad you put "suspect" in there. Try counting the figures.
>
I assume the childish language masks the insecurity of having no argument to speak of.
>
100%.
>
85-95% were destroyed and *accounted* for. There is no proof that the other 5-10% exist, and no proof they doesn't exist. Hence the inspectors.
>
And present.
>
First, apologising for supporting Saddam would be in order. Since that hasn't been done (by the same people who are in power now), I see absolutely no reason to take them seriously. Again, you can operate on blind faith if you like.
As for the Soviet Union, the comment is so childish as to barely merit laughter on my part.
>
"The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." (Menachem Begin)
>
The Cold War has nothing to do with it. Hence why after the collapse of the Soviet Union when Congress was asked to ratify a military budget just as large as the one preceding it, it was justified on the basis that the money was to protect against threats in the Middle East which "could not be laid at the Kremlin's door".
As for "dictators as allies", what percentage of the vote do you think the Egyptian President achieved?
98%.
And this is of course, the same moral adminstration which derided the 100% by Saddam. Furthermore, I see no need to point out "democracies" such as the likes of Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and all the rest. Again, choose not to look at the record if you like, but I see no reason to take you seriously if you don't.
Posted by: Mark Tinsley | January 27, 2003 7:08 AM
Oh, and Bill? As for your comments on Frank's blog...
Let's just say, we'd probably DONATE our blood mixed with Pepsi and rum if we thought it would make you live longer. ;)
Posted by: trevalyan | January 27, 2003 7:11 AM
Bill...as you say, many people argue that "We have thousands of nuclear weapons…it’s hypocritical to say Iraq can not have them also."
What's interesting is that the what is in effect the *exact same argument* was made by those who opposed taking action against Nazi Germany (specifically, during the Rhineland crisis of 1936). See my article "Baghdad on the Rhine" at:
http://www.photoncourier.blogspot.com/2002_10_20_photoncourier_archive.html#83479766
Posted by: David Foster | January 27, 2003 7:28 AM
No, the sanctions have performed that duty (the Gulf slaughter you no doubt praise didn’t help). Saddam Hussein hasn’t killed nearly a million of his own people. The UN oil-for-food programme is one of the “best run programmes [the UN] has seen in almost 40 years” according to the previous head of it (who incidentally, resigned in protest like his predecessor, calling them “genocide”).
"Hmmm . . . build another outrageously lavish palace, or buy food and medicine for the people of Iraq? Gosh, it's a tough choice . . . both have their merits, really . . . and I can always use another palace . . . Yeah, I think I'm gonna go with 'palace.'"
Posted by: Phil Dennison | January 27, 2003 7:28 AM
Mark Tinsley writes:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course, military sanctions and trade and legal barriers preventing the development of weapons of mass destruction (thanks to Western companies) are a different matter. Those can be easily implemented, as can reducing the "inspiration" (in the words of the former head of the US nuclear command) for other nations in the Middle East to attain WMD - just tell Israel to sign the NPT and accept inspectors.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes--this "easy" implementation really worked with India and Pakistan, didn't it? But then again, they weren't signatories to the NPT either. Lord knows that treaties are sancrosanct. No one dares violate them. That's why North Korea doesn't have nukes; it DID sign the NPT. All it takes to solve any problem is laws and treaties. That's why we don't have a heroin problem in the US. Its illegal to import the stuff. Right?
Posted by: Anonymous | January 27, 2003 7:28 AM
The post at 7:28 was mine. Sorry.
Posted by: Gray1 | January 27, 2003 7:31 AM
>
I presume the lack of attributable argument suffices to further codify what I wrote earlier. Unsurprising, since it was factual.
>
Needless to say, nonsense. There have been around 40-50 interstate conflicts between 1946-2003. I can cite you sources if you like.
>
Quote me the UN/S/RES document which says Iraq should be attacked please. Exact words will do.
>
You'd suspect wrong. I have no opinion on the matter either way. There were however, ample alternatives to bombing, which were not pursued. Depending on how they were following (they weren't) would affect my opinion on whether bombing would be justified.
>
But has time to reply, naturally. I'll dismiss the "I don't have time to attribute facts" argument with the contempt it deserves.
>
Rather, logic dictates paying some attention to the facts. Kurdistan has roughly 12-15% of Iraq's population and 14% of OFF revenue. Central-Southern Iraq has the remainder of the population, but gets only 57% of oil-for-food income. Oil smuggling is also rife in the Northern areas, with probably turnover for the KDP of $200m, which is spent on the local economy. Northern Iraq also gets a cash component from the OFF and INGO work is more broad there, and has been working for longer.
Again, the fact that Saddam is a horrible dictatatorial monster doesn't need to be argued. But simple sanity would conclude that this cannot be the reason for the current "crisis" since the same was true back when the US and others were supporting him, right through his worst atrocities. In fact, most of those people are the ones currently in charge.
The real reasons are ample, well documented and it takes remarkable tenacity not to look for them, IMO.
Posted by: Mark Tinsley | January 27, 2003 7:40 AM
>
With meaningful provisions, backed by some teeth. I presume you're opposed to the US gutting the Biological weapons convention, and voting against the entire world on putting nuclear weapons in space? If so, why would you trust the same people to stop prolifieration of WMD, since they voted for both actions and both will bring about the exact opposite?
Oh, and threatening to attack other countries so that they are forced to develop WMD as a deterrent doesn't help either. If you seriously want to argue that "might makes right", why not call on the US to do what I suggested - namely, withdraw from the UN and abrogate all international treaties? Then I would credit you with honesty.
Posted by: Mark Tinsley | January 27, 2003 7:52 AM
Jabba the Tutt writes:
: "And can anyone seriously argue that the
: people left after the defeat of the Nazis,
: Japanese Imperialists or American
: Confederates are not far better off today
: than they would have been if they had WON?"
: Well, we do have the case history of a
: nation that defeated the US at war: Viet
: Nam. What's the communist government
: there doing? Everything it possibly can
: to get on the good side of America. Are
: the Vietnamese better off or worse off
: by defeating the US?
Jabba, it's arguable, but I think the Vietnamese are worse off for defeating the US, particularly if you compare them to the South Koreans, Taiwanese, or Japanese. (North Korea is, IMHO, a better case study of defeating the US at war - it's practically a twin study since we have South Korea to compare it to). The world as a whole might be a little better off because the *Cambodians* are better off for losing a war to the Vietnamese, but that's awfully complicated.
Of course I'll grant that there are certainly some situations in history where a people would be better off not being conquered by the US. (That's a funny sentence to write, and obviously true).
Still, it might be instructive to answer the original question -- do you think that the people ruled by the Japanese, German, or Confederate goverments (including, of course, the Chinese, French, Jews, Romani, and American slaves) would have been better off if those governments had beaten the US.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 27, 2003 7:59 AM
Bravo.....Bravo.....Gut wrenching. Tear Jerking. Morale Building.
I want to say more, but mere words fail me.
Posted by: Claudia Stephens | January 27, 2003 8:00 AM
Mark, All arguments from bothsides don't mean anything. The telling words are"Battle for Iraq" NOT "War with Iraq." Iraq is just another part of the WoT. If you can't see look at a map. Bottom line - Iraq is next and the Iraqi peole will be the ones who most benefit after their liberation. Why do you have a problem with that? What's wrong with liberating a nation from a violent nasty dictator, helping the larger WoT, and taking control away from said dictator any WMD he has? The rest of your hyperbole can't answer this one (no parsing its a package) simple question. I have yet to here anything logical from the peace activists that refutes this. What is wrong with doing what is right now?
Bill - outstanding post! You will never convince the hate-Bush and anti-American crowd. Just will not happen.
Posted by: buffpilot | January 27, 2003 8:10 AM
Mark Tinsley is sane, which makes a nice change for "ejectejecteject". Keep going, Mark.
"Bill Whittle is the reincarnated G.K. Chesterton"; man, that tongue-in-cheek Catholic-cum-heretic would be revolving in his wise and self-mocking grave. Whoever wrote that...well, words can't say.
M.g.
Posted by: m. gurl | January 27, 2003 8:12 AM
Mark Tinsley should read read resolution 1441 more carefully. Recital 10 (in exact words):
"Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,"
And Section 1:
[The Security Council] "Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions 687 (1991)."
Now, think like an international lawyer for a minute. If Iraq is and has been in material breach of its obligations under 687, and 687 is the basis for the ceasefire, then what is the current state of the ceasefire? Still in full force and effect, despite the fact that its factual underpinnings have been destroyed? That is an extremely difficult position to defend, and can only be defended by those who take the position that public international law binds only the United States but not other countries.
Mr. Tinsley might also wish to consult Section 13 of Resolution 1441, which speaks of "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations of its obligations.
Posted by: Haruspex | January 27, 2003 8:12 AM
I have to express my admiration at the fortitude and perseverence that you all have displayed in actaully *reading* "Mark Tinsely." Frankly, he lost me after this little bit o' fiskin':
">
A bit like the US invasion of Panama, although that didn't have a remotely credible pretext. And the Israeli invasion of Lebanon makes Kuwait look like a tea party."
I'm not going to respond to, or refute, such foolishness. I'm not even going to read the rest. Any piece that starts in this manner is clearly worth less than it's weight in lark's vomit.
Posted by: Xenophon | January 27, 2003 8:24 AM
Excellent, Bill, excellent!
Posted by: BarCodeKing | January 27, 2003 8:29 AM
Bill, you are a brilliant man.
You must let me write the intro to your book, which you WILL write some day. :)
Posted by: Rachel | January 27, 2003 8:30 AM
Bill -
Marvelous piece, and long overdue in some quarters.
You should seriously consider excluding any further discourse from "Mark Tinsley" - he's had MORE than his fair bite of the apple, and has pretty clearly shown himself to be a troll - a troll with access to some lawbooks, fairly erudite, but still a troll. His spurious "fisking" has so many holes and misstatements, it's obscuring rather than enlighteneing, which appears to be his primary objective.
Again, great piece - when do you publish your book?
Posted by: JB | January 27, 2003 8:31 AM
A nice long post, and you should rightly be proud of it. But it doesn't get you to the other side, it just gets you to take the leap.
Most of the noise over Iraq misses the key points. First, the anti-war guys: our President has said this guy has got to go. That may not have been smart. (Our President booted North Korea so badly, no intelligent person should cut him slack. He's a knucklehead. But he's OUR knucklehead.) When an American President says of a dictator whom we defeated in a war but let survive, that THIS time, he's gotta go -- he's got to go. Next question.
Second, the pro-war guys. It is a helluva lot easier to start a war then to end it well. Ask the Daddy Bush's advisors why we didn't take out Saddam the first time -- we didn't have support from NATO or Japan or Saudi Arabia, not even the Gulf States. Hell, Kuwait was ambivalent. All that planning and wargaming, but nobody could work out how to handle an Iraq without Saddam: what about the Kurds? If there was a new Kurdistan in Iraq, what happens to Turkey? What about Iraq's Shiites? Do they get help and support from Iran -- and what happens to the Shiite minority in Saudi Arabia.
The same guys who couldn't solve these problems 12 years ago, are telling the President that they can solve 'em now. Riiight.
Finally -- Bush isn't rushing to war. He doesn't want to go to war at all. He'd never admit it, but I bet Bush read Xun-dze when he was getting his Harvard MBA, or at least sat through lectures about military strategy applied to business, which was popular at the time. Plus, he's his father's son and Saddam tried to kill the old man: in a sense he has shown remarkable restraint. He wants this guy gone -- and he's been squeezing him since before 9-11.
But if he doesn't go on his own -- and I'm betting he won't, and the guy who got his start as a hit man has good personal security -- that just makes the second graf more important than the first.
But not overwhelming. This is gonna be rough, folks.
Posted by: "TheAmericanist" | January 27, 2003 8:35 AM
Okay, the third person is bugging me. :)
Anyway, whether there is or is not a "ceasefire" is not the point. Are you saying a breached resolution, or a non-existent cease-fire declared in a resolution to expel Iraq from Kuwait ten years ago retroactively justifies an invasion of Iraq in the present? If so, why don't you just say that so I can ridicule it?
Just to show the absurdity, were you calling for the invasion of Israel and the overthrow of the regime because the demands of UN/S/RES 425 were not met? ("Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory" - Israel stayed for two decades and killed approx 20,000 people. Like I said above, Kuwait was a tea party).
How about the invasion of Israel because the UN/SC condemned it for "armed aggression" in "flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and norms of conduct"?
And so on and so on. Quite clearly, if UN resolutions are being upheld for an invasion (Kuwait) on the one hand, but tolerated (Lebanon), on the other, again sanity dictates that the resolutions themselves cannot be the reason for the actions being contemplated. More so since the disparity is not acknowledged by those proposing to implement the resolutions in hand.
Therefore, you have to look for the other reasons. Again, assuming you want to be taken seriously, which you plainly don't.
Posted by: Mark Tinsley | January 27, 2003 8:38 AM
Tinsley is doing a bad Chomsky impression.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 27, 2003 8:41 AM
Methinks I smell a Troll with Mr. Tinsley...His arguments lack real substance and are based upon some really flawed logic and some very silly premises.
I've done the same thing to provoke discussions when it was plain that the argument presented made a bit too much sense. See, that takes the fun out of it - so you have to put on another ID and then come in from WAAAYY out in Left Field to start the fun. That could be why there's no e-mail ID....
I mean c'mon people - his posts are childish, illogical, inaccurate, and not terribly cohesive...Rather than supplying a counter-argument, he's simply attacking individual portions of individual points. That's not the writing of someone really presenting a counter argument but it IS a fun way to make people crazy.
Let me try to play Devil's Advocate and present a case AGAINST war in my next message...
Orion
Posted by: Orion | January 27, 2003 8:42 AM
With meaningful provisions, backed by some teeth.
...as long as we never actually use those teeth. That's bound to impress 'em, just watch how compliant Saddam has been over the last 12 years. We already HAVE provisions, backed by teeth. It's called a "ceasefire agreement". These things are built along the lines of "you no want to get hurt further, you do this, we cease fire. You NOT do this, we pound you into dust". (Simplified for Idiotarian reading comprehension).
Oh, and threatening to attack other countries so that they are forced to develop WMD as a deterrent doesn't help either.
"I didn't WANT to do it, officer, but he MADE me do it!"
Never heard THAT one before. Listen, if you do it anyway, then you force US to turn you into ground meat, capice?
why not call on the US to do what I suggested - namely, withdraw from the UN and abrogate all international treaties?
Would work for me, since the UN has no authority over us, is made up of mainly dictatorships, is an unelected body and furthermore a complete and utter waste of breath. So let's get on with it. Shove the bastards into the East River already.
Ah... Trying to teach Idiotarians to argue is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It won't work, it'll still sound like a squeal and it annoys the shit out of the pig.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 27, 2003 8:43 AM
I recommend reading the article found at http://www.aijac.org.au/review/1998/233/linkage2.html. It helps to answer the question of "Why Israel is not like Iraq" in the context of UN resolutions.
Posted by: Weiner |