Currency Lad seems to be down on someone called Saddam Hussein. It’s not clear who’s being referred to here. Certainly not the Saddam Hussein who collected $300 million from the Oil-for-Food fund, courtesy of the Australian government statutory authority/official privatised monopoly AWB (formerly the Australian Wheat Board). That’s a beatup of no interest.
I’ve generally been an admirer of Currency Lad, but this is truly dreadful stuff. Either he should stop insulting his readers with moralising about Saddam* and present an honest realpolitik line, or he should condemn without reservation those who financed Saddam’s arms purchases, and those who either encouraged them or looked the other way.
To be clear in advance, this includes all those who colluded in evading sanctions, whether they were from France, Russia, the US or elsewhere. However, as we now know, AWB operated on a scale that dwarfed the petty operators about whom we heard so much from the pro-war lobby until recently.
* Or anything else. If you’re willing to swallow this, your opinions on ethics aren’t worth considering regardless of the topic.
John Quiggin 
Hey Andrew opening this can of worms entails that you must back regime change for numerous countries.
Bringing down one tyrant -when there is oil involved- sounds great but what about the people who aren’t lucky enough to have oil in their backyard? Your champions of democracy and freedom are only fair weather moralists, selective justice when it suits.
What about countries that have backed terrorism or brought down democratically elected governments tortured, kidnapped, unlawfully imprisoned? Opps there goes the US.
Even if we were pragmatic and went after states that could be brought down imagine the list you would have do you imagine the COW when they are out of Iraq will say one down who’s next?
If the Bush team had been at all competent they could got away with this but as it is this 300 000 could yet be bettered by the COW.
To your question, since we aren’t likely to go after other states that don’t have oil I would keep with containment and targeted sanctions.
CL maybe JQ could put up his link for Annan’s resignation when you put advocate one for Bush.
Shorter C. L.: denial has always worked for me.
Am I on a warning?
It’s all about the Oil!!
Guess that’s why young Master Annan worked in the industry.
His Dad didn’t know anything was up, of course.
😉
CL misrepresents Philip Adams’ “where are the bodies?” question. Tony Blair had claimed “We’ve already discovered, just so far, the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves”. Downing Street was eventually forced to admit that this claim was untrue, prompting Adams to ask his question. More details here.
It is true that a lot of bodies have been found in mass graves in Iraq. The number is more than 5,000. But CL treats an estimate, based on who knows what, of 300,000 as gospel truth, while rejecting the Lancet estimate of excess deaths, which was based on sound epidemiology because
C.L. retails so many false assumptions amid his fallacious debating points it’s a trial to pin them down. One that should be frimly scotched, since it’s germaine to the current propaganda buildup to a military adventure in Iran, is “As Tehran has stated repeatedly that it wants to eliminate the Jewish race”. Not so. The egregious Iranian president actually said “If European countries claim that they have killed Jews in World War II… why don’t they provide the Zionist regime with a piece of Europe.” Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4510922.stm Certainly an implicit call for the destruction of the Jewish state on its current site, but not a demand for implementation of the Final Solution. By all means excoriate the Tehran fundamentalists, but spare us the exaggerations.
In this context, I note that the American religious right’s support for Israel is premised on the notion that at the End of Days all Jews who fail to accept Jesus will perish in the flames. If that’s not a call for the extermination of Jews I don’t know what is. These nutters are given access to, and well-paid jobs in, the Bush White House. http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0420,perlstein,53582,1.html
Be afraid.
Bush tells Iraqi P.M. to step down
BAGHDAD, March 28 (UPI) — The Bush administration has told Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari he is unacceptable as head of the next government, the New York Times reports.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060328-023225-9707r
Shorter Bush (for the benefit of persons with CL’s attention span): you Eye-Rackies can vote, and you’ll keep voting until you get it right.
With this news, finally, the real war begins in Iraq. Finally, the US has identified its real enemy.
But it’s all too, too late.
Bush has just nominated himself as the biggest putz ever to inhabit the White House.
CL, most world leaders have embarrassing relatives who trade on their names. Neil Bush, Mark Thatcher and Billy Carter come to mind.
If you think such an indirect link is enough to justify Annan’s resignation (and I agree it’s a black mark against his name) why aren’t you calling for the resignations of Downer and Vaile among others – they are far closer to much bigger corruption than Annan senior.
And coming soon JQ: Hugh Rodham.
CL, this is from the link you provided about the conspiracy between Saddam and Al Qaeda:
Less well known is the informant’s nickname, “K.Y. ball”. The rest of the cited ‘evidence’ is nonsensical. For example:
To the extent anything can be read into that, it would confirm the termination of their nuclear program, but who can say for sure. You have other tapes attesting to an ongoing uranium enrichment program that the Iraq Survey Group- who had unfettered access to every corner of the country, and all files that the US hadn’t allowed to be looted- had going defunct in the 80s. Yup- watertight. The greatest irony is of course the way that piece concludes:
So tell us some more stories CL. Tell us the one where justice is served by an Iraqi civil war, followed by a humbled COW retreat that leaves Afghanistan cubed. If you’re for the war, ipso facto you were for such an outcome. Ergo you’re a terrorist collaborator. Just following your logic sunshine.
PS, Stephen Hayes revelations (and, relatedly, privileged access to the Ministry of Truth) notwithstanding, the 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. These findings of course take into account the extent to which the administration relied on a single compromised source for intelligence on that relationship.
“They [Leftists] want more Iraqis to be killed at the hands of terrorists because they don’t like George Bush and John Howard …” – c.l.
John, that goes way beyond the bounds of civilised discourse – it is a true blood libel. It warrants immediate suspension until an apology is received.
At the very least, don’t feed the troll.
PrQ,
Very well – and this has to be on the practical level. You have to take care of what you can. Kim Jong Il is a worse (if you can measure such things) threat to the rest of the world than Saddam. The problem is he is effectively protected by China and now has nuclear weapons, so an attack in Kim Jong Il at the very least invites a nuclear response from him and possibly a Chinese ripost.
With Chinese protection, which he has, he must be considered untouchable. The important thing is to stop these guys getting nuclear weapons in the first place. Once that happens it is a whole new ball game. Thanks to the Israelis, that happened in the case of Iraq.
Now, PrQ. Saddam?
Yes AR, practicalities.
As you say:
“You have to take care of what you can.”
Just how “practical” have the COW been in handling the removal of Saddam?
Now think about this practical problem: has the bellicosity of the Bush clique increased or decreased the likelihood of a nuke becoming the property of Islamist radicals?
Consider these questions:
1. Has Bush increased or decreased the likelihood of a united world response to the development of an Iranian nuclear capacity.
2, Has the Iraq misadventure undermined US capacity to invade Iran?
and perhaps more troublingly:
3. Has the Iraq misadventure made it more likely that Islamists will take power in Pakistan, already a nuclear state.
4. Does US failure in Iraq make a rise of isolationism in the United States more likely?
These are practical questions that ought to have been considered before committing to regime change in Iraq.
If you answer “yes” to any of them, that answer serves as a practical argument against Bush’s Iraq fiasco.
Katz,
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn’t it.
The answer would clearly have been no to all of them if the Iraq situation had been well handled. As it is the answer is indeterminate to all of them – the future is an unknown on 3 and 4 and it is interesting to see that you appear to believe that the capacity to invade Iran is a good thing in questions 1 and 2.
On 2 – I do not think even the US would show enough hubris as to invade Iran, even before Iraq. A limited mission to destroy the nuclear facilities is much more likely.
On 1, I think the US action actually increased the likelihood of a united response. The demonstration that they were willing to act alone showed the other permanent members that they had to act to remain relevant.
AR,
Hindsight exists only if you change your mind in the light of experience.
The trick is to have a good idea about what will happen before it happens.
There are several people who post on this blog alone who didn’t need hindsight to arrive at a fair appreciation of the god-awful pickle the dwindling members of the COW find themselves in today.
And further up this thread you asked some of us to explain ourselves.
We have.
We were correct in our predictions. We would not have invaded.
Now look what has happened to the debate over the invasion of Iraq. (Now only 30% of Americans think it was a good idea, down from 70%.) Back in those days the catchphrase was that “we are all neocons now”. And we opponents of invasion were called “objective traitors”. How times change. I guess we’re all traitors now.
In the years since the invasion, erstwhile proponents of invasion have either recanted or they have redefined their minimal victory conditions to conform in some way with the facts that now exist on the ground. Most of this adjustment of definitions of minimal victory conditions is driven by denial.
Frankly I care little about what this latter group of people now think. They have disqualified themselves from intelligent discussion by shifting their ground while denying that they have shifted their ground. They are either stupid or dishonest.
Winners are grinners. The rest can make their own arrangements.
AR, you still haven’t given an answer to the question.
“If you believe Kim-Jong Il shouldn’t be the ruler of North Korea, how would you have removed him before now”.
So, I’ll put it back to you as two Yes-No questions.
Do you believe Kim-Jong Il should be the ruler of North Korea?
Do you support his forcible and immediate removal, given the likely costs?
To play fair, I’ll give my Yes-No answers for Saddam as of March 2003, and for Kim Jong-Il today. In both cases they are No and No. I assume the same is true for you regarding Kim Jong-Il.
Having disposed of the bogus idea, implicit in the original post, that a “No” answer to the first question implies a “yes” answer to the second, we come to costs and benefits.
I thought in March 2003 that the likely costs of removing Saddam would exceed the benefits. Although the outcome hasn’t been the worst possible, it’s been worse than I expected. As most Americans now agree, the decision to remove Saddam was (at best) a mistake
Katz funny it would seem many of the pro-war crowd are also those justifying the AWB bribes to Saddam showing they have no idea about moral reasoning. As far as I’m concerned that puts them in the Bolt, Ackerman, Devine class of right wing apologist and there is no point in debate their political bias makes them no more than parrots.
Too bad this forum cannot attract some moderate right wingers we can have a sensible debate with, ones that will call a spade a spade.
It was interesting that when the OFF scandal broke, the pro-war right were busy labelling those involved as ‘Saddams friends’ etc, but they were assuming it was the Fench and Russians, and those against military action in general, who were primarily responsible.
They are a bit quiter about it these days.
JQ – one problem with your ‘costs and benefits’ notion is that the main costs are borne by people with no input into the decision. The main costs involved in the Iraq war are paid by those who have suffered death and injury, mostly Iraqis.
Before the calculation even gets started, I deny that Bush et al the right to decide that people on the other side of the globe must sacrifice their lives for his cause, and that their loss is only to be considered as part of a gloriously rational balance sheet. For that matter, I deny you that right.
“They are a bit quiter about it these days. ”
Not so sure that’s true. The OFF scandal did at least shed some light on why some permanent council members were reluctant to enforce resoutions they voted for themselves. Some of the recent revelations about Russia tipping Saddam off about coalition plans haven’t helped Russia either. Schroeder goes to work for a Russian gas company? Come on. It looks like the French and Russians WERE Saddam’s friends in March 2003, at the very least they thought they could stop the coalition from taking on Saddam and apparently they convinced Saddam himself that they could stop it.
It’s amusing that people comfortable at home in democracies think they get to decide if the “benefits” of removing a Saddam or a Kim Jong-Il for that matter are “worth” the costs. Of course, they aren’t bearing the brunt of living under such monsters. I’d imagine they’d find the benefits well worth the costs if they had to do so. Are we so far removed from living under such conditions that we have absolutely no conscience when it comes to others having to live that way?
It’s amusing that people comfortable at home in democracies think they get to decide if the “benefits” of removing a Saddam or a Kim Jong-il for that matter are “worth” the costs.
Yes, it is. I am very amused that you decided the “benefit” of removing Saddam was “worth” the costs that other people would have to pay.
“Yes, it is. I am very amused that you decided the “benefitâ€? of removing Saddam was “worthâ€? the costs that other people would have to pay.”
As I am amused that you decided that their lives weren’t worth the cost they would have to pay by remaining under Saddam. Why aren’t YOU living under a Saddam if it’s not so bad? How about trading places with some poor soul in North Korea? Not interested? What a suprise.
PrQ,
You are right that the question is a glib debating point and I withdraw.
.
Thanks, however, for rephrasing the questions the way you did to add in the likely costs. Given the likely costs and what was known at the time my answers for Saddam would still be No and Yes. You admit to have been wrong on the costs, but on the downside. I admit to have been wrong on the costs, but on the upside. The benefit, in getting rid of an aggressive dictator and threat to the surrounding countries, remains. Given hindsight, I was more wrong than you. Given what was publically known or believed before the war, I still believe the original decision was right – the fact it has been mucked up since is the pity, not the original decision.
I would agree with you on Kim Jong Il, now he is likely to have nuclear weapons the cost/benefit analysis is now tipped strongly towards a non-military response. The real issue is what happens if the Kim regime believes it is threatened from any direction – would they use the bomb against their own people?
.
Katz,
I have never accused the anti-war crowd of being traitors and several times have objected when that sort of accusation has been made.
You can be a winner and grinner all you like, but a stopped clock is correct twice a day. That does not mean I will use it as a guide 24/7.
“would they use the bomb against their own people”?
Of course they would. They starve their own people by the millions.
“Given what was publically known or believed before the [Iraq] war, I still believe the original decision was right – the fact it has been mucked up since is the pity, not the original decision.”
AR, surely you now see that your intellectual gyrations as quoted above are described by what I said in my earlier post:
“In the years since the invasion, erstwhile proponents of invasion have either recanted or they have redefined their minimal victory conditions to conform in some way with the facts that now exist on the ground. Most of this adjustment of definitions of minimal victory conditions is driven by denial.”
Specifically, you are implying that the US and the rest of the COW were capable of exerting greater force and/or exerting force more effectively to achieve some satisfactory solution.
1. You haven’t explained where that military might and/or intelligence may have come from in the world as we know it.
2. You haven’t explained what you mean by minimal acceptable victory conditions.
Ergo: DENIAL DENIAL DENIAL.
Despite all, I still believe that you are capable of better AR.
Katz,
If you can read that into what I have said then I also believe you are capable of better. I have not recented or redefined victory – or at least I cannot see where I have.
There were, on the other hand, several decision taken after the defeat of the regime that were, with hindsight, wrong. These include disbanding the army, police and a wholesale de-Baathification of the government, effectively leaving the country without any real form of administration. This greatly increased the cost of administration and built the insurgency with former army and police personnel. Without that, it is easy (and, IMHO, correct) to argue that the current insurgency (or civil war – the difference is semantics) would not be where it is today.
That does not mean that the original decision was incorrect, however.
AR,
All of the following:
“disbanding the army, police and a wholesale de-Baathification of the government, effectively leaving the country without any real form of administration”
weren’t accidental or a mistake. They were an integral and essential part of the victory conditions, as defined by the Bush Clique, in the heady days of the neocon ascendancy.
In other words, all you decent proponents of the war believed that it was being fought for an entirely different set of victory conditions than those that were being pursued by the Bush Clique.
You decent proponents of the war saw a image of yourselves in Bush.
You could be forgiven for this. You were tricked into this illusion.
But by now you should see through the illusion. If you haven’t by now, then I pity you.
As an opponent of the war, I correctly recognised that the Bush Clique had evolved some maximalist victory conditions. I correctly recognised that they would be incapable of achieving these maximalist victory conditions. And finally, I predicted correctly that any attempt to achieve these victory conditions would vitiate achievement of any worthwhile war aims.
All you need to do AR is to correct your appreciation of the motives of the Bush Clique in invading Iraq. That is, you need to recognise that those actions you accurately list weren’t accidental; they were planned. After that, everything else follows.
Katz,
I am glad you knew ahead of time what was in Bush’s head. I just thought it was a series of errors.
What is he going to do next?
Why aren’t YOU living under a Saddam if it’s not so bad? How about trading places with some poor soul in North Korea? Not interested? What a suprise.
As I’ve said nothing about life under Saddam being “not so bad”, I’d appreciate it if you’d stop putting words into my mouth.
Tell me: do you plan on trading places with some poor soul in North Korea? No? Neither do I. Do you believe the US should march on Pyongyang in the near future? Probably not, in which case we’re in the same boat. And your point is…
“As I’ve said nothing about life under Saddam being “not so badâ€?
for THEM, not for you. You know quite well why YOU wouldn’t have wanted to live in Iraq under Saddam.
“Tell me: do you plan on trading places with some poor soul in North Korea? No? Neither do I.”
I didn’t think you would. Cause it’s ok for the North Korean people to have to put up with Kim, but not for you. THAT would be unreasonable.
Face it, the benefits would well outweigh the costs, if it were you trying to stay alive in North Korea or Iraq.
“What is he going to do next?”
AR this is what I said here on 7 December 2004:
https://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2004/12/07/bremers-last-gift/
“The kicker is that once the Shia have taken control of the administration after the January 2005 elections they will be in a position to utterly dismantle US arrangements to derail popular sovereignty.
“And my guess is that by the end of 2005 the Bush administration will accept virtually any illusion of success as a signal to withdraw from Iraq.
“Sistani 1, Bush 0.
“BTW Japanese oil interests have been playing a very subtle game sewing up concessions in Southern Iraq and also just across the border in Eastern Iran. This oil is probably going to flow not into the Arabian Gulf, but north through Russia to China, India and Japan.
“China, Japan, Russia, India, Iran 1, US 0”
It is now 31 March 2006. I see no reason to change my mind.
for THEM, not for you.
Oh for God’s sake! Yes, I did get the point you were trying to make: that by failing to support the invasion of Iraq I was condemning the Iraqis to a life of living hell under Saddam. It’s not an orginal point and it even has a nugget of validity.
Please answer my question, though: do you believe the US should march on Pyongyang in the near future to relieve the suffering of the North Koreans?
I believe that all people who think that North Koreans should not have to live lives of utter desperation, starving and dying in work camps, should get together and tell Kim Jong-il that he’s finished. Surely there are more people like us, who do not think that North Koreans are any more deserving of such treatment than we are, than there are people who think it’s ok for Kim Jong-il to kill thousands of people every year. No?
I’m sure you’re right, avaroo, but I don’t think “get[ting] together and tell[ing] Kim Jong-il that he’s finished” is really likely to achieve anything. Nevertheless, it’s interesting that you seem to think there’s a course of action that’s preferable to direct military intervention.
In other words, I hope you can appreciate that there are parallels between your attitude towards Kim and my attitude towards Saddam.
“I’m sure you’re right, avaroo, but I don’t think “get[ting] together and tell[ing] Kim Jong-il that he’s finishedâ€? is really likely to achieve anything. ”
So we just do nothing?
“Nevertheless, it’s interesting that you seem to think there’s a course of action that’s preferable to direct military intervention.”
Where did I say that? If those of us who believe that there’s nothing about North Koreans that makes them any less worthy of not living under a Kim Jong-il than the rest of us, tell Kim, either you leave or we’re taking you out, why wouldn’t that work? Do you think there aren’t enough of us who feel the same way as you and I do, that it would make a difference?
“In other words, I hope you can appreciate that there are parallels between your attitude towards Kim and my attitude towards Saddam.”
There is no appreciable difference between Saddam and Kim. They are(were) both monsters. And the people who believe that Iraqis deserve no less than we do should have gotten together and told Saddam “Enough”. Either you step down or we’re taking you out. Of course, many of us who believe that Iraqis are worthy of living the same kind of lives we enjoy, DID do exactly that. But some people who SAY they believe that Iraqis are worthy of living lives in freedom as we do, refused to tell Saddam that, making their claims that they believe as we do, rather unconvincing, shall we say?
Hopefully, you recognize that EVERYONE has to be on the same page in order for this to work. It’s no longer acceptable for some people to mouth platitudes about how the Iraqi or Korean people are worthy of living better lives while refusing to put their actions where their mouths are.
Avaroo, working for politicians I soon learnt that letters with lots of capital letters in them were from folk with, how shall I put this delicately – reality connection difficulties. It’s the equivalent of shouting all the time.
Your feigned concern for the welfare of Iraqi citizens lends little weight to your bellowed arguments. A great number of Iraqis enjoy now the freedom of the grave, who might otherwise be leading relatively happy lives. US military tactics have from the outset involved disproportionate force in circumstances where widespread civilian casualties were inevitable- showing that in both the morality and the hearts and minds businesses nothing has been learnt from the Vietnam conflict.
The US supports tyrannies throughout the world, and happily topples democratically elected governments wherever those governments’ policies conflict with US commercial or political interests – most recently in Haiti, but the list is long and well known. Among the numerous tyrants who have basked under US support was Saddam Hussein – and there he would still be basking had he not foolishly challenged US interests in 1990. If you have concern for the oppressed of the world much could be done without warfare merely by withdrawing US support for the governments of Guatemala and Colombia, to mention two close at hand. I could be wrong, but I doubt you have been seen in recent demonstrations outside the White House demanding an end to US support for death squad regimes in those two benighted tyrannies.
So my suggestions are: 1. stop shouting. 2. remove the log jam of planks from your own eye before yelling about the motes in the moral universes of those who oppose the initiation of the disaster unfolding in Iraq.
avaroo,
While the Chinese (another group of monsters, just not as bad as they were under Mao) continue to support Kim Jong Il we either have to accept his continued rule or accept war against the Chinese. No other options, I am afraid. The Chinese regime will not want the collapse of the DPRK either.
.
Katz,
Interesting that you said “…by the end of 2005…”. It is now 1 April and no withdrawal in sight. Given you analysis of the subject, when will it happen?
Perhaps I should also ask, and this is the real question that CL and I should have put above, given that you believe that invasion of Iraq was not the answer, what would have been?
Simply saying “not invading” is not an answer to this – I am looking for a positive response. If you can provide one on Kim Jong Il then you will get two marks.
Somehow I think I will get a negative or sarcastic response.
“given that you believe that invasion of Iraq was not the answer, what would have been”
What was the question? I thought it was supposed to have been Hussein threatening the US with nuclear weapons. In which case, the answer quite clearly was “nothing”.
AR, I’m happy to answer with a few points
(1) With the military capacity diverted to preparations for Iraq, do the job properly in Afghanistan including capturing/killing OBL and Mullah Omar.
(2) Use most of the trillion dollars (low estimate) the war is going to cost over the next ten years to end world poverty, following the Sachs plan and save millions of lives
(3) Use $100 billion or so to buy friends in the Middle East, offering lavish aid to any regime willing to undertake democratic reforms, give Abbas enough money that he would have been able to fend off Hamas, etc.
(4) On Iraq, stick with the policy ostensibly* pursued until Feb 03. The logical continuation would have been more inspections, running, say, through 2003. At the end of that time, a modified sanctions regime would have to be put in place.
“Katz,
Interesting that you said “…by the end of 2005…â€?. It is now 1 April and no withdrawal in sight. Given you analysis of the subject, when will it happen?”
AR, the qualifier for my above statement was “any illusion of success”.
Bush has failed even to achieve an illusion.
The Chimp is still waiting for that illusion.
QED.
PrQ,
1, 2 & 3 are all hindsight, so can be discounted. 4 is the one that I take it you were advocating at the time – in essence, more of the same. While the AWB shareholders may have liked this idea (ok, that is hindsight, on my part, too), I do not think that a continuation of the sanctions regime is / was a valid answer – after 10 years it was not working, Saddam was just as much in power and still spending lavishly on palaces while his people were starving, the Marsh Arabs were being destroyed and the Kurds squabbling amongst themselves while Turkey was periodically invading.
How would you say the stalemate that had plainly been reached have been broken? I take it you did not / do not believe that the sanctions should have been removed or even substantially lessened.
AR, these arguments are not hindsight. I made them all at the time the war started, Here’s the opportunity cost argument from May 2003, and I was putting it in various forms before that. And here, again from 2003, is Afghanistan.
In any case, you can’t evade the issue like this unless you contend that no-one could reasonably have made these arguments at the time. “Hindsight” suggests I’m relying on new information which (apart from the fact that the war is even more costly than I expected) I’m not doing.
Andrew,
Even in China, which is changing rapidly, there are many people who feel like some of us do, that North Koreans shouldn’t have to live the way they do. Personally, I doubt that China would go to war to protect Kim Jong-il. My suggestion with the Chinese would be to tell them, either you take him out or we will.
I agree with you that the status quo was unacceptable for Iraq. Clearly, years of inspections and further sanctions were not the answer for anyone, especially not for the Iraqi people. I cannot figure out why the fans of containment haven’t woken up to the fact that it never works.
Andrew Reynolds- bear it in mind, Saddam Hussein is hardly the only tin pot dictator to come and go. Neither is he the only one to have access to WMD, nor the only one to have used it against his neighbors, nor the only one threatening to American interests. Gamal Abdel Nasser was all of these as well. Should we have removed him? Were Eisenhower and Kennedy, et al callous to the liberty loving Egyptians’ fate by not doing so?
Btw, as to those unfortunate consequences which were not foreseen in the invasion of Iraq, it is difficult to divine foresight when you simply don’t give a damn. The hapless COW (hapless or nefarious, but nonetheless negligent) surely did not. Of interest, they never once requested a strategic level assessment of their plans for the Middle East. Odd that, wouldn’t you say? Perhaps they were worried they might get the wrong answer (for more on this consideration, see their War on Science). If nothing else, that fear was justified, because had they, they would’ve been told in no uncertain terms that civil war was a highly probable eventuality of their crusade.
But information has an upside too. A strategic assessment would’ve informed them of some of the policies likely to tip the scales in favor of their deisred outcome (here’s a guess: allowing vast stores of weapons to up and disappear- including previously sealed nuclear material- all as anarchy is allowed to take root, was probably not one of them. Nor was privatizing everything. Nor was attempting to instal a thinly veiled Pentagon lackey as head of state, and so on). Here’s the link if you’re interested.
So forgive me if I have little time for people who would ponder the virtues of democracy by assault rifle without taking account of the silliness of its practice. Grown ups like Kennedy and Eisenhower wouldn’t have seriously considered an invasion of Iraq- it’s only the foolish morally compromised current variety that charge in where wise men fear to tread.
Since we cannot get rid of EVERY tin pot dictator, why get rid of any of them?
Since we cannot feed every starving child, why feed any of them?
Since we cannot cure every case of cancer, why cure any of them?
Makes very little sense.
“I cannot figure out why the fans of containment haven’t woken up to the fact that it never works.”
Libya and South Africa – and arguably China – are but two of the more recent success stories for the strategy that ‘never works’.
It is true, however, that the ‘never works’ line is invariably employed to dismiss containment/sanctions strategies by those who oppose them for other, concealed, reasons. The long period of opposition by western governments to sanctions against South Africa was a case in point. You’ll find, though, that the very same people who use ‘never works’ to justify military adventures will support containment and sanctions elsewhere, eg Cuba.
In truth, military solutions appeal to those requiring instant gratification of their desires, but usually create as many problems as are solved. For instance, North Korea’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is surely a rational response to the increasing military adventurism of the US, which maintains substantial troop numbers and nuclear arsenal on the Korean peninsula. Simillarly Iran, with US troops along most of its land borders and a nuclear armed and adventurous Israel and nuclear armed Sunni Pakistan well within striking distance, would be silly if they didn’t consider acquisition of nukes. The point is, if you keep yourself armed to the teeth and adopt a posture of preventive warfare, all nations outside the imperial umbrella are going to assume their security depends on making the fantastic investments required to acquire nuclear weapons. How is this going to make the world more secure?
Specifically:
“Since we cannot get rid of EVERY tin pot dictator, why get rid of any of them?”
If by ‘get rid of’ you mean invade/occupy, how about keeping to the UN convention – only attack a nation who actually threatens you, or who you can convince the Security Council needs to be attacked.
“Since we cannot feed every starving child, why feed any of them?”
We could indeed feed all of them with the money being squandered on death, terror and maiming in Iraq. It seems to me you need to have a pretty good rationale why this represents a fair trade.
“Since we cannot cure every case of cancer, why cure any of them?
Makes very little sense.”
Comparing the atrocity of warfare with saving the lives of cancer patients does, as you say, make very little sense.
How amusing to see China and Libya described as “success stories”. South Africa contained? Someone is hitting the crack pipe pretty heavy tonight.
I think it’s a really fine idea to have to convince the security council, some of whom do not allow their own people to live in freedom, that others should be allowed to do so.
“Someone is hitting the crack pipe pretty heavy tonight.”
I think you’ll find people will listen to your arguments more if you avoid cheap personal abuse. On the other hand, if I were running them I’d keep up the abuse as a distraction from their weakness. Up to you.
Libya has indeed been described as a success story by your own George W. And China is, by your lights, unimproved since the days of the Cultural Revolution? Containment of South Africa happened longer ago than the day before yesterday, so you probably won’t read about it in the US media. Of course none of these compares with the model success story that is Iraq today, where there is freedom, rule of law etc etc.
The circumstances under which a state can legitimately take unilateral military action are that it is under attack, or is in real imminent danger of attack (ie troops massing on border or missile launched) or that the security council agrees. Whether the permanent 5 have Jeffersonian democracy is completely irrelevant to their judgement about whether military force is justified. It may not be perfect, but at least it is a system and at least it deters military adventurism. The alternative is international vigilantism. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the Wild West as portrayed in Hollywood films, but it doesn’t look to me like a system designed to deliver security to citizens.
“Libya has indeed been described as a success story by your own George W. ”
Because Khaddaffi was contained or because he saw what happened to Saddam and decided not to suffer the same fate? uh, the answer is b).
“And China is”
run by a dictatorship that does not permit its citizens freedom. Is this news to you?
“Containment of South Africa happened longer ago than the day before yesterday”
South Africa didn’t suffer sanctions because anyone wanted to contain it. It suffered sanctions because of its apartheid system.
“Of course none of these compares with the model success story that is Iraq today, where there is freedom, rule of law”
compared to when Saddam was there and there was freedom, rule of law?
“The circumstances under which a state can legitimately take unilateral military action are that it is under attack, or is in real imminent danger of attack (ie troops massing on border or missile launched) or that the security council agrees.”
So the British and US attack on Nazi Germany was illegitimate?
You can wait until the missile has been launched at you if you want. Sorry, that’s not a smart move as far as I’m concerned.
“Whether the permanent 5 have Jeffersonian democracy is completely irrelevant to their judgement about whether military force is justified.”
only if you’re back on that crack pipe.
“It may not be perfect, but at least it is a system and at least it deters military adventurism.”
What military adventurism has it ever deterred?
Let me ask you this Hal. What action could any dictator take against his own people that would induce China to agree to military action against said dictator?