I am probably the last to figure out that the lack of UN support for this war is a curse and a blessing. It’s bad, of course, for all the obvious international-comity reasons, and probably a bad precedent for the future. But how about for the conduct of the war? When it looked like we were just rolling over the Iraqis, Saudi Arabia called for a “breather” to work the diplomatic front. And Bush Senior halted our first advance on Baghdad because he knew we’d lose support of our allies. If we were in this with the UN they would be calling for a cease-fire at the first heavy resistance, the first bad case of civilian casualties, each time it looked like the war was not going to be bloodless and short.
I am sorry to conclude that if we are to fight a war that does not stop short of the objectives of regime change and disarmament, it has to be waged by a determined American commander in chief. We could never have obtained UN support for such a war.
There is an echo here of the American requirement of unconditional surrender to end WWII. It has been criticized, particularly with Japan. It took nuclear bombs to effect it - and even then, we let them keep the Emperor. Chilling.
Monday, March 24, 2003
Sunday, March 23, 2003
One thing nags at me in the start of this war. Are we the aliens, landing in some massive spaceship, and coming out to announce:
"Resistance is futile, earthlings. Surrender. We will then give you freedom."
When I see that movie, the good guys form small bands of resistance and eventually kill the aliens after finding an Achilles' heel.
I know this whole demand-for-surrender thing is at least partially humane. A lot fewer people will die if they just give up. But something in me admires resistance, particularly resistance by some young, not-well-educated, faithful guy who believes he is fighting for his country.
"Resistance is futile, earthlings. Surrender. We will then give you freedom."
When I see that movie, the good guys form small bands of resistance and eventually kill the aliens after finding an Achilles' heel.
I know this whole demand-for-surrender thing is at least partially humane. A lot fewer people will die if they just give up. But something in me admires resistance, particularly resistance by some young, not-well-educated, faithful guy who believes he is fighting for his country.
Monday, March 17, 2003
Because of my desire to ramp up other areas of my life I had suspended effort on Strays. But tonight, evidently, we will hear we are going to war, and I have to put something down. I want some sense of how good my read was at the time, not in retrospect.
It seems to me there are two general themes of objection.
One is timing. Don't do this yet. Mass troops on the border, beef up the inspector corps, keep him in a box, and use this as a way to disarm. And so avoid a war.
I am drawn to this, but I think I understand the other side. This process would go on indefinitely, and political support (what's left of it) would only erode. Eventually the troops would be brought home, and we could never muster the international (especially Arab) support, or the domestic will, to go back. Once the troops are gone, whether or not he builds a bomb in the meantime, he will build one again.
The other theme is no-war. We just don't have the right to launch a "pre-emptive" war, even if Saddam is cheating on WMD. We have to wait for a much more overt threat - perhaps direct evidence that he has armed the terrorists.
The conventional answer to this one, of course, is that with this position we could wind up with a nuclear explosion on US soil, and begin from there.
And there are so many other ideas swirling around. On the left, blood for oil. US neo-imperialism. Bush is a religious zealot. On the right - or at least at the White House - a desperate mission to avoid another 9/11. Saddam will develop nuclear weapons once he is left to do so, and he sure looks healthy enough to be around for another 15 years. A mission to democratize the Arab world, as a way to address radical Islamism. And the way to a democratic and peaceful Palestine is through Baghdad.
The biggest swirl is that this is a gamble. The White House believes – Cheney comes right out and says it – that we will prove there were hidden WMD, possibly at the cost of American lives. The Iraqis will welcome us as liberators. Many fewer Iraqi lives will be lost with this war than with continuing containment of Saddam. The resulting federation of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds will be in an Iraqi democracy. What happens if all of this, or any of it, turns out untrue?
Where I come down is this.
1. As to timing, how can one possibly fine-tune the timing if the stakes are a nuclear explosion here, at home. If we could have waited another year, so what. As to no-war, same thing: the stakes are too high.
2. Bush isn’t his father’s son when it comes to mobilizing world opinion. Here I am not impressed. But he appears to be his mother’s son when it comes to believing in right and wrong and knowing the difference. Here, I am impressed, even a little envious. I fear I would be susceptible to a Clintonian on-the-one-hand-on-the-other non-decision.
3. As to the gamble, I can only look to what is superior knowledge, based on good intelligence. Bush and Cheney and Powell would not gamble if they thought the odds were too long. OK: It is a punt to say, well, if they turn out to be right, I’m for them. But my lack of their knowledge makes that position not ridiculous. My position as a citizen does depend, however, on my perception of their judgment.
4. I resist the notion that patriotism compels one judgment or another. On this one, patriots can go either way.
This is not a referendum on Bush. It is a question of whether to go to war now. I think, sooner or later, no matter how well the diplomacy and politics were handled, we would have this decision before us. The troops are there. We go.
It seems to me there are two general themes of objection.
One is timing. Don't do this yet. Mass troops on the border, beef up the inspector corps, keep him in a box, and use this as a way to disarm. And so avoid a war.
I am drawn to this, but I think I understand the other side. This process would go on indefinitely, and political support (what's left of it) would only erode. Eventually the troops would be brought home, and we could never muster the international (especially Arab) support, or the domestic will, to go back. Once the troops are gone, whether or not he builds a bomb in the meantime, he will build one again.
The other theme is no-war. We just don't have the right to launch a "pre-emptive" war, even if Saddam is cheating on WMD. We have to wait for a much more overt threat - perhaps direct evidence that he has armed the terrorists.
The conventional answer to this one, of course, is that with this position we could wind up with a nuclear explosion on US soil, and begin from there.
And there are so many other ideas swirling around. On the left, blood for oil. US neo-imperialism. Bush is a religious zealot. On the right - or at least at the White House - a desperate mission to avoid another 9/11. Saddam will develop nuclear weapons once he is left to do so, and he sure looks healthy enough to be around for another 15 years. A mission to democratize the Arab world, as a way to address radical Islamism. And the way to a democratic and peaceful Palestine is through Baghdad.
The biggest swirl is that this is a gamble. The White House believes – Cheney comes right out and says it – that we will prove there were hidden WMD, possibly at the cost of American lives. The Iraqis will welcome us as liberators. Many fewer Iraqi lives will be lost with this war than with continuing containment of Saddam. The resulting federation of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds will be in an Iraqi democracy. What happens if all of this, or any of it, turns out untrue?
Where I come down is this.
1. As to timing, how can one possibly fine-tune the timing if the stakes are a nuclear explosion here, at home. If we could have waited another year, so what. As to no-war, same thing: the stakes are too high.
2. Bush isn’t his father’s son when it comes to mobilizing world opinion. Here I am not impressed. But he appears to be his mother’s son when it comes to believing in right and wrong and knowing the difference. Here, I am impressed, even a little envious. I fear I would be susceptible to a Clintonian on-the-one-hand-on-the-other non-decision.
3. As to the gamble, I can only look to what is superior knowledge, based on good intelligence. Bush and Cheney and Powell would not gamble if they thought the odds were too long. OK: It is a punt to say, well, if they turn out to be right, I’m for them. But my lack of their knowledge makes that position not ridiculous. My position as a citizen does depend, however, on my perception of their judgment.
4. I resist the notion that patriotism compels one judgment or another. On this one, patriots can go either way.
This is not a referendum on Bush. It is a question of whether to go to war now. I think, sooner or later, no matter how well the diplomacy and politics were handled, we would have this decision before us. The troops are there. We go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
