N.Z. Bear and Stand Down are hosting a cross-weblog debate on war with Saddam. I have never considered myself a "warblogger," but I do favor war with Iraq. I will participate here by answering the five questions that the anti-war group has posed:
1. Attacking Iraq has been publicly called a "pre-emption" of a threat from Saddam Hussein's regime, whose sins include launching regional wars of aggression. Do you think there is a clear and reliable difference between pre-emptive and aggressive warfare, and if so, what is it?
This question is difficult to answer without bogging down in a pointless debate about whether or not all war is aggressive or if pre-emption is aggressive. In the spirit of assuming that all sides seek genuine understanding, I'll try to explain what I see as the difference, in this context, between "pre-emptive war" and "aggressive war."
I take "war of aggression" to be one fought primarily for territorial gains or monetary profit or sheer bloodlust. If this is how we define "war of aggression," then violent action to take out a known and dangerous psychotic is not "war of aggression." We stand to gain little or nothing materially, except enhanced safety, from bringing down Saddam Hussein.
When Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese, the United States' first massive military response was to fight Italian and German troops in Northern Africa. Was that pre-emptive? Yes. Was it done for revenge, or because of a desire to plunder the vast wealth of Africa, or for imperialist ambitions? No. It was not. Neither is war against Saddam.
2. What do you feel are the prospects that an invasion of Iraq will succeed in a) maintaining it as a stable entity and b) in turning it into a democracy? Are there any precedents in the past 50 years that influence your answer?
Given that, under British and American pre-emptive action, the denizens of northern Iraq have managed to found a stable liberal democratic government, and given the relatively secular, well-educated, and modernist world that most Iraqis inhabit, I would say our chances are excellent. This will not be easy, but the assistance of our allies and (most likely) the UN should make this attainable.
There can be no guarantees of course. But it already has been attained in northern Iraq, and the people there have made it clear that they seek a unified and democratic Iraq rather than an independent state. In other areas, Kosovo has shown steady progress after American pre-emptive action. Afghanistan still has problems but is coming along nicely and is in better shape today than it has been in generations.
Furthermore, for all the debate over Nicraragua, it long ago became a stable democracy which enjoys free speech and free press, and the Sandinistas only allowed this after considerable pre-emptive action by the Americans.
Of course, by limiting us to 50 years, you are not allowing us to use some of the best examples: South Korea, Germany and Japan. Yet these examples also show us what is possible.
3. How successful do you think the military operations and "regime change" in Afghanistan have been in achieving their stated objectives? Does this example affect your feelings about war in Iraq in any way?
They have been successful so far, although there's more work to do. It will take time. But how can any but the most blinkered fool not acknowledge that the people of Afghanistan are already an order of magnitude better off than they've been in at least 25 years?
I expect international efforts to continue in Afghanistan for many years. But I see much reason for optimism.
4. As a basis for war, the Bush Administration accuses Iraq of trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, nuclear), supporting terrorism, and brutalizing their own people. Since Iraq is not the only country engaged in these actions, under what circumstances should the US go to war with other such nations, in addition to going to war with Iraq?
Iraq is a unique circumstance for many reasons, first and foremost being the one least-frequently mentioned: that we have been at continuously at war with them for well over a decade. American and British forces, without U.N. authorization, have been pre-emptively making war on Saddam ever since he was ejected from Kuwait.
We have been engaged in virtually non-stop pre-emptive military action, as well as economic war in the form of crippling sanctions, ever since the cease-fire agreements were signed. All to contain a madman who has broken those agreements, who is developing weapons of mass destruction, hates us, openly gives money to people who terrorize innocents in Israel, and who has known ties to anti-American hate groups.
I believe continuing the status quo is the height of cruelty, the equivalent of keeping millions of Iraqis clamped into a bear trap with no way to escape, all to contain one megalomaniac who has proven that he can and will kill any Iraqi who shows even the smallest bit of defiance to his rule.
In short, then, whether we like it or not we are already involved in war against Saddam. We are also already committed to defending the people of Northern and Southern Iraq. Leaving now would be to allow their democracy to be destroyed and to allow countless numbers of innocents to be brutalized or murdered. Ending the sanctions would only give a dangerous psychotic more power and prestige--in a world where we have seen that people who hate us will cross oceans and kill themselves just to murder us and our friends.
Even if I were inclined to believe that we should invade other countries--and right now I don't see anyone else we're in a position to invade--it would be clear to me that finishing the current war against Iraq is a moral imperative. We've caused these people enough suffering. The status quo is intolerable, and simply walking away is tantamount to genocide.
Certainly, if there is evidence that another regime is actively sponsoring terrorism, or providing terrorist groups with biological or nuclear or chemical weapons, we must respond. And certainly, having our forces in Iraq will put us on a position to lean harder on regimes in places like Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, to pressure them crack down on hate groups more effectively than they have. Certainly, if we have provocation to invade another Middle Eastern country--which is far from a given--it would be advantageous to already have forces in Iraq.
But the President has only been authorized by Congress to use the full might of America's military against Saddam's regime. Despite the bizarre contention that we have "rushed" to war, that authorization took almost a year's worth of work by the Bush administration to get through the Congress. And despite claims of our "unilateralism," Bush has constantly worked toward assembling a broad coalition and getting UN sanction if possible--even though he's had full authority from Congress to invade Iraq unilaterally for many months now.
So let's talk about this if and when it comes about--the notion that somehow invading Iraq will result in our willy-nilly invading countless other states is simply paranoid.
5. The Bush Administration has issued numerous allegations about the threat represented by Iraq, many of which have been criticized in some quarters as hearsay, speculation or misstatements. Which of the Administration's allegations do you feel stand up best to those criticisms?
That Saddam continues to work on developing nuclear weapons, and continues to hide his chemical and biological weapons.
Given the current circumstances as outlined above (the broken cease-fire agreements, the suffering caused by the sanctions, the proven possibility for democracy, the continuous need for protection by those in Northern and Southern Iraq, etc.), the development of those weapons is alone sufficient justification for using force to liberate the Iraqis from the tyrant Saddam, and to attempt to bring healing to that broken country.
Nice answers... :)
I thought the first question was particularly well-handled, and the rest are pretty good. What surprised me was that they asked it at all -- it seems a softball question. Initially, I thought I was reading the questions for the anti-war crowd ... and it's a good question to ask them: Is there a difference between aggression and pre-emption. But, of course, they might answer, "No."
You handled the second question well, but I'm not sure how Afghanistan is going or whether we're getting good, quality information. I've been reading Stand Down for a while and some there believe that the Taliban is still in charge of some of the country, regardless of what we're hearing, or that Kabul has changed but the countryside is the same. I dunno. The final responses will probably have to include some factual data.
Question four -- On Stand Down, when they say other countries with biological, chemical and nuclear materials, they're talking about us. I've heard some there talk about the U.S. use of Agent Orange (and the other defoilants) as chemical warfare. As if that's the same thing as mustard gas. So they kind of punted that question ... since to pro-war-bloggers, there is a big difference between Iraq and the U.S. But to many on Stand Down, they really don't see the difference. I thought you handled it well by putting your response in the context of an ongoing state of war.
Good response, but one flaw is fatal.
You will never convince a wavering leftist by using Nicaragua as an example the way you did. And BTW, their voyage to democracy wasn't achieved through pre-emption but the collapse of their supporter the Soviet Union (the Contras did not produce that change).
Little-known fact: The Sandinistas finally lost power when they lost an election by about 15 percentage points. Those evil CIA guys? Were busy predicting a Sandinista WIN by 15 points, and were totally surprised.
Bill: Thank you. I have little doubt that Islamists are still in the country and control parts of it. But anyone who reads the history of Afghanistan knows it's always been a fractioius country. When it was ruled by the last King, they were well on their way to a liberalized democracy before the Communists staged a Soviet-backed coup--and that's where the madness started. I don't expect them to become Virginia overnight, but the cities are liberalized and the country is under control. I'm just fine with that.
As for those who compare the US with dictatorships: there's nothing to discuss with those people, frankly.
Joe: The bottom line is that without our strong support of the Contras, the Sandinistas would never have allowed democracy. When the Sandinistas did allow democracy, the people of that country threw their butchering Communist asses out. Pre-emption by America brought democracy there.
I don't expect to win over everybody in a debate, but I do expect reasonable people to read what we have to say and conclude that there definitely is a rational and moral case for this war.
Question 1.
Nobody cares whether the war is defined as 'pre-emptive' or aggressive. What they care about is legitimacy. Is it the only, and correct course of action.
Question 2.
You disastrously overestimate the chances of a regime change leaving a stable democracy. the US bombed these countries for that reason:
China 1945-46
Korea and China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Lebanon 1983, 1984
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-99
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1993
Bosnia 1994, 1995
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
And in how many countries did they leave a stable govt? None (exception for S Korea). Also in 1941 the British attacked the Iraq Army in Basra, ousting the President and installing a pro British govt. How long did that govt last?
Question 3.
Also Afghanistan is quickly slipping back to Taleban control, and the US really don't care because there's no wealth there. George Dubya even 'forgot' to include their foreign aid in his last budget.
Question 4.
The jury is still out. The only evidence provided so far is the Al Samoud II rockets, designed for 150km range, when tested without warheads some could reach 190km (but what range with heavy 200kg warheads?). And even then none of these missiles were adapted for chemical agents. Add to this the fact that the UN inspectors are complaining about CIA interference in the intelligence and we are very dubious about what the US claims.
Question 5.
The War Powers Act of 1973 legislation, requires the sitting President to get congressional approval for the "introduction into hostilities" of the U.S. armed forces for longer than a 60 days this has not been given, the 'war' is unconstitutional. the UN never sanctioned the 'no fly' zones, they were begun in April 1991, claiming a false authority under Security Council Resolution 688, by the US, UK and France.
Phroggie shows an extreme ignorance of history. He/She lists every military intervention the US has been involved in in recent years and then implies that the purpose was to leave a stable democracy. This of course is not true, for example the Somalia operation was to allow humanitarian aid to enter the country and not get plundered by thugs. Those military operations in which there was a clear aim of leaving stable democracies this has generally been achieved. Phroggie mentions Nicaragua, Panama and Grenada as places that this has not been achieved. All three of these countries have gone from brutal military dictatorships to free, stable democracies. Yugoslavia (now broken up into it's seperate states) is well on the way despite still suffering the after effects of Milosevics tyrannical rule. Afghanistan was such a mess it will take many years before it can become a decent country, but at least now there is hope for those poor people.
Next stop North Korea (although I hope military action is not required here).
phroggie
kuwait 1991 us bombed them to leave a stable democracy? Oh bye the way I have some ocean front property in Arizona for sale.
Okay, I said the US attacked all those countries with the goal of overthrowing their 'regime', and installing democracy. That is incorrect as pointed out. However it seems okay for George Bush and Tony Blair to make stuff up and report it as truth, but not me. Strange thing this freedom of speech and US brand of democracy.
No comment on my other statements? Unlike Pezza I do not consider countries where politicians are assasinated as having a "stable democracy". Further I doubt the Afghanis would appreciate your branding of their country as "not decent". You are obviously American and are demonstrating typically US ethnocentric and arrogant views.
Noth Korea: will the US again huddle behind the facade of 'liberation' or have the balls enough to say they're doing it just because they want to, it suits their interests at home and abroad?
Where is Arizona?
Phroggie.
Mistakes are not lies, Phroggie.
And the Afghan government was horrible. Until we replaced it. You'd have to be a thundering dolt to say otherwise.
Just a couple of points in response to Phroggie.
Firstly I am not American. I am an Australia who is not even particularly pro-American. I'm just sick of hearing the anti-war movement distort the truth with half-facts and propaganda.
Secondly, your reference to assassinated politicians, I am assuming refers to the situation in Panama. I was maybe a little hasty in calling this country a stable democracy. The south of the country is indeed a dangerous place due to Colombian drug runners and para military groups. However, most of the country is quite safe and stable and basic human rights are in the most respected by the democratically elected government. This is certainly a vast improvement on the brutal rule of Noriega. Nicaragua too has some lawless areas, and is not a stable democracy in the sense that for instance Sweden is. But the people are relatively free and their human rights respected. Anyway, that is very much a side issue.
Thirdly, my wording regarding Afghanistan as being not a decent country had nothing to do with the people and did not reflect arrogant or ethno-centric views. I would challenge you to find any Afghan who would say that it has been a decent place to live over the past 25 years. It WILL be a long time and take a lot of work from Afghans and the world community alike to make it a decent place to live. To call this view arrogant and ethno-centric defies belief. Indeed it is contradictory to your own arguments. If you think Afghanistan is a decent place, then surely you can't complain about America's role in the reconstruction of it?
Fourthly, you say it's ok for George Bush and Tony Blair to make stuff up but not you. It is ok for you to make stuff up if you want, but your arguments are going to sound stupid. Nobody is going to torture you for speaking like they would have in Iraq and they would in North Korea or Libya or a number of other countries.
As for your other comments, I didn't comment because I didn't want to get into too much of an argument here, just point out where you have distorted facts. But I will give a brief comment on each.
Question 1.
You say people only care about if it is legitimate. Fair enough, but I think that is only partly true. I would rather have seen an illegitimate military action in Rwanda in 94' than let 800,000 people get slaughtered. But if your going to argue legitimacy, it is a very grey area that can be argued all day long on both sides.
Question 3
You say Afghanistan is slowly slipping back into Taliban control. This is just not true. It is indeed experiencing a rise in attacks from Taliban elements, but a rise in terrorism is very different from sliding back into their control. this is like saying Israel is sliding into Hamas control. As I have said previously, there is a lot of work to do there, and you probably have a point that America hasn't done quite enough. But this is a massive job and will take many years. Germany was a lawless mess after WW2 rememeber.
Question 4
The jury may still be out on whether Iraq had active weapons of mass destruction, but not on Hussein's support for terrorism, his brutality to his own people, or his intention to continue a non-conventional weapons program.
Question 5
Phroggie mentions the War Powers Act and the failure of Bush to get Congress approval. The argument here is that the first Gulf War never formally ended, only a ceasfire agreement was affected. This agreement has been violated by Iraq for 12 years. For this reason, you can argue about the legal legitimacy under UN resolutions, but the War Powers Act legislation is not relevant.
Just another point for Phroggie who stated:
I do not consider countries where politicians are assasinated as having a "stable democracy".
This means that you do not consider Holland a stable democracy.