February 9, 2004

Warning: More Politics
Everett

I had planned to make my responses to the recent political posts through e-mail, but as there seems to be some demand for it here, I'll use the Forum one more time to address political issues.

I should probably start by explaining my "invading Canada" and "nuking Quebec" comments because they seem to have been taken the wrong way (The first indication I had of this was when I received an e-mail from a Quebecois expressing the concern that I was actually advocating the nuking of Quebec.). The comments were made in response to Annatar's comment about the growing American Empire. I was and am of the opinion that his opinion did not and does not accurately reflect the political situation in the world today. However, instead of taking the time to explain why the United States is not an empire, I decided to answer his assertion in a way I thought much more clever and efficient. I decided to propose a scenario that was both more plausible vis-a-vis the rise of an American Empire and completely ridiculous at the same time. Hence, the invasion of Canada. The bit about nuking Quebec was intended to put it completely over the top. Unfortunately, some people apparently thought I was serious or taking unnecessary shots at Canada, epsecially Quebec. I did not intend to do so. If I had, I would have lobbied for roasting marshmallows in the Eternal Flame instead of mass murder.

Now, back to the action. I have never asserted that everything the US has done has been good and righteous. Indeed, were the political discussion to turn to simply US politics, you would find me much more critical of the US. Instead, I've been arguing the Iraq situation from the position of legitimate self-interest. I certainly think the world as a whole is a better place because Saddam Hussein is no longer on power. Also, I think the world as a whole would be a better place if, say Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro, the Communist regime in China, etc. were all removed from power, but because the US has no legitimate interest in removing these figures militarily, I do not support military intervention against them. If, say Castro started pointing missiles at the US a la the Cuban Missile Crisis, or Mugabe allowed Zimbabwe to become the main base of operations for Al Qaeda, then military action on the part of the US would be justified.

Regarding your examples of US bullying, I find part of your assertion believable and part of it somewhat dubious. I can believe that the US threatened to cut off foreign aid (Though I must ask what business the US government has funding Ireland.). However, I find it very difficult to believe that they would threaten to pull multinational corporations out of Ireland because the US economy is a free market (not as free as I'd like, but largely free nonetheless). The US government does not have the authority to simply force American corporations with interests in Ireland to pull up and leave, and there was no popular drive to get American corporations out of Ireland because Ireland refused to allow US soldiers to pass through Shannon airport. Besides, the example you site seems to me to be more a good cop-bad cop routine than straight up bullying.

As for Bill Clinton, I think we are agreed on the substance of the point. Where we appear to differ is on the significance of it, unless I placed to high an importance on it in your piece.

As to your War of 1812 point, I'll take it in the same spirit in which my invade Canada quip was intended and say "Touche."

Anyway, if you want an interesting perspective on the current state of US-European relations, I cannot recommend Robert Kagan's "Of Paradise and Power" highly enough. I'd recommend it to Bob Praz, whose points I will now address, as well.

First of all, Bob, why do you hate to disagree with me? Just do it. You don't need to apologize for having an opnion that differs from mine.

I'm not quite sure where to begin. Maybe I'll start by agreeing with you: The war in Iraq should not have happened. The Allied Coalition should have deposed Saddam after the first Gulf War. However, the United States stopped its offensive 12 hours short of Baghdad because it didn't want to risk losing coalition members.

To say that the war in Iraq would have been for nothing had Saddam not been captured is, quite frankly, blind. To say that the removal from power of a mass murderer and the prospect of a free and open society in the Middle East are nothing is an insult to the Iraqi people and to the soldiers who have lost their lives fighting for this noble cause.* Additionally, Iran and North Korea have become more open to diplomatic persuasion, and Libya has agreed to give up its WMD program as a direct result of US intervention in Iraq (just ask Colonel Qaddaffi, himself). Accomplished nothing, my ass.

As to your assertion that there was no reason to go to war (a statement you seem to contradict later), I find it patently ridiculous. US, British, French, German, Israeli, and UN intelligence all indicated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Past behavior indicated a willingness to use them under a variety of circumstances. That he doesn't appear to have had large stockpiles of them is something of a relief, though the production infrastructure seems to have remained intact. What's more, it is not entirely clear what the present WMD situation is. Were they destroyed? Were they never produced because Saddam's scientists were lying to him? Are they being hidden in Syria? If they were destroyed, why wans't their destruction documented? A whole host of questions remain to be answered before the situation can be fully ascertained. However, hindsight is 20-20, and to say that the intelligence turned out to be wrong is not to say that those who believed the intelligence and acted accordingly were not unjustified in doing so.

Regarding Saddam and terrorism, I find your assertion to be laughable on its face. International terrorists Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas both lived in Baghdad under Saddam's protection for many years.** Saddam paid $25,000 to families of suicide bombers in Palestine. Additionally, Saddam had Al-Qaeda contacts going back at least ten years. For evidence of this, you can go here: http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp; here: http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp; here: http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp; or here:http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/296fmttq.asp. Of course, you need lokk no further than Colin Powell's UN presentation in February, 2003, in which he detailed the operations of one Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an Al-Qaeda operative working with Saddam's regime. There's also the small matter of a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta and the chief of Iraqi intelligence in April, 2001 (Czech intelligence still stickes to its guns on this, even if the CIA has dismissed it.). There are also Saddam's connections with Ansar al-Islam, an Al-Qadea affiliated group in northern Iraq. Of course, you could just go back all the way to the Axis of Evil speech.

All of that evidence aside, there are flaws in your argument from religiosity. The first and most fundamental is that it ignores the ancient maxim that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Furthermore, it ignores the fact that Saddam was very good at pretending to be a good Muslim when he wanted support from the Muslim world. He even went so far as to have a copy of the Koran written in his own blood. Additionally, Saddam and Al-Qaeda had simliar ambitions. Al-Qaeda wants to establish an Islamic superstate, and Saddam wanted to establish a pan-Arab state with himself as its leader. If it was to be an Islamic pan-Arab state, he was fine with it, as long as he could be in charge.

As far as terrorists entering Iraq, they've been doing it for years. The only difference is that now we can fight them on their turf instead of ours.

Regarding the current situation, things are better than they seem. The only hot spots are Mosul (courtesy of Ansar al-Islam) and the Sunni triangle. The reconstruction is going better than we have any right to expect in spite of ongoing attacks. Services and utilities are largely restored. The oil facilities in Iraq are putting out more oil by the day. Moreand more terrorists are dying. The Iraqi Governing Council is working toward a constitution. Things are moving apace. They certainly haven't been perfect, but more good than bad is happening. Hopefully, it will work out reasonably well in the end.

As to American imperialism, the Arab attitude toward it has not changed a whit one way or another, except in Iraq, where the prevailing attitude seems to be "Leave, but not too soon."

I'd briefly like to address your implication that the war was somehow waged for American economic benefit (I take it that's what you mena by self-interest.). Simply put, the assertion that the war in Iraq was a war for oil is simply absurd. If the US wanted exclusive access to Iraqi oil, they didn't need to overthrow Saddam to get it. All they had to do was stop enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq. How do I know this? Saddam made the offer. Also, I don't know quite what you're talking about when you mention that Bush went to war in Iraq without the support of his people. All of the numbers I saw in the immediate run-up to the war, while it was being waged, and for months afterward showed strong majority support for the invasion. Even now, in spite of difficulties, support for US efforts remain high.

As to his disdain for allies, I'm not quite sure what you mean there, too. The UK, Spain, Poland, Australia, and a whole host of other countries were involved in the invasion. One of the reasons WMD formed the centerpiece of the case was because Tony Blair felt he needed UN support to be able to fight the war, and Saddam's WMD programs were the strongest basis upon which to base the case to the UN. Now, if by disdain for allies you mean not giving them a veto over US national security policy, then I'll just say I'm glad the US shows such "disdain" for its allies.

I could keep going, but there are a couple of other brief points I'd like to make.

First of all, RaggedyAnndy, your freedom fries point is not necessarily entirely off base, even if I disagree with it. It just pales in comparison to my example of French behavior, and so, doesn't quite work. Don't back off a valid point just because you didn't express it in the best way the first time you made it.

Also, Aragorn, don't be too upset by people taking their shots at President Bush. He isn't perfect, and he's made several mistakes in his handling of the Iraq situation (not to mention others). As such, it is more than justified to level valid criticisms against him. Additionally, people are entitled to think him a bad leader if they so desire. I happen to disagree with that assertion (at least in the realm of foreign policy), but the way to deal with it is to answer legitimate objections seriously and to explode the crazier ones.

*This doesn't contradict my argument from legitimate self-interest, by the way.

**I believe Abbas still does. Nidal was assassinated right around September 11. I don't remember if it was immediately before or immediately afterward, POSSIBLY for what he knew about 9/11.