This is the second week of this discussion. To read last week's, click here and to read the continuation, click here. And for Michael Kinsley's column that started it off, click here.
Jeffrey Goldberg says that the arguments against invading Iraq made in Slate's pages this week have been made by people "with limited experience in the Middle East" and adds that "their lack of experience causes them to reach the naive conclusion that an invasion of Iraq will cause America to be loathed in the Middle East, rather than respected." Well, as someone who has spent only a week in the Middle East, I suppose I'm not really qualified to dispute this claim, but I'd nonetheless like to try.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponNote the binary way in which Goldberg frames the question—"loathed in the Middle East, rather than respected." Of course, none of the people he claims have made this argument actually puts it so simplistically. They realize that Arab opinion isn't monolithic. Obviously, America will be both loathed and respected for invading Iraq, and the question is who will loathe us and who will respect us.
What is the answer? Here's my guess: Some of the people who loathe us as a result—or whose loathing is intensified as a result—are the kind of people who will work hard to kill lots of Americans. (Meanwhile, the people who respect us as a result are probably people who weren't going to do us much harm anyway.)
The Persian Gulf War is instructive here. We kicked butt—and, lest anyone miss the point, we left troops in Saudi Arabia afterward. I'm sure lots of Arabs—maybe even a large majority—respected America as a result. But, if standard accounts are to be trusted, one Arab named Osama Bin Laden was so incensed by the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia that he went off the deep end and put the tormenting of America at the top of his agenda. As a result, 3,000 Americans died in New York a decade later. I assume that, before the Persian Gulf War, Goldberg would have assured the American public that the war would lead America to be "respected, rather than loathed." We now know that this view would have been naive.
Of course, there's one difference between the coming Iraq war and the previous Iraq war. Now there's Al Jazeera, so a much larger number of Arabs will see video images of Muslim corpses than last time around. Does Goldberg think this will make us universally respected? Then how does he explain the appeal of Osama Bin Laden's recruiting videos? They show image after image of Muslims suffering at the hands of Americans or Israelis—Iraqi babies that the narrator says are starving under American-backed sanctions, Israeli soldiers shoving Palestinian women, etc. Apparently not all displays of power breed universal respect. And increasingly, a few disrespectful men will be able to kill a whole lot of people.
That's why I focus my concern not on Saddam Hussein—who I believe is thoroughly containable—but on his weapons of mass destruction, which could get into terrorist hands. (Although, as I argued earlier, it is highly unlikely that he would give such weapons to al-Qaida, a group that files him under "long-term enemy." Goldberg asserts confidently but without elaboration—just like Donald Rumsfeld!—that Iraq has "harbored" al-Qaida fugitives, but that's a long way from giving them a nuke. Besides, if you define "harbored" vaguely enough, lots of countries have harbored al-Qaida members.) The growing threat of weapons of mass destruction getting into terrorists' hands is the reason I said eight months ago that I could support an Iraq war with a genuine purpose of getting at its weapons of mass destruction, whether by force or (ideally) by forcing it to accept weapons inspections. I said we should insist on a new round of inspections—"more robust and intrusive" than the first round—as the only alternative to war. The administration didn't start insisting on such strengthened inspections until a few days ago—one of many signs that the essential purpose of Bush's war is not to shore up the strength and stature of international weapons policing, but rather to effect "regime change."
Goldberg succeeds in establishing that Saddam Hussein is the nastiest leader on the world stage today. Then again, there's always someone who holds that title, but America hasn't ever made that a sufficient cause for war—not even when the person is "by far" the nastiest on the stage. One reason is that American foreign policy has generally been in the hands of people who consider the consequences of their actions. Goldberg, in contrast, doesn't even address the possible downside of war—except, obliquely, in his aforementioned assurance that war in the Middle East won't breed any hatred.
I suspect Goldberg is proud of the absence of cost-benefit calculations from his analysis. His is a moral argument—he uses the words "moral" or "morality" five times in his post, with a dollop of "evil" thrown in for good measure. Of all the annoying undercurrents and overtones of the pro-war rhetoric, this is the one that annoys me the most: the suggestion that those of us who are clinically weighing all the possible downsides and upsides of war, rather than spending all our time marveling at how evil Saddam is, are being something other than moral. When I think about war in Iraq, I think about the long-term results in terms of human suffering and human fulfillment. I consider that a morally grounded framework. The fact that, within that framework, I try to be rational, rather than employ the Iraq hawks' tone of pre-emptive outrage (a tone that is also used on the anti-war left), is not something I'm ashamed of. I agree that Saddam Hussein is a terrible man. The question is how you end his terror without creating lots more terror.
Speaking of trying to keep the Iraq debate rational: Goldberg says Saddam Hussein has "committed genocide." My dictionary defines genocide as "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." Obviously Saddam hasn't "committed genocide" in this strict sense of the term. Has he, like Hitler, so clearly tried to commit it as to put himself in a special moral and legal category? God only knows whether Saddam's mass murder of Kurds was, in his mind, the first step toward ridding the world of Kurds, or was even the expression of deep-seated anti-Kurdism. I personally suspect it was just an act of political calculation by a man completely lacking in scruples, a man who would have been just as happy to kill members of any other ethnic group—or of a multiethnic enclave—if they had been the threat du jour. In any event, I would urge Goldberg to use language carefully when advocating an invasion that will lead to many deaths.
Finally, I'd like to compliment David Plotz. He says he favored war against Iraq long before he had found a rationale for it. I suspect there are millions of Americans in this boat, but David is the only one I know of who has admitted it. Now he has found a possible upside of war, and he hopes it will outweigh the downside. David, I hope you're right. And I compliment you, also, on acknowledging that there's a downside. America needs more Iraq hawks like you.
—Robert Wright writes "The Earthling" column for Slate.
Hitchens: The "War on Terrorism" Didn't Cause the Fort Hood Shootings
Enter Slate's Write-Like-Sarah Palin Contest
Whoa! The House Health Care Bill Is Actually Less Expensive Than the Senate's.
Like Israel but Colder: The Jewish Autonomous Region of Russia
Why Everyone Should Read When Everything Changed
Spitzer: How Tim Geithner Was Fleeced by Wall Street
Notes From The Fray Editor:
Because this Dialogues feature promises to be ongoing, I have broken up the responses by day. If a good post is not directly responding to one of the entries, I will still put it under that day's topic (like tek's below).
Remarks From The Fray Day 3: Saletan:
With a president who cannot often be bothered to think far enough ahead to make the last half of a sentence agree with the first half, it can be argued (as well as demonstrated) that he cannot be bothered to think through the consequences of invasion.
This government does not have the will to effectively deal with long-term effects. The current war talk itself is a long-term effect of things done and left undone in past governmental muck-ups.
Let me make a genuinely conservative statement: With these politicians, the less done the better.
-- tek
(To reply, click here.)
You can't get more Orwellian than Rumsfeld arguing that weakness is strength. Our enemies are so weak, he claims, that they are free to attack with impunity. It is an argument that assumes because Iraq doesn't have a stock market and MTV, they do not value the life and culture they DO have. How evil and how arrogant.
The fact is, the Iraqis have a lot to lose. They have babies, for instance. I'm sure they are fond of them. I'm sure that they don't want to see them all incinerated as part of a suicidal chess game by their leader to obtain more territory, let alone some abstract geopolitical advantage.
They have lots and lots of oil, that can be sold to the world, to build a thriving economy. Unlike the Sudan or some sub Saharan African nation, Iraq can make a nice life for itself with its huge oil reserves. They are not likely ever to be in such a desperate situation that national suicide would be the preferred option.
They are not religious fanatics. Probably because of their ethnic divisions, the Iraqis are pretty secular folks. They are not likely to go off on a nation destroying jihad. That type of behavior one might expect someday from nuclear armed Pakistan, but not Iraq.
So why is Iraq so scary to Saletan and the others? I can't fathom it. But then, I can't fathom how a person can urge the unleashing of massive death and destruction on a nation that has not attacked us, and will never really attack us. Couldn't figure out how the Germans convinced themselves it was cool; can't figure out how we are about to do the same thing. If we had a fraction of the guts that we claim to have as a nation, we would not be so ready to kill out of pure, unadulterated, cringing fear. I guess to follow up on Rumsfeld's tact: the home of the brave is the residence of the craven.
-- doodahman
(To reply, click here.)
Remarks From The Fray Day 2: Chapman:
Just about on cue, someone decided to answer the challenge I made the other day in the Readme Fray. This was to people who thought it might not agree that if the worst case assumption about Saddam Hussein's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction turned out to be right, it would be a pretty bad thing. The challenge to them was to say so.
Along comes Steven Chapman to say that even if Iraq does acquire nuclear weapons, it's no big deal. He's only interested in defense, in deterring the United States from attacking him. Besides, deterrence has worked like a magic charm to prevent nuclear war since 1945, so there's no reason to think it won't work with Saddam.
Sort of throws 50 years of thinking about the importance of nuclear non-proliferation right out the window, doesn't it? Call it the "don't worry, be happy" theory of arms control. Naturally the same logic Chapman applies to Iraq's getting nuclear weapons would fit any other country seeking them, starting with Iran -- which certainly would seek them with a nuclear-armed Iraq on its border. Not to worry: none of these weapons would ever go off, because of the magic of deterrence.
Reality check: deterrence, especially nuclear deterrence, is not magic. The theory surrounding it grew out of a very specific set of circumstances involving countries and people about whose motivations, inhibitions, and fears we now know a great deal. What Chapman does is to take a theoretical template and apply it to a very different situation, involving among other things one man who has already done several things that led to the deaths of thousands of people and other men -- the men who will succeed Saddam -- about whose conduct in office we now know nothing.
Chapman suggests we run this staggering risk rather than consider war now, which is bad enough. But he goes farther and asserts that even a nuclear arsenal would not lead Saddam Hussein to believe he could seize Kuwait, or support any terrorists attacking the United States. There is only one circumstance under which this would be true -- if Saddam thought the United States were willing to incinerate Baghdad in response.
There's a peace platform for you. I'm sorry if saying this makes me seems like a softy, but I don't really want to be in a situation where incinerating Baghdad is an option. I might if I got as much satisfaction as Chapman seems to from the prospect of the plucky little Iraqi dictator thumbing his nose at the American President "...obsessed with getting rid of Saddam." Then again, probably not. For the sake of peace now, Chapman proposes to have us take a wild ride into the unknown. Maybe his is the best antiwar argument out there. If anyone has a better one, let's hear it.
-- Zathras
(To reply, click here.)
Getting back to Iraq, Chapman fails to understand that a US deterrent has to be credible to have any value. Is it credible that the US would incinerate Baghdad if Saddam seized, say, Saudi territory? West to war against Iran again? Even if he nuked Israel? No, it's just plain not (Israel would wipe Iraq off the map, but that's another matter). Why is that?
On the other hand, the deterrent value of a single nuke to Saddam is entirely credible. Would any US President send a half million US troops to invade Iraq if the result could be tens of thousands of US casualties, followed by hundreds of thousands of Iraq dead? Of course not; it won't happen and Saddam knows it won't happen. A nuke or two is his insurance against US intervention in his neighborhood. Since there is no other power around likely to interfere with him, the possession of such weapons would make him extraordinarily dangerous -- because he has demonstrated his aggressive designs.
It's legitimate to assert that it does not matter to the US who controls the Persian Gulf or which Arab states are in a position to come into conflict with Israel or with each other (stupid, but legit). It is pure nonsense to think the US nuclear arsenal protects us through deterrence against all threats.
-- Publius
(To reply, click here.)
Steve Chapman Assumes that if we don't bother Sadaam Hussein into using biological weapons then nothing else will, either.
Well, that's a bad bet if there ever was one. Think, for example, about the possibility of an Iraqi civil war of succession. But let's leave that aside - Hussein may very well be deterred from using weaponized pox viruses by our nuclear weapons. I don't know if we really would retaliate like that, but that could be enough - if Hussein doesn't know we wouldn't nuke him, then he probably can't use them.
But here is the real danger, which it appears, needs to be spelled out for everyone.
If we allow Iraq to pursue biological weapons, then one day there will probably be an accidental release.
There was at least one such an accident in the Soviet Union (thank God it was only anthrax that time the maintenance guy forgot to turn the safety filters back on), but Iraq may not be able to be as safe with their program if they have to hide it from today's more rigorous intelligence gathering.
If instead of wimpy little anthrax, it's a weaponized, airborne, durable, virus that gets released - or even worse, say, a virus strain under study that is too dangerous to be a weapon (such things exist), then we're all in grave danger.
Because even if here in the U.S. our public health response could snuff a pandemic, which might not even be true, do you think we'll be able to contain it as it murders it's way through Jordan and Iran, Afghanistan?
Do you think Iraq will conscientiously notify, and allow the World Health Organization to respond quickly when they have an accident? Yeah right. The Shah of Iran covered up a small outbreak of smallpox because it would have ruined his anniversary party, and as a result, thousands died. You think Sadaam Hussein is a better guy than the Shah was? Say what you will about him, at least the Shah never gassed a whole town of his subjects.
It's not safe to even let Iraq _try_ to develop biological weapons, let alone try to safely store mass quantities. One mistake, and billions of people are at risk. That's right, billions. Read up some day on how many people died from smallpox. Then think about the Iraqi experiments on camelpox.
-- Andrew Mullhaupt
(To reply, click here.)
Remarks From The Fray Day 1: Weisberg:
Are we going to war for Wolfowitz's reasons or Rumsfeld's?
Is Bush a Wolfowitzian idealist or a realist? Rummy the realist was chummy with the butcher from Baghdad when the realists' strategic calculus made Iran the Great Satan. If this war is motivated by Wolfowitz's arguments then we need to be up front about a Germany/Japan type post-war rebuilding. This is the sort of thing that should come out in the debate people keep asking for but then not starting! If it is just a cold realistic concern about NBC weapons then two things follow. First, the Rummy realists can't help themselves to Wolfowitzian 'freedom-fighter' rhetoric. Second, the realists need to explain why Hussein can't be deterred.
-- Kevin Thomson
(To reply, click.)
Still trying to find the common thread of Bush's axis of evil? It's not dictators or despots or totalitarian governments or WMD R&D programs or even the support or the existence of terrorists; it's the absence of the war on terrorism within their boarders. You can't rid the city of crime if you ignore the ghetto.
-- Ender
(To reply, click here.)
To me, the "only tolerable alternative line" is bunk. In the Gulf War we defeated Saddam and made him sign a paper saying he would throw all his weapons away. Then we left. Oh but we did send a handful of guys around to see if he did it. Of course he didn't disarm. What nation voluntarily disarms itself? The only reason he signed the cease fire in the first place is that we were going to kill him. When we left, it was very clear that we were not going to kill him. I mention all of this only to show that his "relentless drive to acquire chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons" isn't an act of madness, it's a normal reaction to our truancy.
-- Async
(To reply, click here.)
If Saddam is still a at least a year away from building a workable nuclear device after four years without inspections, and he was only six months away before inspections, then inspections have succeeded well enough in the past. I suspect that ones view on this issue is the most important factor in deciding whether the U.S. should go to war.
-- ds7878
(To reply, click here.)
Jacob Weisberg believes that President Bush (I) was dead wrong to stop the Gulf War after Saddam's forces was pushed back to Iraq. This did not stop him from abusing his own people (Kurds and Shiites) or stop his potential for aggression. Weisberg actually says it was perhaps the low pt of his presidency.
Weisberg is missing the pt. He praises Bush for setting an internationally backed force together, but ignores this support was based on limited ends. He ignores (like the administration itself ... this amnesia is as amusing as it is shocking) that the US supported Saddam for yrs in part because of his ability to hold together Iraq ... how? By being a nice guy? No, by oppressing the majorities not in control of the country. This is in part why we didn't further support the Shiite rebellion ... we didn't want the mess of a Iraq split about like a Middle East former Yugoslavia.
--Joe
(To reply, click here.)
Last time (Desert Storm) we DID prepare for war and look to all the world as if we meant it. Did Saddam withdraw his troops from Kuwait? No! If we prepare for war, amass troops from every nation along his every border, what evidence do we have that he will let us conduct "true disarmament through an effective regime of inspection and confiscation" with anything short of the coalition rolling into Iraq and conducting it themselves? None!
-- Mike Klepzig
(To reply, click here.)
While I personally agree with Weisberg that Iraq has to be attacked, I don't see how the process objections Kinsley raises can be so easily dismissed. An honest, democratic process is most likely to get you the right ideas, in general. Bush might be right now, as I think he is, but if democratic process is violated, he could get us in real trouble in the future.
Bush's approach is consistent with the low, dishonest demagogue he is. A pretense is made of getting UN resolutions, while he panders to the prejudices of the "guys in Lubbock" against the UN in his fund-raising speeches. The recent disclosures of Al-Qaeda/Iraq ties might have some validity to them, but the problem is that no one knows whether to believe them.
-- robert hall
(To reply, click here.)
(9/30)