War

As for finances, we will pay for the war, and we will sell Iraq’s oil to finance the reconstruction. Even in a slow economy, 100 billion is still not that much money. Its only a one time expense, for cryin’ out loud.

All due respect, but are you on crack? The world court is a kangaroo court that seems expressly designed to screw with us. And, it violates not national soveriegnty, but several of the bill of rights. We can’t sign a treaty that violates individual rights. And Kyoto imposes economy wrecking restrictions on us, when our emissions are decreasing anyway, while leaving India, China and the rest of the world free to pollute and kill snail darters. Most European nations haven’t ratified it either. There have been no real consequences, let alone peril, from not signing those ridiculouse, disingenuous treaties.

We do have a reasonably coherent foriegn policy, looked at from far enough off, and that’s enough for this buckethead. No policy in this veil of tears will ever be perfectly consistent. But as long as we are whacking the bad guys, well okay then.

Last one first – international relations is the story of who gets screwed by who. History is a narrative of the follies and betrayals of mankind. International politics is just history in realtime. Over the centuries, we have seen that there has never been a time when someone could cry, Rodney King – like, “Why can’t we all just get along?” and have it stick.

As a general rule, nations will act in their own interest. “There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests.” This means that like minded nations can sign treaties, trade and work together; band together for common defense; etc. In this, they are like individuals. However, nations and more specifically their rulers are not always, well, reasonable. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, in rough order of murderousness are a few examples. Attempts at creating supranational organizations to fill the role that a nation has for individuals have uniformly failed. International relations is an anarchy.

Inside the United States, you and I can sign a contract (treaty), conduct business (international trade), etc, in the knowledge that the U.S. government will prevent abuses and ensure justice. With the threat of force backing a consistent, universal law. This is largely why we all get along – because we know that in we aren’t going to get killed for making the wrong decision, and that everyone plays by the same rules. This situation is also the case in most of Europe, Japan, and a few other places.

Europe was able to create among themselves the beginnings of an international order. Why were they able to do this? Because the United States guaranteed the security of every western European nation. They were able to negotiate a larger framework because we provided security for absolutely everyone, not just the big nations.

In the larger world, this is hardly the case. For most of the world treaties, resolutions and what have you have absolutely no meaning unless backed with a threat of retaliation for violating the terms of the treaty, resolution, etc. This is a Hobbesian world. As a nation, we have the sovereign right to decide on foreign policy, war, etc. We make these decisions in the light of our own security and interests. To do otherwise is foolish.

Happily, though, we are a good people, by and large. What we want is for everyone to get along, and have stuff, and not kill or oppress each other. We tend to use our power for these purposes. The United States, far more than the United Nations, has been a force for order and prosperity and freedom in the world. Because of the investment of trillions of dollars for arms, and at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives, we helped free Europe first from the horrors of Fascism, then from Communism. Our commitment to these principles over the last seven decades means that millions who were oppressed are now free.

Which is my segue into the other point, that the U.S. is not Norway. Because the United States is so phenomenally wealthy that even our poor are richer than 90% of the world’s population, and because we are so technologically advanced and basically just really damn puissant, we can with very little effort (just over 3% of GNP) expenditure field armed forces that could conceivably take out every other military force in the world. The reason that this is the case is that we have liberty, and freedom, and rule of law. This allows us to be the free-wheeling, innovating, unpredictable, whimsical materialist, deeply religious, rig and run, can do, fuck with me and you’re dead but after we kill you will bring you back to life and build you a mansion kind of people that we are.

We are the eight thousand pound gorilla. Even though it may be unfair for Norway, different physical laws apply to gorillas of our size. We affect international relations whether we want to or not. When we sneeze, the French dive under a couch and wave a white flag.

Robert Kagan had a wonderful analogy. Europe and America are like two people trapped in a forest with a rabid, hungry bear. The American has a laser sighted .50 cal Barrett sniper rifle with homing bullets. The Europeans have a swiss army knife. Naturally, these two will have a different perception of threat levels. It makes sense for the European to hang back, try to reason with the bear, or run away. The bear seeking bullet armed American is going to think, “I’ll just shoot that B’ar.”

We define acceptable threat levels, because we can act if we deem the threat significant. We weigh the benefits of actions against the cost. And even a very low probability of getting nuked at work (one block from the White House as I write this) is unacceptable. We fought the Axis in WWII directly, and directly caused millions of civilian deaths. And we were right to do so. We decided to fight the communists indirectly, and caused no Russian casualties, though perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilians dies in Korea, Vietnam, or through our inaction in Cambodia, etc.

We have the right to do this because we have a republican system of government that represents the entire nation, not just the will of crack smoking dictator. If the leaders of this country do things that are wrong, disastrous or immoral, then the American people will through the bums out. (eventually.) We have a free, self correcting governing system. We have for the better part of the last century fought around the world to increase freedom. Large parts of the world are now free, or at least much freer than they were. And Iraq is next.

You can’t apply the Golden Rule to every instance of foreign policy. “What if somebody did that to you?” Well, they can’t. What if a rapist complained to a policeman who shot him in the course of arrest, and said, “What if somebody did that to you?” Well, the policeman was justified, and the rapist isn’t.

Moral equivalence is not a valid argument, because we are not morally equivalent to the Iraq and Saddam, or Saudi Arabia, or Syria, or North Korea, or even the first victims of WMD, militarist Japan. Using tear gas on some dirty hippy protestors throwing rocks at McD’s is not the same as dropping sarin gas on a village of 5000.

Though we are not the same as Norway, we will not invade them. Now that we are past the need to ally ourselves with any fascist wingnut dictator who happened to be (or claimed to be) anticommunist, we are targeting the supporters of state terrorism, collectors of WMD, the threats to the tranquility of the world. The war on terror was specifically not a war on Al Quaida. It is war against all who use terror, or support those who do. Saddam counts on both. We don’t need a direct connection to Osama, though there are connections. And all the other nations are, to paraphrase Francis from Stripes, “On our list.”

I think that this is part of a long term – not plan, but rather process where the U.S. through direct action or by example moves towards freedom. The United States is like a wrecking ball for tyranny – every time we go up against one, we destroy it, and not always with military might. We are subverting the Middle East as we speak, and through no particular effort of ours. Just by being our crazy, whacky selves. Since we cannot crawl into a hole and drag it in after us, we must use our powers for good. (Which is why the dirty hippy protestors are important - if they ever manage to convince the middle of the body politic that things is goin wrong, then it all comes to a dead stop. Self correcting, and even dirty hippies can be useful.)

Second: The links between al Qaeda and Palestine, as you rightly point out, are clear and many. However, leaving the “issue for Israel” to deal with might not be the best strategy. After all, it is US policy to support our allies in their own struggles against terrorism, and leaving aside the thorny, convoluted mess that is Israeli/Palestinian fighting, if Israel begins working to get at al Qaeda operatives in Palestine, doesn’t the US have a duty to help? Actually, that I’m just asking because I’m not so sure myself, again, given the history of that region.

I had NO IDEA that Ireland might be harboring al Qaeda fugitives. What’s your source-- I want to know more!

I have some good friends who vociferously oppose the Iraq invasion, and one of them today pointed me to an article in the Christian Science Monitor. The article argues that “Smart Bombs” actually kill more civilians than conventional bombs, since a) they tend to hit what they aim for not matter what it is, b) are exceptionally lethal in their blast area, and c) tend to make spotters complacent about targeting, since they are so accurate, with the result that the target is often Red Cross camps or civilian bomb shelters.

In the Gulf War, just 3 percent of bombs were precision-guided. That figure jumped to 30 percent in the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, and to nearly 70 percent during the Afghan air campaign last year.

Yet in each case, the ratio of civilian casualties to bombs dropped has grown. Technology, say analysts, isn’t the key issue. In Afghanistan, tough terrain, inability to discern combatants from civilians, and paucity of fixed military targets led to estimates of 850 to 1,300 civilian deaths. Red Cross food depots depots were hit twice, as well as some mosques, and so was a wedding party of mostly pro-US civilians last July. By one estimate, the number of civilians killed per bomb dropped may have been four times as high in Afghanistan as in Yugoslavia....

A number of factors contribute to this trend, including the changing nature of combat. The US is relying more on air power, in part to protect American lives. Its foes, aware of the propaganda power of civilian deaths, are hiding military equipment and troops in civilian areas. The Amiriyah bunker bombing illustrates some of the problems, including the lack of good intelligence on the ground.

The Pentagon targeted Amiriyah because it picked up electronic signals coming from the site, and spy satellites could see a lot of people and vehicles moving in and out of the bunker. It fit the profile of a military command center, says Charles Heyman, the London-based editor of Jane’s World Armies. The Pentagon didn’t find out until much later, says Mr. Heyman, that the Iraqis had put an aerial antenna on top of the bunker. The antenna was connected by cable to a communications center safely 300 yards away....

“Smart” bombs have advanced by magnitudes since 1991. But war takes place under imperfect conditions. Targeting data may be faulty, computer chips can fail, and greater accuracy can breed overconfidence.

The air campaign to free Kosovo of Serbian control in 1998 underscores the point, according to Fred Kaplan, author of “The Wizards of Armageddon.” “Ton for ton, the bombing killed civilians at the same rate as the [Rolling Thunder] air campaign over Vietnam,” Mr. Kaplan wrote. One reason was that the improved accuracy of “smart” bombs “emboldened commanders to aim more bombs at targets that required it,” he says- leading to more frequent misses....

I have to confess. I remain horribly conflicted about the Iraq invasion. One one hand-- as an intellectual exercise-- I think getting rid of Hussein is a great idea. However, war is the opposite of an intellectual exercise, and whatever tortured calculus I try to work out within my head gets completely invalidated when masses of civilians die.

Long story short, I’m a long-haired, pussified, foppish, pointy-headed, intellectual milquetoast, and I’m going to stay right here on the fence, wringing my hands, and worrying. Squishy center, indeed.

Objection 2: What if this were us? Okay, there are geopolitical legal issues. Hussein has, in all likelihood, not abided by the UN resolutions President Bush, Ari Fleischer, and other government boyos have been touting as cause for war. But here’s the thing. Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, but then doesn’t the United States? I mean, what if, oh say, France, or possibly the Norwegians, said, “Hey Mr. Uncle Sam with your big hat and funny pants! You have weapons of mass destruction, and we want them destroyed or we will go to war!” Come on. Americans would laugh until they soiled themselves. We do have such weapons, including the “nucular” variety (I’m sorry but I just can’t get past that). We have chemical and biological weapons. Maybe some, who would support this coming war, would respond, “Yes, but we never used them on anyone else.” I beg to differ. Ask the Japanese about the use of weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps this imaginary person would say, “Well that was a war, and Japan attacked us, but we never used chemical or biological weapons.” Again, I beg to differ. Tear gas is a chemical weapon. It has been used on the American people by American government agencies, primarily local police, many times. It will probably be used on those who protest this war as well.

Objection 3: Exit Strategy. Whatever comes of this, it will probably be bad news. The conquest and occupation of Iraq is going to cost a lot of money, and our economy is poor. The government is not in such great fiscal shape, thanks to the tax cuts President Bush and Congress have implemented. Granted, war has a way of stimulating economies, but we can’t blow people up just to get McDonald’s back in the black. If the United States removes Hussein, we could easily open the door to a much more anti-American government in Iraq than Hussein’s. Perhaps the next government will actually attack the United States, not just Kuwait or the poor Kurds.

Objection 4: What is this Iraqi terrorism connection of which you speak? I find it difficult to believe that these “links” between al Qaeda and Hussein’s government actually exist. Perhaps Hussein has harbored al Qaeda fugitives, but I’ve got news. That might be true of the Republic of Ireland as well. If President Bush and his government wish to go to war with everyone who harbors, in any way, al Qaeda members, are U.S. marines going to invade Connemara? The clearest links between Hussein and any “terrorist” organization are found in Palestine. Isn’t that more of an issue for Israel?

Well there you are. I’ve got serious qualms about this war. I expect the fur starts to fly now. Johnny Two-Cents and Buckethead, thank you for the forum.

Anyway, the good news on this front is that, according to the New York Times, Jose Padilla (Mr. Dirrty Bomb) will be allowed to see his lawyer. This is a good thing. Padilla, though he may be a low-life, is still an American citizen, and unless he is convicted of treason, he will remain one. Most heartening is that the judge hearing the case admonished the Justice Department,

“Lest any confusion remain, this is not a suggestion or a request that Padilla be permitted to consult with counsel, and it is certainly not an invitation to conduct a further `dialogue’ about whether he will be permitted to do so. It is a ruling—a determination—that he will be permitted to do so,” the judge said.”

Hopefully, this indicates a trend in which judges question the Justice Department’s efforts to designate US citizens “enemy combatants” and thereby automatically suspend their civil rights. Citizenship is a basic gift, and to allow the government to suspend it at will is to cheapen what it means for everyone. If Jose Padilla was really trying to set off a Dirrty Bomb, and if the government really has evidence strong enough to convict, then the Justice Department has nothing to fear from letting the system work.

Side note: Bill Clinton has a jive on him. I mean, GOD, I hear him talk, I know he’s full of sh*t, but I just can’t… stop… myself from wanting to believe him. It’s uncanny. And it’s dangerous.

I am currently in the middle of John Keegan’s The First World War and it has reminded me that Europe, united by centuries-long ties of trade and rule, tends to act like a large, close-knit family. Sure they may squabble, sure they may occasionally try to annihilate one another, but at the core they are a unit with a shared outlook that shapes the way they interact with the world and each other. When faced with an outsider, they tend to react as a whole regardless of their differences. (Interestingly, the former Communist nations tend not to share in this family affair. Huh.) Obviously, since the US’s heyday has not included sharing ground with our big brothers, we tend to put less stock in the opinions of other states.

But where exactly is this going to end? From this morning’s Wall Street Journal, it appears that France may be willing to achieve its diplomatic reascendency at the potential cost of American lives. Now, although that’s not the same as actually killing Americans, it’s not exactly the opposite either. (Good analysis of this over at Chicagoboyz.) Of course, that analysis implies that France will be at fault if the US invades Iraq, which is only true if Iraq has been buying French arms. (Hmm. Any proof of that?)

At best (for the USA), the current crisis could result in a complete vindication of US motives and methods, with a concomitant humbling of the French. But at worst, if things take a bad hop, Bush et. al may find themselves in the position of having squandered American diplomatic credibility and decades of goodwill over-- what? A tinpot dictator of a second-rate nation whose connection to “War On Terror 2K3” remains unproven to many both here and abroad. And that would just SUCK.