The case for war in Iraq
I was reading the other thread in great debate and was surprised to see how many inaccurisms were floating around. I was going to just reply to the topic but the dumbshits had already bumped my post to page eight whilst accomplishing nothing. Below is the reprinted economist argument:
Mr Bush stands accused of mucking up not only iraq but also the planet itself... This view of the world, which turns Bush and Blair into the real 'axis of evil' gains force with each indignant repetition. What makes it spread?
It is fed by three over-glib assumptions. The first might be called the illusion of prelapsarian innocence. This holds that Bush and his British accmoplice ar ethe wanton wreckers of a sytem of international order, with the UN at its apex, which up until the Iraq war more or less succeeded in keeping the world peaceful. In reality, this fabled sytem never existed. >The international roder of the 1990s and beyond consisted of the usual disorder. The UN's record during that decade included both faiures to intervene when it should have (to stop genocide in Rwanada, for example) and interventions taht failed (srebrenica, Somalia). There was, of course, the occasional success as well, but like the war in Iraq some of these, such as NATO's American-led rescue of Kosvo's Muslims, were ad hoc actions undertaken without the express permission (until after it was over) of the Security Council.
Iraq is in itself a perfect refutation ifo the idea that the world was in apple-pie order before Mr Bush and Mr blair upturned it. THe arguments for and aginst the war are familiar. Repeating them is becoming tedious. But one point on which everyone should be clear is that Iraq was a problem taht needed solving, not one dreamt up for America's convenience.
After Kuwait war of 1991, nothing seemed capable of making saddam honour the terms of the ceasefire he signed. The security council passed resolutions, whhich he ignored, and maintained sanctions, which made Iraqis poor and hungry. Thi sis the abject stat eof affairs which critics of the war now refer to as 'containment working'. Laying down the law while failing to enforce it is no way tou phold order, but that is how things stood before America and Britain acted (almost) alone, and how they might stil stand had france and the rest of the permanent five managed to stop them. Though the rest hoped more time, inspectors and last cahnces could do the business bloodlessly, it was a hope confoundd by preivous experience. At the least, those who deem the war a mistake should admit that, without one, iraq would probably still be under the heel of its dictator.
Which leads to the second lib assumption, that the war has made things worse for Iraqis than they were before. That is presumably why London's protsters (reference to the january 400,000 march down Kingsway) devised a celver wheeze to topple an effigy of Mr Bush, in parody of the topling of saddam's statue on the day baghdad fell. This foolish notion belittles iraq's suffering under the idctator. INdeed, to too many of th war's critics, the relief of Arab sufering seems to matter a good deal less than the supposed venality of America's motives. Iraqis are, to say the least, not natural admiresr of Mr Bush. But most are pleased that the superpower got rid of their oppressor.
None of this is to deny that America has made mistakes. IT has found the occupation harder than expected, and the guerilla resitsance more painful. That is proably why Bush has now decided to transfer power next summer to a provisional government, instead of sticking with the more methodical democracy-building programme he originalloy envisioned...
When people complain that America is behaving as a global policeman, their real gripe is often just the opposite. It is just fine when America acts the policeman, using its muscle to enforce the law under orders from te security council.
*next from a different economist*
The Iraq war was not as controversial as the Suez war of 1956 which felled ab ritish prime minister, or vietnam, which traumatised a generation. yet the war divided both the world powers and the world opinion. IT claimed its firs tpolicial victim outside iraq, when jose maria aznar, spain's prime minister who supported america's invasion and occupatoin, lost the election held alst weekend, three days after bombs in madrid killed 200 people. It mayy yet go on to claim the scalps of George Bush and Tony Blair, the war's chief architects. And of course, it ahs changed the middle east for ever. WAS IT WORTH IT?
History, as usual, is reserving judgement. The war's cirtics are not. This war, they say was illegal (netiehr self-defence nor authorised by the UN security council); unnecessary (sadadm seems nomt, after all, to have had weapons of mass destruction); and left Iraq worse off than before (his iraq was at least not being torn apart by civil war). On top of this it drove a wewdge between america nad much of europe, added to muslim suspicions of the west, and distracted attention from more urgent problems, such as the conflict in palestine and the hunt for osama bin laden.
Some of these claims are fated to remain matters of opinion. Was the war legal? Britain and the US claim that the series of security council resolutions violated by iraq, fortified by a final one threatening 'sreious consequences' for non-compliance, permitted the resort to force. Was it necessary? The non-discovery of WMD has embarassed the war's defender. But after invading Kuwait, Saddam was not only under orders to dispose of WMD: he had also to prove he had done so. His failure to offer proof allowed the inference tha the had something ot hide.
Might prolonged inspections have provided a definitive all-clear ?Maybe, but on past Iraqi form that might well have prompted another game of 'cheat and retreat'. As to whether a WMD armed saddam would anyway have proved a danger to the region or beyond, nobody - merficully - will now have to find out.
However, not all of the much debated quesitons about the wisdom of the war turn on imponderables. ON some - such as the war's impact of the wellbeing of iraqis and the cosnequnces for the middle east - the facts have their say, even if they do not all poin tin the same direction.
For example, some of the war's ciritic spredited that it would unleash mayhem throughout the region, driving enraged Muslims into the arms of Al Qaeda and toplling friendly regimes like ninepins. Wrong: a rash of furious demonstrations struck arab capitals during the war, and islamist terrorism has increased sharply in Saudi Arabia and Morocco over the past year, but so far all regimes have survived.
Indeed, far from destablising regims friendly to the US, the war may have had a salutary impact on unfriendly ones. Having lost an ally in Iraq and facing imminent American sanctions, Syria's Bashar Assad is striving to mend relations with the West, not least by offering a resumption of peace talks with Israel. The disarmament plans of Libyas Muammar Qaddafi may predate the war, but he has now not only dismantled secret weapons programmes but shipped their parts to America. The Iranians reacted calmly to the removal of Saddam. They did not approve of it, but they did not approve of him. And since the war they have made a show of being more open about their own nuclear activities.
I was reading the other thread in great debate and was surprised to see how many inaccurisms were floating around. I was going to just reply to the topic but the dumbshits had already bumped my post to page eight whilst accomplishing nothing. Below is the reprinted economist argument:
Mr Bush stands accused of mucking up not only iraq but also the planet itself... This view of the world, which turns Bush and Blair into the real 'axis of evil' gains force with each indignant repetition. What makes it spread?
It is fed by three over-glib assumptions. The first might be called the illusion of prelapsarian innocence. This holds that Bush and his British accmoplice ar ethe wanton wreckers of a sytem of international order, with the UN at its apex, which up until the Iraq war more or less succeeded in keeping the world peaceful. In reality, this fabled sytem never existed. >The international roder of the 1990s and beyond consisted of the usual disorder. The UN's record during that decade included both faiures to intervene when it should have (to stop genocide in Rwanada, for example) and interventions taht failed (srebrenica, Somalia). There was, of course, the occasional success as well, but like the war in Iraq some of these, such as NATO's American-led rescue of Kosvo's Muslims, were ad hoc actions undertaken without the express permission (until after it was over) of the Security Council.
Iraq is in itself a perfect refutation ifo the idea that the world was in apple-pie order before Mr Bush and Mr blair upturned it. THe arguments for and aginst the war are familiar. Repeating them is becoming tedious. But one point on which everyone should be clear is that Iraq was a problem taht needed solving, not one dreamt up for America's convenience.
After Kuwait war of 1991, nothing seemed capable of making saddam honour the terms of the ceasefire he signed. The security council passed resolutions, whhich he ignored, and maintained sanctions, which made Iraqis poor and hungry. Thi sis the abject stat eof affairs which critics of the war now refer to as 'containment working'. Laying down the law while failing to enforce it is no way tou phold order, but that is how things stood before America and Britain acted (almost) alone, and how they might stil stand had france and the rest of the permanent five managed to stop them. Though the rest hoped more time, inspectors and last cahnces could do the business bloodlessly, it was a hope confoundd by preivous experience. At the least, those who deem the war a mistake should admit that, without one, iraq would probably still be under the heel of its dictator.
Which leads to the second lib assumption, that the war has made things worse for Iraqis than they were before. That is presumably why London's protsters (reference to the january 400,000 march down Kingsway) devised a celver wheeze to topple an effigy of Mr Bush, in parody of the topling of saddam's statue on the day baghdad fell. This foolish notion belittles iraq's suffering under the idctator. INdeed, to too many of th war's critics, the relief of Arab sufering seems to matter a good deal less than the supposed venality of America's motives. Iraqis are, to say the least, not natural admiresr of Mr Bush. But most are pleased that the superpower got rid of their oppressor.
None of this is to deny that America has made mistakes. IT has found the occupation harder than expected, and the guerilla resitsance more painful. That is proably why Bush has now decided to transfer power next summer to a provisional government, instead of sticking with the more methodical democracy-building programme he originalloy envisioned...
When people complain that America is behaving as a global policeman, their real gripe is often just the opposite. It is just fine when America acts the policeman, using its muscle to enforce the law under orders from te security council.
*next from a different economist*
The Iraq war was not as controversial as the Suez war of 1956 which felled ab ritish prime minister, or vietnam, which traumatised a generation. yet the war divided both the world powers and the world opinion. IT claimed its firs tpolicial victim outside iraq, when jose maria aznar, spain's prime minister who supported america's invasion and occupatoin, lost the election held alst weekend, three days after bombs in madrid killed 200 people. It mayy yet go on to claim the scalps of George Bush and Tony Blair, the war's chief architects. And of course, it ahs changed the middle east for ever. WAS IT WORTH IT?
History, as usual, is reserving judgement. The war's cirtics are not. This war, they say was illegal (netiehr self-defence nor authorised by the UN security council); unnecessary (sadadm seems nomt, after all, to have had weapons of mass destruction); and left Iraq worse off than before (his iraq was at least not being torn apart by civil war). On top of this it drove a wewdge between america nad much of europe, added to muslim suspicions of the west, and distracted attention from more urgent problems, such as the conflict in palestine and the hunt for osama bin laden.
Some of these claims are fated to remain matters of opinion. Was the war legal? Britain and the US claim that the series of security council resolutions violated by iraq, fortified by a final one threatening 'sreious consequences' for non-compliance, permitted the resort to force. Was it necessary? The non-discovery of WMD has embarassed the war's defender. But after invading Kuwait, Saddam was not only under orders to dispose of WMD: he had also to prove he had done so. His failure to offer proof allowed the inference tha the had something ot hide.
Might prolonged inspections have provided a definitive all-clear ?Maybe, but on past Iraqi form that might well have prompted another game of 'cheat and retreat'. As to whether a WMD armed saddam would anyway have proved a danger to the region or beyond, nobody - merficully - will now have to find out.
However, not all of the much debated quesitons about the wisdom of the war turn on imponderables. ON some - such as the war's impact of the wellbeing of iraqis and the cosnequnces for the middle east - the facts have their say, even if they do not all poin tin the same direction.
For example, some of the war's ciritic spredited that it would unleash mayhem throughout the region, driving enraged Muslims into the arms of Al Qaeda and toplling friendly regimes like ninepins. Wrong: a rash of furious demonstrations struck arab capitals during the war, and islamist terrorism has increased sharply in Saudi Arabia and Morocco over the past year, but so far all regimes have survived.
Indeed, far from destablising regims friendly to the US, the war may have had a salutary impact on unfriendly ones. Having lost an ally in Iraq and facing imminent American sanctions, Syria's Bashar Assad is striving to mend relations with the West, not least by offering a resumption of peace talks with Israel. The disarmament plans of Libyas Muammar Qaddafi may predate the war, but he has now not only dismantled secret weapons programmes but shipped their parts to America. The Iranians reacted calmly to the removal of Saddam. They did not approve of it, but they did not approve of him. And since the war they have made a show of being more open about their own nuclear activities.
