Bush: "we misnamed the war on terror"

[Brad Sallows]

You quoted the list of conditions for just war and my assertions that three of the seven were satisfied, four of the seven were disputed, and my explanation why the first of the seven was satisfied.  I think I see the confusion.  I did not explicitly state that all seven conditions must be satisfied; I assumed that since I dicussed each of the seven in the context of Iraq the reader would interpret that all seven must be satisfied.  If only one condition must be satisfied, I would only have had to prove one.  So to clarify: all seven of the conditions for just war must be satisfied if a war is to be deemed just; "just cause" is one of the seven conditions; a single sufficient "just cause" is all that is necessary for that one condition to be fulfilled.  Otherwise, the war is unjust.  (If there are conditions of which I was unaware that have been included in just war theory, then by all means add them to the list.)  I do not intend to address your straw man of justifying a war on the basis of feasibility of victory because that is a misinterpretation of just war theory.

I am not sure how you mean your question ("the right to invade") to be interpreted.  Do you mean right as in "freedom" (negative right) or "entitlement" (positive right)?  Do you mean right as in simple provocation (casus belli), or fulfillment of the entire set of conditions for just war?  The pragmatic view is that nations conduct themselves as they please subject to the consequences of their actions.  The idealistic view is that nations should never conduct war except just war.  Note that even self-defence is not protected: the "reasonable chance of success" condition precludes self-defence against hopeless odds.  Reverse the question: on what grounds do you think the US had no right to invade?  Moral grounds?  Legal grounds?  Other grounds?

Your contention that the WMD cause was unfounded is admirable but indefensible unless you can prove your allegations of fabrication or incompetence.  As I've written repeatedly, hindsight doesn't matter.  You can't prove a nation obstructive to inspections has no WMD unless you forcibly examine it.  Even with an apparently co-operative nation you can't have certainty.

Do you believe Hussein's regime should have been tolerated by the community of nations indefinitely or not?

 

[clasper]

Does anyone else have an opinion on the issues brought up by John Galt, Brad Sallows or myself?

I agree with Caeser in that I wish the invasion was handled in a different way.  But for some strange reason, Bush didn't see fit to consult me before invading, so my brilliantly conceived plan involving diplomacy and force cannot be proven right or wrong, merely irrelevant.  In terms of the conduct of the war, the question of whether a decision made a year and a half ago was "just" or not isn't that important.  The IMPORTANT question is: Where do we go from here?

In terms of the upcoming election in the US, the question of whether Bush acted justly (or fabricated intelligence, or whatever) is an important one, but the few people on the forum that have the right to vote in the election probably won't be swayed by arguments on either side.

 

[joaquim]

Does anyone else have an opinion on the issues brought up by John Galt, Brad Sallows or myself?

Wow, heated debate here!

First, it is important to understand that the concept of nation-state is foreign for Middle-Easterners. Their allegiance is based on familial, racial and religious ties. Most have not recognized the lines drawn on maps by the British and French 60 years ago. Therefore, the western world is, for the first time, fighting a war against an ideology rather than a country. The rules of engagement developed for war against nation-states are not very useful here.

Second, what an Arab country has, the others will soon have. We were all reminded of this with the AQ Khan ring of nuclear technology smuggling. Saddam had a large arsenal of dangerous weapons, mainly conventional but still deadly, as witnessed by the daily roadside bombs these days. It was important to put in place in Iraq a regime more friendly to the west to control these weapons.

Third, Middle Eastern, especially Arabs, have a veneration for "the strong man". Saddam was the most visible of these Arab champions. Its removal was a very strong proof of the superiority of the western model over the islamic model.

Fourth, the critics of the war in Iraq, starting with Caeser in these pages, have a point. Iraq was not a sufficiently large threat to justify the death of over 1000 western soldiers, mainly American. Frankly, Iran is a greater threat. I would rank North Korea not far behind. But all these would be nothing without the money and venom spewing from the house of Saud. If I controlled the US fire power, I would have replaced them first.

Finally, I want to say that, despite the abundance of anti-war sentiments among Canadians, we are all very proud of you guys.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

John Galt:

Re:"other justification included freeing the Iraqi people from a murderous tyrant." - so, when exactly did the US go to the UNSC in attempt to authorize force against Iraq based on links to terror not attributed to erroneous evidence (WMD)?   If you don't address these issues to the UN, but invade based on fraudulent intel (WMD), you can't turn around and say, "well, he also had links to terror, so were still good to go..." This totally circumvents the diplomatic process.

They aren't turning around and saying this: they've been saying it all along, if you'd been bothered to listen.  I have provided you with direct quotes from Bush that demonstrate this: if you are going to refute it, please provide ANY EVIDENCE that does not consist solely of your own impression or opinion (this is what what I was writing about when I referred to 'presenting conjecture as fact').

Re:"Iraq violated Resolution 687..." - I ask you again: what does this have to do with action taken by the US without the UN's approval? The US has no authority to enforce UN sanctions without prior UN approval.

AGAIN, if you'd been bothered to do ANY research, or even read my post above, you would know that 678 provided that authority specifically.

Re:"the former of which you groundlessly dismiss and the latter you haven't even mentioned." - Threats to Israel by an Arab nation is neither rare, nor a threat to the US. An assassination attempt is not terrorism. Terrorism is an attack on a civilian populace, usually for political means, with the intent of affecting some change or otherwise favorable result to the perpetrators, by causing terror or fear of further attack on the populace as a whole. The President is not a civilian, and if you can call assassination conspirators terrorists, then many former (and the current) presidents could be called terrorists (JFK, for one).

This bordering on the ridiculous: it is "War on Terror" not "War on Terror Against the United States and no-one else" ... Israel has many enemies in the Arab world: how does this imply in ANY way that Saddam was not a threat to them?  On top of which, the US protects it's ALLIES (of which Israel is one).  The President is technically not a civillian: a retired President is.  Regardless, the point, as I originally stated, is that it is a war on Terrorism as an IDEA: it doesn't have to be against the US specifically: you may not agree, but that IS the justification they used.  And the other day they caught a Hamas operative videotaping the Chesapeake Bay Bridge (that's IN the US, by the way): http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.hamas24aug24,1,476086.story

Re: "Interestingly, all of the members of the Security Council (certainly at the time) believed the "wild theories of WMD being passed from Iraq to terrorists." - if this is the case, then where is the security resolution condemning it?

I give up.

 

[dutchie]

Brad:

Re:'Just Cause/Just War': I understand your point now, and I actually agree with most of it.

Re:"I am not sure how you mean your question ("the right to invade")" -
I was asking the question in a general sense, but to 'clasify' the question, I would say I'm asking whether or not they have satisfied the conditions for just war. I will, however, answer all of the possible questions you proposed:

1)-Do you mean right as in "freedom" (negative right)? Yes, they are free to invade. I understand this to be the theory of whether or not a nation has the general right to invade another. This is purely philosophical and general, and does not directly pertain to any specific war or invasion, just that in principle, nations have the free will to invade.

2)- or "entitlement" (positive right)? I am not sure what this means.

3)- Do you mean right as in simple provocation (casus belli),  - No. The US has not proven (to me), that they were sufficiently provoked to justify the war. Again, as stated earlier, lack of co-operation with the UN is UN business. Enforcement of its resolutions, deals, etc with respect to Iraq is enforced by the member nations, but the authority to act lies with the UN. In regards to being provoked via WMD, again, they have not proven to me (or the UN) that Iraq possessed these.

4)- fulfillment of the entire set of conditions for just war? - No. I agree with most of what you stated regarding fullfilled/disputed conditions. The US has fulfilled: success, and open declaration. The US has not (in my opinion) satisfiedroportionality,just cause, legitimate authority, last resort, and rightness of intentions. You stated proportionality was satisfied, I would argue that the US losses alone do not justify this war. As well, there is a lot of other negative ramifications: Iraqi losses (civilian and military), damage to infrastructure, the US image in the Arab world, the brutality committed against US civilians and Iraqi prisoners, the rift caused between the US and some European countries, the damage to the UN legitimacy throughout the world (including the places where they do a lot of good work - the 3rd world), etc.

5)-"The pragmatic view is that nations conduct themselves as they please subject to the consequences of their actions.  The idealistic view is that nations should never conduct war except just war.  Note that even self-defence is not protected: the "reasonable chance of success" condition precludes self-defence against hopeless odds." - I agree with this completely, but would add that guerrilla warfare is a good option for a nation under attack from a vastly superior foe, even against all odds. But conventional defence would indeed be foolish.

6)-on what grounds do you think the US had no right to invade?  Moral grounds? - I argue that the war is immoral because it is does not satisfy the conditions for just war (specifically proportionality, just cause, legitimate authority, last resort, and rightness of intentions). Legal grounds? - The US approved war through congress, so as far as domestic law (US law) is concerned, it is legal. I suspect it might contravene an international law regarding unprovoked aggression/war, but I have no reference for that. Other grounds? - There is one other aspect of the war that I feel is unjust, but it is strictly subjective, and hence I have not brought it up thus far: The US openly states it actively sponsors democracy throughout the world, but has denied basic human rights to detainees from Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.If the US wants to be seen as furthering the cause of democracy in Iraq (or anywhere else) it must act in a democratic way. If they deemed these detainees POW's, they would be subject to the Geneva Convention, and torture would be a war crime (something that has clearly happened). But the US administration has fought vehemently against this distinction. If they are considered criminals in a traditional sense, then they would be subject to all the rights and privileges of ordinary US criminal suspects. This they also have fought. Instead, they have called them terrorists, not bound by either the Geneva Convention, nor any law giving basic rights to criminal suspects. The US Supreme Court disagrees, and has deemed that they are entitled to all of the rights of any person charged with a criminal offence in the US, including due process. By fighting all attempts to grant these detainees the human rights they deserve, they contradict their claims they are trying to bring democracy to that corner of the globe.

7)- "Your contention that the WMD cause was unfounded is admirable but indefensible..."  - I contend that it is the US that has to prove that the WMD exist. I cannot prove something does not exist. How can I show an absence of something? Do I show you an empty file folder and say the file doesn't exist? Absence of evidence (me proving there is no WMD) is by definition not provable. It is the absence of the proof that they did/do exist that removes legitimacy from the US claim.

8)-"Do you believe Hussein's regime should have been tolerated by the community of nations indefinitely or not?" - No. I do not believe that his regime should have been tolerated indefinitely. More pressure, time, and effort could have been spent to avoid war. Had all avenues been exhausted, the war would be more defendable.

Clasper:

Re:"my brilliantly conceived plan involving diplomacy and force cannot be proven right or wrong, merely irrelevant." - I could not disagree more with this statement. Questioning decisions made by our political leaders is an essential right and responsibility of everyone. The very concept of democracy hings on this.

Re:"the question of whether a decision made a year and a half ago was "just" or not isn't that important.  The IMPORTANT question is: Where do we go from here?" - I agree that 'where we go from here' is important, but it does not preclude us from examining the basis for the war. The two can be done simultaneously, and in fact, you should establish the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the war before discussing 'where to go from here'. For example, if you establish that the war is unjust, what you do next will be very different than what you would do if it was justifiable.

Re:"the few people on the forum that have the right to vote in the election probably won't be swayed by arguments on either side" - again, does it mean you can't/shouldn't make the argument anyway?

 

[dutchie]

Brad:

Re:'Just Cause/Just War': I understand your point now, and I actually agree with most of it.

Re:"I am not sure how you mean your question ("the right to invade")" -
I was asking the question in a general sense, but to 'clasify' the question, I would say I'm asking whether or not they have satisfied the conditions for just war. I will, however, answer all of the possible questions you proposed:

1)-Do you mean right as in "freedom" (negative right)? Yes, they are free to invade. I understand this to be the theory of whether or not a nation has the general right to invade another. This is purely philosophical and general, and does not directly pertain to any specific war or invasion, just that in principle, nations have the free will to invade.

2)- or "entitlement" (positive right)? I am not sure what this means.

3)- Do you mean right as in simple provocation (casus belli),  - No. The US has not proven (to me), that they were sufficiently provoked to justify the war. Again, as stated earlier, lack of co-operation with the UN is UN business. Enforcement of its resolutions, deals, etc with respect to Iraq is enforced by the member nations, but the authority to act lies with the UN. In regards to being provoked via WMD, again, they have not proven to me (or the UN) that Iraq possessed these.

4)- fulfillment of the entire set of conditions for just war? - No. I agree with most of what you stated regarding fullfilled/disputed conditions. The US has fulfilled: success, and open declaration. The US has not (in my opinion) satisfiedroportionality,just cause, legitimate authority, last resort, and rightness of intentions. You stated proportionality was satisfied, I would argue that the US losses alone do not justify this war. As well, there is a lot of other negative ramifications: Iraqi losses (civilian and military), damage to infrastructure, the US image in the Arab world, the brutality committed against US civilians and Iraqi prisoners, the rift caused between the US and some European countries, the damage to the UN legitimacy throughout the world (including the places where they do a lot of good work - the 3rd world), etc.

5)-"The pragmatic view is that nations conduct themselves as they please subject to the consequences of their actions.  The idealistic view is that nations should never conduct war except just war.  Note that even self-defence is not protected: the "reasonable chance of success" condition precludes self-defence against hopeless odds." - I agree with this completely, but would add that guerrilla warfare is a good option for a nation under attack from a vastly superior foe, even against all odds. But conventional defence would indeed be foolish.

6)-on what grounds do you think the US had no right to invade?  Moral grounds? - I argue that the war is immoral because it is does not satisfy the conditions for just war (specifically proportionality, just cause, legitimate authority, last resort, and rightness of intentions). Legal grounds? - The US approved war through congress, so as far as domestic law (US law) is concerned, it is legal. I suspect it might contravene an international law regarding unprovoked aggression/war, but I have no reference for that. Other grounds? - There is one other aspect of the war that I feel is unjust, but it is strictly subjective, and hence I have not brought it up thus far: The US openly states it actively sponsors democracy throughout the world, but has denied basic human rights to detainees from Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.If the US wants to be seen as furthering the cause of democracy in Iraq (or anywhere else) it must act in a democratic way. If they deemed these detainees POW's, they would be subject to the Geneva Convention, and torture would be a war crime (something that has clearly happened). But the US administration has fought vehemently against this distinction. If they are considered criminals in a traditional sense, then they would be subject to all the rights and privileges of ordinary US criminal suspects. This they also have fought. Instead, they have called them terrorists, not bound by either the Geneva Convention, nor any law giving basic rights to criminal suspects. The US Supreme Court disagrees, and has deemed that they are entitled to all of the rights of any person charged with a criminal offence in the US, including due process. By fighting all attempts to grant these detainees the human rights they deserve, they contradict their claims they are trying to bring democracy to that corner of the globe.

7)- "Your contention that the WMD cause was unfounded is admirable but indefensible..."  - I contend that it is the US that has to prove that the WMD exist. I cannot prove something does not exist. How can I show an absence of something? Do I show you an empty file folder and say the file doesn't exist? Absence of evidence (me proving there is no WMD) is by definition not provable. It is the absence of the proof that they did/do exist that removes legitimacy from the US claim.

8)-"Do you believe Hussein's regime should have been tolerated by the community of nations indefinitely or not?" - No. I do not believe that his regime should have been tolerated indefinitely. More pressure, time, and effort could have been spent to avoid war. Had all avenues been exhausted, the war would be more defendable.

Clasper:

Re:"my brilliantly conceived plan involving diplomacy and force cannot be proven right or wrong, merely irrelevant." - I could not disagree more with this statement. Questioning decisions made by our political leaders is an essential right and responsibility of everyone. The very concept of democracy hangs on this.

Re:"the question of whether a decision made a year and a half ago was "just" or not isn't that important.  The IMPORTANT question is: Where do we go from here?" - I agree that 'where we go from here' is important, but it does not preclude us from examining the basis for the war. The two can be done simultaneously, and in fact, you should establish the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the war before discussing 'where to go from here'. For example, if you establish that the war is unjust, what you do next will be very different than what you would do if it was justifiable.

Re:"the few people on the forum that have the right to vote in the election probably won't be swayed by arguments on either side" - again, does it mean you can't/shouldn't make the argument anyway?


John Galt:

You seem quite annoyed that I have not answered your questions, but I specifically asked you to provide evidence that the US went to the UNSC with evidence of terorrist links not attributed to WMD. You response was not to answer the question, but instead you accused me of not reading your posts, and to turn around and ask me to prove something doesn't exist. As stated above, one cannot 'prove' something does not exist. One can assume something doesn't exist when no credible evidence to the contrary is presented. You have given me quotes from Bush, but as you can probably summize from my posts, I do not view his views as gospel, especially when I read them on the internet.

So instead of responding to your sort-of question, I will ask you kindly to answer the question I asked in my last post: 'When did the US go to the UNSC accusing Iraq of terrorist links?' Do not include accusations based on erroneous intel, (ie - any link to terrorism attributed to Iraq's possesion of WMD. As well, as assasination attempts are not terrorism, don't include any reference to this either).


Re:"AGAIN, if you'd been bothered to do ANY research" - Don't make assumptions about what I have or have not done. I asked you a specific question, but you didn't answer it. I will ask you a third (and final) time: "What does a UN resolution authorizing force have to do with unilateral action taken by the US?" The US didn't act with the UN's approval, so the UN resolution is irrelevant. Just as we as citizens cannot enforce the laws of Canada without the Crown's approval (judiciary appointment).


Re:"This bordering on the ridiculous: it is "War on Terror" not "War on Terror Against the United States and no-one else" ... " - Are you claiming that the US attacked Iraq due to terror threats to Israel? Did Israel request this action on their behalf? If not, terror threats to Israel do not justify the US invading Iraq. Again, if there were threats to Israel that DIRECTLY threaten the security of the US, then that should have been brought to the UNSC, but it wasn't. I cannot provide proof of this, as it is by definition impossible to prove something doesn't exist. You could refute this however, by providing evidence that those allegations were brought to the UNSC (and the UNSC approved those allegations).

Re:"it doesn't have to be against the US specifically" - It does have to be against the US for the US to LEGITIMATLY wage war on a soverign nation. The US might state that it is 'waging a war on terrorism wherever we find it', that's fine, but if that involves the invasion of other nations based on perceived (but unproven) threats to a third party, then that is wrong, for so many reasons.

Re:question:"where is the security resolution condemning it? response:I give up." - This is obviously frustrating for you, but the fact is that invasion of another country is a serious matter, and justification must be thorough, complete, and irrefutable. If the UNSC had credible evidence of terror links from Iraq that threatened the US, then there would have been a UNSC resolution, or at least a condemnation. There is no resolution/condemnation, ergo, the claim that this is fact is not proven.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The problem with waiting for provocation is that the provocation the US is trying to prevent is the detonation of a nuclear weapon or release of toxic chemicals on its own soil.  By the time the provocation has occurred, or even when it is imminent, is too late; prevention, rather than pre-emption or reaction is the desired end-state.  That drives the US tp act on balance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt or with certainty.

I cannot resist pointing out again that the only way authority to act lies with the UN is if nations maintain the fiction the UN has that authority.

>I would argue that the US losses alone do not justify this war.

Ask yourself that in 10 years when you can compare 2002-2012 for the Iraqis to 1992-2002 in terms of suffering and loss of life.  Then it will be easier to see whether the removal of Hussein has been worth the cost.

The US, the UN, the nations of Europe: all of these claim to support democracy and human rights.  Which among them is perfect?  Perhaps instead of measuring the conduct of the US against the top end of the yardstick it should be compared to its peers with a dose of political reality thrown in.  There is a third category after PoW and domestic criminal: that of someone who commits crimes against humanity.  Such criminals are not entitled to the privileges of PoW and we have already seen (Nuremburg trials) that they can be detained and tried above the jurisdiction of any national court.  Note that "democracy" and "human rights" (as in the treatment of prisoners) are two entirely separate issues; one may be present without the other.

>More pressure, time, and effort could have been spent to avoid war.

And of course more Iraqi lives under the Hussein regime must be added to what could have been "spent".  You can find estimates of wrongful Iraqi deaths (not to forget all other types of human rights abuses) per year over the past few years.  Presumably that annual death toll, then, is part of the acceptable cost of avoiding war.  How does that annual death toll stack up against the annualized death toll of Iraqis and others (including US soldiers) since the war began?

 

[clasper]

Clasper:

Re:"my brilliantly conceived plan involving diplomacy and force cannot be proven right or wrong, merely irrelevant." - I could not disagree more with this statement. Questioning decisions made by our political leaders is an essential right and responsibility of everyone. The very concept of democracy hangs on this.

Hence my comment about this being important in terms of the US election.   In terms of improving the current geopolitical situation, it's pretty irrelevant.   Now that I think about it, it is an interesting theoretical discussion on the causes and justifications for war.

Re:"the question of whether a decision made a year and a half ago was "just" or not isn't that important.  The IMPORTANT question is: Where do we go from here?" - I agree that 'where we go from here' is important, but it does not preclude us from examining the basis for the war. The two can be done simultaneously, and in fact, you should establish the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the war before discussing 'where to go from here'. For example, if you establish that the war is unjust, what you do next will be very different than what you would do if it was justifiable.

Actually, I disagree here.   There are many problems in Iraq right now, and many of them are caused by westerners, whether we were there "justly" or not.   Withdrawing now because we weren't supposed to be there in the first place won't necessarily clean up the mess we've made.   If we set out to also solve some problems that Iraqis caused without our help, the burden for proving whether or not it is just has changed significantly in the last year and a half.  The cat is already out of the bag.

Re:"the few people on the forum that have the right to vote in the election probably won't be swayed by arguments on either side" - again, does it mean you can't/shouldn't make the argument anyway?

No, it doesn't mean you can't make the argument anyway.   Have fun tilting at those windmills.

 

[dutchie]

Brad:

Re:"the provocation the US is trying to prevent is the detonation of a nuclear weapon or release of toxic chemicals on its own soil."  - it is one thing to suggest that Saddam had the capacity to create chemical or even nuclear weapons, it is quite another to suggest he had even a sliver of hope of detonating those weapons on US soil. There is no credible evidence of these weapons, as indicated by the Blix inspections, even with the obstruction from the Iraqis. As far as delivery to US soil is concerned, Iraq had two options: 1) - create or acquire an ICBM: not likely. Anyone suggestion this was even remotely possible with the US spying on Iraq 24/7 is fooling themselves. 2)- deliver the weapons to the US in a clandestine way (cargo container, terrorists, etc): not really a realistic possibility, and certainly no evidence of even an intention to do this, as far as I can tell.

Re:"By the time the provocation has occurred....it is too late; prevention, rather than reaction is the desired end-state.  That drives the US tp act on balance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt or with certainty."   - It might drive the US to lower the burden of proof required to act, but it does not lower the level required by the rest of the free world. Even if the US was acting on 'balance of probability', I would argue that because the US acted on intel it knew was false, and no other basis for invasion was put forth to a level that would meet the 'balance of probability' requirement, then the invasion is still unjustified, even with this lower proof requirement.

Re:"the only way authority to act lies with the UN is if nations maintain the fiction the UN has that authority." - all UN member nations (including the US) have signed a document attesting to the UN's authority in these matters. One could argue that the UN has lost it's effective authority due to it's lack of action in previous crisis'. I would counter that argument with the claim that the US has lost it's moral authority to claim to be acting in the best interests of peace and international democracy based on it's record of supporting coups of democratically elected leaders, it's record of consistant violations of the Geneva Convention, etc.

Re:"Then it will be easier to see whether the removal of Hussein has been worth the cost." - Removal of a tyrant is one thing (I have argued that it is the responsibility of Iraqis), but to remove him under false pretenses, while flaunting international opinion, and acting before all other non-violent means have been exhausted is quite another. I would be far less indignant about this situation if the US had seriously tried to avoid invasion, and used war as a true last resort.

Re:"The US, the UN, the nations of Europe: all of these claim to support democracy and human rights.  Which among them is perfect?" - none of them are perfect, but only the US has invaded Iraq (except Britain). "Perhaps instead of measuring the conduct of the US against the top end of the yardstick it should be compared to its peers with a dose of political reality thrown in." - It is the US that has determined how they are measured. They have always claimed to be the example of democracy that all others should model themselves after. By claiming to be the pinnacle of democracy, the expectation is that they act in a way that reflects that.

Clasper:

Re:"Withdrawing now..." - the violation of Iraq has already occurred, and nothing can change that. I do not propose immediate and total withdrawal of all coalition troops from Iraq, that would be adding insult to injury. The US (and others) have a duty to attempt to repair the damage they have done, physically, politically, etc. A good start would be to kick out US contractors (Haliburton et all) and hand the contracts to Iraqis. People forget that the Iraqi people, despite Saddam's tyranny, were highly educated and their technology and infastructure was of a very high caliber (compared to other Arab nations). They have the ability. This would go a long way in improving the image of the US in Iraq. Hand over to the Iraqis of real political power, hand over of responsibility for security monitoring to the UN, and other 'withdrawal' type moves might not be a bad idea either. I don't, however, pretend to have all the answers on how to fix the situation, but that does not preclude me (or anyone else) from objecting to how the mess was created in the first place.

 

[Infanteer]

Well, my head is somewhat spinning.   Despite all the legal and philisophical arguements surrounding the morality of the invasion of Iraq, the fact remains that America acted as it did in response to 3,000 dead civilians following attacks based from a certain geopolitical region.   We can debate the finer points of the invasion for another four pages, but I think Brad struck the real blow in the first page with his statement that Enough of the problem has been identified to start work.   The niggling over details can be done concurrently.

Bottom line is, the morality of the act is irrelevant as America can do as it sees fit to secure itself and there is not a thing we Canadians, the French, or the United Nations can do about it.   This is as true now as it was 2500 years ago when Thucydides stated that "since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

 

[dutchie]

This thread appears to be running out of steam as pretty much all possible arguments have been stated (and restated several times in some cases).

Having said that, Infanteer brings up a very good point, which was also brought up by Brad: The US (or anyone else) is free to invade anyone they want, as long as they are willing to accept the consequences. The greater the might of that nation, the more free they are to do as they please. (I am of course paraphrasing both Infanteer and Brad). I agree with this entirely. But just as the US has the free will to do as it pleases, I have the right to question their actions. My actions are not irrelavant, just as my vote in an election, although miniscule in impact on it's own, is not irrelavant.

re:"America acted as it did in response to 3,000 dead civilians following attacks based from a certain geopolitical region." - I disagree. As stated, I do not believe the US invaded Iraq as part of the War on Terror (or because of 9/11). I have indicated my basis for this belief clear in this thread, which I trust you have read (although I don't expect you, or anyone else to agree with me). Second, just because the 9/11 attacks were based out of the Middle East, it does not legitimize the invasion of a specific nation within that region, with no other proven ties to the attacks.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Hussein's prospects of delivering a weapon were not really at issue; the prospects his weapons might come into the hands of terrorists who then might smuggle them into the US was an issue.

"There is no credible evidence of these weapons...even with the obstruction from the Iraqis."  Do you mean "especially with the obstruction"?  Obstructionism was part of the problem, not something which allayed US concerns.

Has it been proven the US acted on intel it knew was false, or is that still conjecture?

The UN Charter was signed in 1945.  I think the bait-and-switch the organization has conducted will ensure its demise, but only time will bear that out or not.  And what is this record of consistent violations of the Geneva Convention of which you speak?  Has someone been documenting a trail of US abuses since 1949?

>By claiming to be the pinnacle of democracy, the expectation is that they act in a way that reflects that.

That is one view.  Another is to simply decide what the appropriate and reasonable standards are for yourself and apply them.  I wouldn't accept someone's claim to be the Pope at face value.

 

[dutchie]

Brad: as stated in the previous post, I feel this discussion/thread has just about run its course, but I will continue to reply to your points for the time being. It seems we have made our positions clear. I understand your position, and I suspect you understand mine. Having said that.......

Re:"the prospects his weapons might come into the hands of terrorists who then might smuggle them into the US was an issue." - the smuggle option is what I meant by, "deliver the weapons to the US in a clandestine way (cargo container, terrorists, etc): not really a realistic possibility, and certainly no evidence of even an intention to do this, as far as I can tell." I guess we disagree. I feel the US should have to prove this contention to a higher level than you do.

Re:"Do you mean "especially with the obstruction"? - What I meant was, that even with the suspiciousness of the Iraqis obstructing Blix (which suggests, but does not prove, guilt), the US cannot claim that Iraq had WMD. My original wording was confusing.

Re:"Has it been proven the US acted on intel it knew was false, or is that still conjecture?" - it is based on the various investigations as well as the fact that no WMD have been found in Iraq in 1.5 years of occupation.

Re:"The UN Charter was signed in 1945.  I think the bait-and-switch the organization has conducted will ensure its demise, but only time will bear that out or not." - That might be true, but the demise hasn't occurred yet, and until then, whether you agree or not, the US is still bound by the Charter.

Re:"And what is this record of consistent violations of the Geneva Convention of which you speak?" - the US has a history of torturing PoW's (Iraqi prisons, Guantanamo Bay, Vietnam, etc.). Torture, of course, is against the Convention.

Re:"Another is to simply decide what the appropriate and reasonable standards are for yourself and apply them." - I agree. But it appears my standards for their conduct, and the US' standards are different. "I wouldn't accept someone's claim to be the Pope at face value." - I don't fully understand this. Do you mean that you wouldn't accept someone's claim that they were as meritous as the Pope? (if so, I probably would have chosen a different example of someone of high moral fibre).

 

[Brad Sallows]

>not really a realistic possibility

What are your grounds for believing the frontiers of North America are not porous?

Regarding intel, "knew it was false" implies earlier in time.  Perhaps you should rephrase "now knows was incorrect".

>the US has a history of torturing PoW's (Iraqi prisons, Guantanamo Bay, Vietnam, etc.). Torture, of course, is against the Convention.

Please cite some evidence of torture at G'Bay.  International groups have been invited in and, while the accommodations may not have been entirely to their liking, I do not recall claims of torture.  Also, what is your evidence of a US history of torturing PoWs in Vietnam (as opposed to the actions of individuals acting against their training and government policy)?  What I am asking you to address is your contention of "record of consistant violations".  You should replace "record of consistent" with "recent isolated instances of".

When it comes to standards of judgement, it suffices to point out that if you permit yourself to judge someone by standards they define you are by definition using subjective rather than objective standards.  I prefer to set my own standards of judgement.

 

[Infanteer]

Caesar, you have to choose to get off the fence at some point, because the Iraqi regime clearly represented "the bad guys".   We can hum and haw about all your detailed points forever (as this thread seems to indicate) but eventually, you have to choose whether you want to fight the war here

or here

or one can simply render themself useless and irrelevent with these folk....

 

[Acorn]

First, it is important to understand that the concept of nation-state is foreign for Middle-Easterners. Their allegiance is based on familial, racial and religious ties. Most have not recognized the lines drawn on maps by the British and French 60 years ago. Therefore, the western world is, for the first time, fighting a war against an ideology rather than a country. The rules of engagement developed for war against nation-states are not very useful here.

That is only partially true. Middle-Easterners include Israelis who have a clear concept of nation-state. If you mean Arabs, you would be closer to correct, but not completely. There is a concept of pan-Arabism, but it is trumped by tribalism. The lines drawn by colonial powers (more than 60 years ago, by the way) tended to be geographically defined (and, where possible, geometrical).

Second, what an Arab country has, the others will soon have. We were all reminded of this with the AQ Khan ring of nuclear technology smuggling. Saddam had a large arsenal of dangerous weapons, mainly conventional but still deadly, as witnessed by the daily roadside bombs these days. It was important to put in place in Iraq a regime more friendly to the west to control these weapons.

One quibble is that AQ Khan is not an Arab. In any case, this is clearly not the case as some Arab countries are far more advanced than others in areas such as CBRN reasearch.

Third, Middle Eastern, especially Arabs, have a veneration for "the strong man". Saddam was the most visible of these Arab champions. Its removal was a very strong proof of the superiority of the western model over the islamic model.

The strong man transcends most cultures, even our own. The Western model has not demonstrated itself as stronger to Arabs because democracy is a messy system that requires people to accept decisions that they didn't vote for. Arabs don't understand that, because they cannot conceive of anyone in power giving it up.

A discussion of cultural differences is probably beyond this thread, and maybe this forum.

xxx

 

[dutchie]

Brad:

Re:"What are your grounds for believing the frontiers of North America are not porous?" - they are porous, as evidenced by 9/11. But I don't believe they were penetrable by Saddam through conventional means (ICBMs) or unconventional means (terrorists as mules). Yes, Saddam COULD have used terrorists to bring WMD (if he had them, which has not been proven) to the US, but so could any nation.

Re:"evidence of torture..." - Amnesty Intl, about 3-4 months ago, released a statement indicating the US govt was mistreating prisoners in Cuba during interrogations. As 'enemy combatants' (the US terminology), they fall under the Convention. This mistreatment amounted to torture (according to the release), which contravenes the Convention. As far as the visit to the prison in Cuba, it is not surprising that no obvious signs of mistreatment were found. Didn't Saddam open up his prisons to Intl groups amid claims of torture? I think we can all agree that in Saddam's case, there was indeed torture occurring, but like the visit to the US prison, nothing was found.

Infanteer:

Re:"you have to choose to get off the fence at some point..." - I have indeed come off the fence. Since you brought it up, I will tell you how my opinion of this war has evolved in the 1 and a half years since it started. At the beginning, I was glued to the TV as everyone was, in 'shock and awe' as it were. I supported the war, mainly because I felt Saddam was a monster and was lucky to escape this fate in the '91 war. Even then, however, I felt that this was more about finishing off a job started in '91 than about terrorism. But as time went by I realized that the basis for this war was false, and worse, that it appeared the US govt misled the world regarding the intel used. This has been beaten to death in this thread, so I'll leave it at that, but I want to make this absolutely clear: I would likely be in support of the war had the US found WMD in Iraq, or otherwise proven they existed prior to invasion. Even though I disagree with the idea of regime change, my disapproval of this would be out weighed by my belief that Saddam was a threat to peace while he possessed these WMD. The proof is not there, however.

My objection to the war goes against most of my political beliefs. I am normally very pro-US/West, except this instance. I am very much right-wing oriented politically. My personal morals, ethics, and values usually are reflected in my political orientation, except this case.

Regarding the statement you made with all those pretty pictures: As a citizen, my opinion of this war IS relavant, and it is my duty to challenge things I don't agree with. As a citizen, I do not fight the war, so therefore, I cannot choose where to fight it. As a Soldier, I do not choose where to fight. I do what I'm told, where I'm told to do it, and the manner in which I'm to do it. Of course, Canada didn't go to Iraq, but if I was a US soldier, I would not even consider dodging my duties, while my buddies went to Iraq, some never to return. I would do my best to bring absolute destruction to the enemy, even if I felt that I was sent there unjustly. And no, I wouldn't use the 'conscientious objector' to avoid my duty.

 

[Infanteer]

Sorry if that post seemed to question your professionalism as a soldier, I did not intend for that to be the message.

However, I find it unfortunate that you have decided to wrap your entire theory on the "justness" of the war upon the presence of WMD.

To me, taking down one dictator in a region full of totalitarian and fundamentalist regimes that would like nothing better to do then hold Western Civilization for ransom due to the fact that, through a twist of fate, they have come to sit upon a great share of the driving force for our economic well being.   I am happy with the fact that Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran (and to some extent Pakistan) are all feeling the pucker factor by the fact that the US and Britain will no longer revert to no fly zones or cruise missile attacks.   To me, that is where the progress was made and thus our interest of the war in Iraq lies.

I could care less about whether a few WMD were kicking around in Iraq.   I don't think they were as destabilizing regionally as others would like to believe; Saddam really kept them around to promote the "big man" image and gas his own restless Kurds and revolutionary Shiites.   If he decided to try and force a regional tete a tete with them (ie: shoot them into Israel) the Israelis could (and probably would) turn Baghdad into a glass parking lot.

As well, if the real enemy (Al Qaeda and their teammates) wanted a WMD to target US military forces or civilian centers with, they could probably just walk into a reactor in the Ukraine and buy enough to get what they wanted.   Perhaps, with Abrahms and Challengers sitting on the edge of their source of moral support, they'll be forced to think twice about it.

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[Brad Sallows]

AI will of course take the most generous (to its principles and politics) view, but that doesn't change this fact: mistreatment is not torture.  If no obvious signs of mistreatment were found, then on what grounds is the accusation of mistreatment founded?

_Lawful_ combatants are protected by the Geneva Conventions.  _Unlawful_ combatants are not.  (There are other internationally recognized minimal rights of detainees which must of course be observed.)