TheAgitator.com
It’s a War on War
Tuesday, October 15th, 2002Steven Den Beste provides some more in-depth analysis of this Fox News column I wrote last week. Den Beste concludes with a one-word instruction to the Arab world: liberalize. Well, yes. But it ain’t gonna’ happen. Which is why I’m so torn on this whole Iraq thing. Seems to me that if you can make the case to go into Iraq, you can make the case to invade the entire Arab world. So long as Arab society embraces values so inconsistent with liberalism, Arab society will continue its full-on sprint race-to-the-bottom with Sub-Saharan Africa. And both regions will continue to breed envy, hate, and virtriol for the rest of the developed world.
But what’s the solution? Bill Kristol and Max Boot wouldn’t mind seeing the stars and stripes flying over Mecca. On the other end of the spectrum, I asked one of my libertarian and staunchly anti-war friends if he’d support “the Kristol plan” if we lost, say, Denver to a suitcase nuke. “No,” he said.
“Cleveland?”
“Nope.”
“How many American cities would we have to lose before you’d consider it?”
“Even if America lay in ruins, I still wouldn’t support it.”
As I said, I’m still trying to figure all of this out. Surely the answer lies somewhere between the two positions. I’m finding myself leaning more and more against a war with Iraq, not because I’m opposed to intervention on principle, but more because a) I think that if we’re going to go to war, there are more worthy and immediate threats, and, b) I’m not entirely sure I trust the Bush Administration.
I’ll write more on Iraq later. “Treatise of a Fence-Sitter,” is in the works.
I too, am a fence sitter. I would love to see regime change but at the same time, I do not want a military invasion (maybe that’s because I’m in the military and have no desire to visit the desert any time soon). The way I see things though, there is a solution that would work – without sending in the Army. That solution: ending the economic sanctions against Iraq. As it stands now, the people in Iraq are not necessarily “pro-Saddam” as much as they are “anti-American” (see today’s Fox News article “Iraq Holds Presidential Vote.”) And why should it be anything different? With the sanctions in place, the only good life the people know is what Saddam is willing to give them. At the same time, all the problems in Iraq can simply be blamed on the U.S. and our oppressive ways. If we remove the sanctions, Saddam will lose his scapegoat. Maybe then people will realize that the west is not the enemy and they will get rid of Saddam on their own.
I think we(Bush and Co.)are in the process of building a coalition. We may or may not have to actually attact with full force. The coalition and threat of annihilation may do it.
As far as trust goes, you can call me partisan but I didn’t trust Clinton and Co. and I do trust my team, the Bush Team. There ya go.
As the anonymous friend, who thought he was having a conversation, rather than providing blogfodder (should I now intersperse “don’t quote me on this, Radley” with my commentary?), let me clarify: I wouldn’t support the Kristol plan because I don’t think there’s a hope in hell of it working. Dragging the Middle East into the modern world kicking and screaming and making it liberal and capitalist through force of arms is umm, a rather ambitious bit of social engineering and it’s kinda cute to hear it considered by the sort of people who otherwise think the federal government’s too ham handed to, I don’t know, successfully promote abstinence or efficient energy usage. But work a transformation in Islamic theology and in the Arab soul? Heeey, no problem! The Kristol/Ledeen plan–in its breathtaking arrogance–is about the surest thing to set us on a path at the end of which lie a few devastated American cities. After Cleveland went up, I’d probably find myself in a state of mind ready to nuke Mecca. In contrast to remaking human nature, that’s a task government probably could carry out successfully.
The idea that the people of Iraq or any islamic state would hate us less if they had more money is a joke. 1) No matter how much money was pumped into Iraq the people would still wallow in poverty, just like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The money just builds bigger palaces and better weapons. 2) Iraq is an oppressive dictatorial state that needs an enemy to rally against, just like Nazi Germany or present day Saudi Arabia. If the people of the middle east stopped and thought about their condition and who was the cause, they would promptly over through their own government. That anger needs to remain focused on the US in order for the current crop of dictators to stay in power. 3) Considering their societies are stuck on the 11th century, and the only education they have access to is radical islamic brain washing, there is very little chance that the people of the middle east will do anything that westerners would view as rational or logical. Like stop and think about who is actually to blame for their oppression, Kuwaitis shooting at and US marines comes to mind.
Actually, Saddam is a singular threat in the Arab world — he is more of a threat than even Iran, because he has been so successful at centralizing control of Iraq upon himself.
Even in Iran, there are checks and balances against one radical taking action to start a war. There are no checks and balances we can rely upon in the case of Saddam. He has used both intimidation and bribery to subordinate the relative few he must delegate authority to.
The rest of the Arab world presently desires to maintain at least a facade of good relations with the West; as a result, they are unlikely to initiate aggression against us.
Saddam, on the other hand, sees aggression against us as either enhancing his personal reputation if he can go public with it, or an opportunity to manipulate world events in his favor, if he has to rely on the plausible deniability of using transnational allies like Al Quada to do his dirty work. It’s win-win, in his view, if he doesn’t provoke us into stopping him too soon.
Radley, I am eagerly awaiting the new article — I am interested in seeing who you consider a more worthy and immediate threat than Saddam’s Iraq.
I didn’t say that they still wouldn’t wallow in poverty. Just that allowing them access to trade would get rid of the only real excuse they have to hate Americans. I say let’s not give them a reason and see what happens. It has worked before. Look at all the changes that are being made in much larger, more politically backwards countries like China and Vietnam where we do allow our trade to make an impact. I’d also argue that Saudi Arabia (while the people are still repressed) follows a much more fundamentalist form of Islam than Iraq and while we may have some strained relations, at least their government is not blatantly trying to destroy us. Also, look at the facts where western civilization does poke through – check out Radley’s Fox News article. It’s got to mean something when 51% of adolescents want to emigrate from the region. I also read in a USA Today article that interviewed a street vender in Iraq that Mel Gibson movies are his best selling videos. Do you honestly think that people who love Mel Gibson would really hate Americans that much if we didn’t give them a reason to? All I’m saying is “let’s see how long Saddam lasts if we show his people the truth.”
China has outlasted mother russia because it supports an odd form of state sponsored capitalism. In many ways they are more capitalist then the USA. They want their 70 virgins right now, to heck with waiting until they are dead. So free trade will work with china because they are basically greedy. I can live with that, since you donâ??t kill your best customers. I totally agree that Iraq is more of a threat than the other middle east nations, but I disagree that Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Kuwait etc are any less radical. It has more to do with whether or not the US is currently propping up their government (Saudi Arabia, Egypt) or their government is factious and currently busy killing each other (Iran). Remember the 9/11 suicide bomber where Arabs, the Talaban was mostly Arabs. The most popular news personality in Egypt is an anti-american anti-jew anti-anything-not-muslim psychopath. Yes there are many people in those counties which would love to move to the west and wear blue jeans, swim in a bikini, listen to rock and roll. And maybe someday they will be able to sway their countries (almost worked in Iran). But until then the vocal majority/minority (certainly vocal) view anything non-muslim as a threat and wish us dead. Itâ??s going to take something massive for the clerics to loose the hold they have on the middle east. I hope your right and it can be done with free trade, but I donâ??t see how. Unlike the Chinese who see the west as a source of money, technology, and resources, whoâ??s greed will someday lead to a free(er) society. The islamists view us as a cancer to their way of life, whoâ??s xenophobia will lead to fanatics eager to die in battle against the ultimate evil. (ultimate evil =~ A jewish woman in a bikini expressing her opinion about flushing toilets.)
Remove our dependence on oil and the money in the Arab world disappears. These nations will be relegated to a subSaharan existence and we will forget about them rather quickly. People don’t make bombs when they can’t make food.
Until then, keep the nukes hot and pointed to the mideast, tell them to control their fundamentalist desires because the blood of Americans on US soil is unacceptable and will be met with retribution that never be fogotten.
Didn’t somebody say, “walk softly and carry a big stick?”
THE WAR AND OCCUPATION IN IRAQ ARE ILLEGAL
By: Courtenay Francis Raymond Barnett*
Much has been said and written about Americaâ??s war, and occupation of Iraq. Amongst the community of nations of the world, and within the minds of the citizens of the world, two statements might succinctly clarify the issues of war and occupation in Iraq. The war was illegal under international law. The occupation remains illegal under international law. The point is:-
â?? Article 2(3) and 2(4) of the United Nations Charter read:-
â?? (3) All member states shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means
in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not
endangered.â?
â?? (4) All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or
use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any
state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United
Nations.â?
Sounds simple, reasonable and clear enough. Let me add that there are two and only two exceptions to the Charterâ??s Article 2(4) prohibition against the use of unilateralist force
â?? â?¦ if an armed attack occursâ?¦â? (or is imminent) as contemplated by Article 51 of the UN Charter is one. Authorisation by the Security Council is the other.â?
( Quote: â??Learn the Lawâ? pp. 154-155 â?? published Trafford 2003 â?? ISBN 141200775-5)
World leaders ought consistently to be asked â?? where is your lawful authority for your current course of action?
In assessing the statements of President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, in the immediate pre-war period, one clearly discerns concerted efforts to lend legitimacy to the war as then planned. The possession of, or imminent intention to use, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) was the â??reasonâ?? and ploy used to commence the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush and Blair lied to, and misled their respective citizenry and the world. If the war in Iraq was to be deemed â??legalâ??, there had to be a legitimate basis under international law, and of that Bush and Blair were fully aware. I make the following common sense observation:-
â?? At the end of the war, WMDs had to be found â?? but where ( Iraq is a big country) and by whom? UN weapons inspectors had been pulled out of Iraq to let the sacred mission of bombing Iraq begin. After the war, the U.S. enforced the holy seal of sanctions against return of the UN inspectors. The reasonable inquiry might be â?? since the UN inspectors were central to the process of diligently and honestly searching for WMDs before the war â?? why not let them conclude that honest and diligent search, after the war, to the satisfaction of the international community?â?
( Ibid: p. 157)
I admit error, because earlier in 2003, I thought we were â??At the end of the warâ?¦â? â?? but, now I am proven wrong. A war of resistance to American and foreign occupation continues apace in Iraq.
During the course of the twentieth century there was the war fought to end all wars â?? World War 1. That war lay the foundation for the next global conflagration â?? World War 11. An attempt at sanity, and for the preservation of international peace arose in the immediate post-World War 11 period. Thus, the United Nations came into being, and Article 2(3) of its Charter stated, â??All member states shall settle their international disputes by peaceful meansâ?¦â?. The Charter does not abolish war, so much as that it provides a mechanism for the legitimate use of force, when all efforts at resolution by â??peaceful meansâ? have failed. The approaches of Bush and Blair towards Iraq are more reminiscent of aggressive conduct in the pre-World War 11 era, than being indicative of desire for civilized and lawful conduct more than fifty years after the UN multilateralist system was established. Bush and Blair have acted illegally and remain devoid of a legitimate cloak for their actions in Iraq. â??Global justiceâ? is the phrase which best describes where the world is compelled to go, if peaceful survival is desired. Global justice is not a mere abstract concept, for its pursuit remains imperative for avoiding the kinds of unnecessary warfare that plagued the world before World war 11 , and it continues to be the only viable and sane alternative to the new unilateralist and illegal dispensations of the likes of Bush and Blair.
There cannot be one set of rules for the convenience of big powers in the world, and another set for all other nations. The Charter of the United Nations has quite clear provisions aimed at the preservation of international peace. President Bush and Prime Minster Blair have set their own standards, rules, and pattern of conduct in response to Iraq. Their standards, rules, and conduct auger well for future wars and remain manifestly â?? illegal.
*The author is a lawyer who has defended human rights cases. His web site is http://www.globaljusticeonline.com. His new book is entitled, â?? Learn the Law.â?
You can also check some relevant information on blackjack blackjack http://www.favorite-casino.com/blackjack.html http://www.favorite-casino.com/blackjack.html online casino online casino http://www.favorite-casino.com/online-casino.html http://www.favorite-casino.com/online-casino.html – Tons of interesdting stuff!!!
You are invited to check the pages on roulette roulette http://www.favorite-casino.com/roulette.html http://www.favorite-casino.com/roulette.html blackjack blackjack http://www.favorite-casino.com/blackjack.html http://www.favorite-casino.com/blackjack.html …