Not that it matters…

10 Responses to “Not that it matters…”

1. JRB Says:
   April 11th, 2006 at 9:09 am

   If the question is whether Saddam was bad. You’re right; he’s bad.

   If the question is whether it justified war, then I think your proposition does not go far enough. A clear and present threat is not based on a policy advocating attacks but the capacity and active intent to do it. You’ll note that no Americans were killed by Iraqi suicide bombers six months before Sept. 11. Desire does not equal capacity. War is justified by an enemy’s capacity and planning, not ill will.

   I am acquainted with a muslim cult in south Mississippi, whose leader declares that he is the “Son of Man,” and who have declared their sovereignty from the USA and condemnation of the white man. Yet, the Mississippi Guard has not invaded their compound at Red Lick. Why? No capacity.

2. Out of the Mainstream Says:
   April 11th, 2006 at 9:44 am

   How much capacity does it take to carry out a suicide bombing? The translated document clearly states that Saddam was recruiting suicide bombers to carry out attacks against the interests of the USA and its allies.

   It takes very few resources to carry out a suicide bombing. If the Palestinians - not exactly rich and connected people - can manage to carry them out, I am pretty sure Saddam had the capacity.

   On a side note, I don’t distinguish between American interests and the interests of America’s allies. Therefore, while you may be correct in saying that “no Americans were killed by Iraqi suicide bombers six months before Sept. 11,” if Saddam was recruiting or paying for suicide bombers to attack America’s allies, it is the same as attacking Americans (in my humble opinion).

   Thanks for the comments.

3. JRB Says:
   April 11th, 2006 at 10:02 am

   It apparently takes more capacity (or will) than he or his “volunteers” had.

   The Palestinians had both and execute their desire, and Israel rightly confronts them for it. There’s the rub, I think, and the reason that we are morally obligated to restrain ourselves until provoked legitimately.

4. extremist Says:
   April 11th, 2006 at 6:04 pm

   That would be an excellant line of argument JRB — except that it applies equally to Al Qaeda. It’s classic September 10th-thinking. Bin Laden openly declared war on the United States and sophisticates in the Washington foreign policy elite yawned — or laughed.

   9/11 stopped the laughter. It taught most of us that when folks say they are going to kill you — it’s generally a good idea to assume they mean it. That goes for a rich fanatic living in a cave, and it goes double for a thug-o-crat dictator with billions in oil revenue and a Soviet-trained intelligence service.

5. JRB Says:
   April 13th, 2006 at 9:15 am

   Sure, but also in my “line of argument” there are thousands of intermediate options between milk-toast capitulation and full-blown hot-war invasion.

   I never suggested that we should do nothing in the face of such a “threat.”

6. Out of the Mainstream Says:
   April 13th, 2006 at 9:47 am

   JRB,

   Didn’t you use the cult in Mississippi to analogize the situation? By doing so, you effectively said that Iraq was similar to the cult in Mississippi because of the lack of capacity.

   To pursue your analogy, what could be done with the cult, short of invasion, that would be analogous to something we could have done with Iraq?

7. extremist Says:
   April 14th, 2006 at 9:32 pm

   JRB,

   Among the “thousands of options” between capitulation and war, I think that the most appropriate ones to use against a dictator oppressing 20 million people would not be remotely comparable to those appropriate to use against a lone nutcase in Mississippi.

   In both cases, however, underestimating the enemy costs innocent Americans their lives. It’s more important to avoid that than it is to avoid the opposite.

8. JRB Says:
   April 18th, 2006 at 10:39 am

   Sorry for the delay in responding. I hope the thread doesn’t have to die.

   Here’s a fundamental distinction in our values on this subject. I do not believe that we should err on the side of war in order to avoid “underestimating” an enemy. We err on the side of danger and risk to ourselves all the time, even with American lives at stake, rather than to engage in preemptive war. Iraq is the first exception (or maybe Vietnam).

   I actually believe that in order for us to maintain moral justification and to ensure ultimate victory, we actually should wait until we are attacked first. For certain, we should be prepared for a forceful, offensive retaliation, but deterence is the greatest tool of peace among confrontational nations. As it turns out, we vastly OVERESTIMATED Saddam Hussein; now how many Americans have lost their lives in an effort to err on the side of war, a number far greater than any he would have killed with suicide bombers (who never did attack and probably never would have). How many Iraqis have died because of our overestimation of their dictator? 100,000? Far more than SH killed even on his worst day.

   I do not equate our war with his tactics, but the logic of preemptive war falls short, and we lose our moral imperative if we DO NOT WAIT until we are attacked. If we are not attacked, all the better. If we are, there’s hell for our enemies to pay. That’s how we’ve always done business except in 1965 and in 2003, and we learn again the lessons of miscalculation.

9. extremist Says:
   April 18th, 2006 at 7:22 pm

   JRB,

   So tell me. What standard of proof would you require before retaliating? The nature of state-sponsored terrorism is that it provides the sponsor with deniability. Do you want proof beyond a reasonable doubt by the federal rules of criminal procedure in a U.S. court before retaliating against a state-sponsor? Something less than that? How much less?

   Have you thought through the practical consequences of requiring the public release of classified information that might make our national security infrastructure conclude that it is 50.1% percent likely that a series of suicide attacks were sponsored by, say, Iran? What kind of incentives do you think that sort of policy would create for enemies who wanted to secretly attack Americans?

   As it turns out, we vastly OVERESTIMATED Saddam Hussein; now how many Americans have lost their lives in an effort to err on the side of war, a number far greater than any he would have killed with suicide bombers (who never did attack and probably never would have).

   Says who? I don’t believe you and I have a fundamental difference of values. I believe we have a fundamental disagreement about facts — and what conclusions are reasonable to draw from the facts.

   I think that it is odd to react to the discovery of these documents by saying that Iraq probably never would have attacked us. That statement is surely less likely to be true in light of these documents than it was before.

   Lastly, what about the freeing of the Iraqi and Afghani people? Doesn’t that count for anything? Should we never act to thwart tyranny before it attacks us? Germany didn’t attack us at the outset of World War II. A strong argument could be made (and has been) that Germany never would have attempted to conquer the U.S. Do you oppose U.S. intervention in Europe in World War II?

   An even stronger argument could be made that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan never attacked us and almost certainly would not have. Did you oppose the invasion of that country?

10. Out of the Mainstream Says:
    April 18th, 2006 at 9:13 pm

    JRB,

    I, too, disagree that we have a fundamental difference in our interpretation of the facts, rather than a difference in philosophy.

    For example, you say that we have always waited until being attacked before going to war, except for 1965 and 2003.

    I say hooey!

    Italy never attacked us. Germany never attacked us. Korea never attacked us. If you want to get into small skirmishes, Granada never attacked us, either. Heck, when did Colombia attack us? What about Nicaragua? The list goes on and on…

    (One more fact you have wrong - you say Saddam never killed 100,000 “on a good day.” Perhaps not in one day, but over 350,000 dead have been recovered in mass graves…)

    To me, the issue is whether or not we should wait until an obviously aggressive threat develops the means to engage us in a long and deadly war, or whether we should take out those threats before they fully materialize. Historically, the US has always taken care of those threats early, and I am on that side of the issue.

    You may find yourself on the other side of the issue, and that is a perfectly acceptable position. But you can’t change history to support your position, and that is what you were trying to do…

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website