From: Ross Boylan <RossBoylan at stanfordalumni.org>
Subject: RE: [ASDnet] The Case Against War on Iraq
To: Majed Tomeh <majed at tomeh.com>
Cc: asdnet at igc.topica.com, ross Boylan <RossBoylan at stanfordalumni.org>
I didn't find the article terribly persuasive, in part because of what struck me as annoying logical holes. Part of the argument seems to be 1) The US has supported bad regimes 2) The US has done bad things aside from supporting those regimes Therefore 3) The US should not invade Iraq.
I don't think you're particularly going to like what I have to say, but I am trying to think through these issues. I'm much clearer on the arguments I don't like than the ones I do.
While the 3 statements above are related, they are not logically related. 1 or 2 do not imply 3. 1+2 show that the stated reasons are at least incomplete, and possibly not the real reasons at all. As with some positions on Yugoslavia, there seems to be an implicit premise that we should judge the desirability of an action by the motives of those doing it. But motives, effects, and desirability are distinct issues. To get to 3 you need more. What's the more?
Original Sin: The US is a sinner and should not go forth in the world. The problem with this is that even sinners can do good. My other theoretical problem with this approach is that I think this judgmental moralism is one of the problems in the world. My other practical problem with this is such an approach is likely to piss off most Americans.
Consistency: The US should not act unless it is prepared to be consistent. While this would be nice, it doesn't make much sense. Just because we can't eliminate all evil, is that any reason to do nothing? Inconsistency may arise from bad intentions, practicality (some countries are too strong to attack), or the presence of other offsetting factors. Suppose the US said it was committed to eliminating hunger, and the choice was to eliminate some hunger or none. Would anyone oppose eliminating some because it's inconsistent? The point is it's the
character of the action itself that determines whether it's good to do.
Current Sin: 1+2 show the US is up to no good, and will do no good (or at least net no good) if it invades. More plausible. But it needs to be spelled out exactly what the problem is. The current regime is so bad it's hard to imagine the US making it worse. There have been other cases (Afghanistan, Yugoslavia) where it seems intervention has made things better, and others were refusal to intervene were, in my opinion, unconscionable (Rwanda). Of course 2 of those were through the UN, not unilateral, which is an important difference (well, bilateral if you count Britain...). When I say "exactly what the problem is" I mean whether this is an argument about the domestic society or about the regional and global effects of the US setting up client states.
Current Effects: Because of 1+2 many people and countries will be infuriated by intervention, so it will do more harm than good (one variant would construe the harm in a narrow national interest sense; another might have a more impersonal perspective).
Imperial statute of limitations: The US should not screw around in areas of the world where it has been an imperial power (of course, that's most of the globe). This is a more limited version of the previous arguments, stemming from the specific regional history of US involvement in the Middle East (and even its specific support of Iraq). It obviously applies to Britain as well. I think this could be given a twist like any of the arguments above. I have a feeling it has some particular variants as well, but I can't articulate them.
I have somewhat similar qualms about the argument "The US has not intervened when other states have acquired nuclear weapons." It's true we haven't, but that doesn't prove that's a good thing. It does prove we have thought non-intervention wise or prudent in other cases.
At 12:41 PM 8/20/02 -0400, you wrote:
>The way in which this line of argument gets dismissed in today's
America
>belies the obvious: it's not about principle, it's about whatever
WE
>want. And if they can't accept that -- in fact, if they don't
embrace
>what we want and serve us -- screw 'em.
>
>The New York Times revealed on Sunday that the U.S. knew that
Saddam
>Hussein would be using chemical weapons against the Iranians and
that the
>U.S. helped him develop the battle plans. Of course, in today's
world
>where wiping out memory of actual history, even recent history,
is part
>of the system of government, we all believe, "so what? that was
then, this
>is now." Translation: it doesn't matter that Hussein was our guy,
and
>that we subjected the Iranians and the Iraqis to his devastation,
and that
>we equipped him, and that we provided him cover, even when he
gassed his
>own people as recently as 1996; it doesn't matter that our own
Ambassador
>to Iraq explained to us how we set him up, even encouraged him, to
occupy
>Kuwait; it doesn't matter that we've killed at least 500,000
Iraqi
>children (it was "worth the cost", according to Madeline
Albright), and
>that we'll kill more innocent civilians in a "war on Iraq" -- all
this
>doesn't matter, because it's our prerogative, because we're number
one.
>
>
>
>>The Case Against War on Iraq
>>by Howard Zinn
>>
>>
>>THE BUSH administration's plan for preemptive war against Iraq so
>>flagrantly violates both international law and common morality
that we
>>need a real national debate.
>>
>>The discussion should begin with the recognition that an attack
on Iraq
>>would constitute an attack on the Charter of the United Nations,
since
>>the United States would then be in violation of several
provisions,
>>beginning with Article 1, Section 4, which states: ''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... ''
>>
>>But let us suppose that international law should not stand in the
way
>>when extraordinary circumstances demand immediate violent action.
Such
>>circumstances would exist if there were, in the language of our
own
>>Supreme Court, a ''clear and present danger'' represented by the
Iraqi
>>regime of Saddam Hussein.
>>
>>There are facts and there are conjectures about Iraq. The facts:
This
>>regime is unquestionably tyrannical; it invaded a neighboring
country 12
>>years ago; it used chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels 15
years ago.
>>The conjectures: Iraq may have biological and chemical weapons
today. It
>>may possibly be on the way to developing one nuclear weapon.
>>
>>But none of these facts or conjectures, even if true, make Iraq a
clear
>>and present danger. The fact that Iraq is a tyranny would not, in
itself,
>>constitute grounds for preemptive war. There are many tyrannies
in the
>>world, some kept in power by the United States. Saudi Arabia is
only one
>>example. That Iraq has cruelly attacked its Kurdish minority can
hardly
>>be a justification for war. After all, the United States remained
silent,
>>and indeed was a supporter of the Iraqi regime, when it committed
that
>>act. Turkey killed thousands of its Kurds, using US weapons.
>>
>>Furthermore, other nations which killed hundreds of thousands of
their
>>own people (Indonesia, Guatemala) not only were not threatened
with war,
>>but received weapons from the United States.
>>
>>Iraq's history of invading Kuwait is matched by other countries,
among
>>them the United States, which has invaded Vietnam, Cambodia,
Grenada, and
>>Panama. True, Iraq may possess, may be developing ''weapons of
mass
>>destruction.'' But surely the possession of such weapons, if not
used,
>>does not constitute a clear and present danger justifying war.
>>
>>Other nations have such weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons.
Pakistan and
>>India have nuclear weapons and have come close to using them. And
what
>>country has by far the largest store of weapons of mass
destruction in
>>the world? And has used them with deadly consequences to millions
of
>>people: in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Southeast Asia?
>>
>>There is the issue of weapons inspection. Iraq insists on certain
>>conditions before it will allow inspections to resume. Secretary
of State
>>Colin Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier
this
>>year that ''inspectors have to go back in under our terms, under
no one
>>else's terms.'' One might ask if the United States would ever
allow its
>>biological, chemical, and nuclear facilities to be inspected,
under any
>>terms. Is there one moral standard for Iraq and another for the
United States?
>>
>>Before Sept. 11 there was not the present excited talk about a
strike on
>>Iraq. Why would that event change the situation? There is no
evidence of
>>any connection between Iraq and that act of terrorism. Is it
possible
>>that the Bush administration is using the fear created by Sept.
11 to
>>build support for a war on Iraq that otherwise has no legitimate
>>justification?
>>
>>The talk of war has raised the question of American casualties,
and
>>rightly so. Are the lives of our young people to be expended in
the
>>dubious expectation that the demise of Saddam will bring
democracy to
>>Iraq? And what of the inevitable death of thousands of Iraqis, -
all of
>>them made doubly victims - first of Saddam, then of Bush? Shall
we add a
>>new death toll to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (the
figures are
>>from the UN) who have died since the application of sanctions?
>>
>>A war against Iraq has no logical connection to the tragic events
of
>>Sept. 11. Rather than diminishing terrorism, such an attack would
further
>>inflame anger against the United States and may well lead to more
>>terrorist attacks. We have a right to wonder if the motive for
war is not
>>stopping terrorism but expanding US power and controlling Mideast
oil.
>>
>>A preemptive war against Iraq, legally impermissible, morally
>>unpardonable, would be a cause for shame to future generations.
Let the
>>debate begin, not just in Congress, but throughout the nation.
>>
>>Howard Zinn is author of ''A People's History of the United
States.''
>>
>>© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company