>
>Taking Sides
>
>Only a fool would trust the Bush Administration to see all of this. I am appalled that by this late date no proclamation has been issued to the people of Iraq, announcing the aims and principles of the coming intervention. Nor has any indictment of Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity been readied.
Since the proposed prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner are all one and the same, it is unnecessary to issue an indictment. If the prosecutor is convinced, then it follows that the judge, jury and executioner is convinced. Hitchins is probably confusing the concept of legal process, with the doctrine he is supporting here in "Taking Sides". Arbitrary and autocratic world rule by the United States, a nation where the concept of rule of law is regarded as outdated.
> Nothing has been done to conciliate Iran, where the mullahs are in decline.
Iran is an official enemy. It has been made clear that, should it continue with its attempts to build a military defence against the United States, it will be next in line for destruction. No nation will be permitted, in future, to aim for a defense program capable of deterring the US from attacking it.
This is quite analogous BTW to the posture of China towards Taiwan. Perhaps the US believes that the entire rest of the world is merely a wayward "renegade province"?
>Moreover, it's obvious to me that the "antiwar" side would not be convinced even if all the allegations made against Saddam Hussein were proven, and even if the true views of the Iraqi people could be expressed.
This is silly, the antiwar side doesn't need to be convinced that Saddam is a nasty piece of work. But merely inflicting vengeance on Saddam is insufficient reason to kill thousands of Iraqi people in a war. We need to be convinced that the purpose of toppling his regime is to help the people of Iraq and that the means proposed to achieve this are acceptable.
Neither of these conditions are even being addressed by the maniacs who are in charge in Washington. The motive for war is being addressed solely in terms of narrow US self-interest. The means of achieving the aim seems to be totally out of proportion to the immediate danger. The means are certainly not acceptable given that the US seems intent on merely replacing the blood-soaked dictator with another blood-soaked dictator.
>This is something more than a disagreement of emphasis or tactics.
I agree. This is a disagreement about fundamental objectives.
If the objective was merely to rescue the people of Iraq from a dictator, to intervene in favour of self-determination for the oppressed population(s) of Iraq, then such an objective would have overwhelming support from the left. Just as the left supported just such an objective in East Timor. (I recall that the US government was very reluctant to offer much help in that case though.)
Further, if the intervention strategy was designed to avoid unnecessary casualties and suffering, was carried out within the framework of international law, instead of being accompanied by lawless and autocratic stand-over tactics which essentially entail the US holding a gun to the head of the entire world, the rest of the world would largely be in agreement.
Hitchens has failed to notice any of these shortcoming of US objectives and strategy though. There are none so blind as those who expect rich rewards for not seeing,
Hitchens may perhaps believe that resistance is futile. We'll just have to see about that.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas