A vote against eliminating Saddam is a vote for tolerating, if not accepting, the use of poison gas (and biological and radiological agents) in the conduct of genocide.

1) Being agains the war is not being against eliminating Saddam Hussein. That’s such a tired argument, it’s not even worth going into.

2) By your logic, the fact that the United States is not moving to overthrow the government of Sudan is a vote for tolerating, if not accepting slavery. The fact that we don’t try to overthrow Kim Jong Il is a vote for tolerating, if not accepting, widespread starvation of North Korean children. The fact that we don’t overthrow the government of China is a vote for tolerating if not accepting prison labor.

3) Anyone want to bring up Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Guatemala, et al?

In short, the United States (and every country, for that matter) has acted selectively throughout its history. A vote for no war is a vote for no war is a vote for no war.

Great examples. In all those countries, we should be the agent of change to eliminate all those referenced wrongs against humanity.

But would you say that the fact that we are not forcibly and militarily removing those responsible is tantamount to condoning their behavior?

Clint, I'd also add that we were sponsoring Iraq for many years and, as I've said elsewhere, Rumsfeld (under Reagan) normalized relations in '83/'84, even after it was widely reported that he had gassed Kurds. So we didn't care then.

I feel obliged to remind everyone, now that 50 percent of Ameicans think SH bombed the WTC, that OBL is the threat here and that the CIA said SH was unlikely to attack the US "unless provoked". Whoops.

Anyway, the march in SF is going to be on the 16th. There's a Chinese New Year march that was scheduled a few hours after the antiwar march was to begin and, rather than interfere with that, rally organizers decided to move the march to Sunday.

Toleration and acceptance are functional equivalents. If there is anything approaching a universal societal morality, and genocide is condemnable under that code, then it is equally immoral to stand by and do nothing when it is practiced.

Dealing with Iraq is not an issue of comparitives. Having done little or nothing about the instances in the other referenced countries is irrelevant in the determination of what to do about Iraq. The undeniable facts are that Hussein has committed the ultimate atrocities and shows convincingly that he will do so again. The scale of his evil may not approach that of Stalin or Hitler, but it's just as heinous.

Society has the moral obligation to denounce him by extermination. If war is the vehicle necessary to achieve that end, then "Cry havoc, and loose the dogs of war."

Well, Bush the elder said the LAST gulf war was about liberation of Iraq. There was a one-day uprising against him and the US did NOTHING. I'm a little skeptical about our track record on this, and I think my point (and possibly Trip's) is that we're completely hypocrtical, employing principle when it's expedient (which, of course, makes it not really principle).

Read a sad on-the-ground account of someone in Iraq during that day at The New Republic Online: The Fire Last Time (1 of 2). If you believe in the war, you need to believe in follow up. What are your plans for post-war Iraq? And why does our experience in Kuwait and Afghanistan not make you extremely skeptical?

Oh, and while we're quoting literature, here's this poem via the agonist.

Suicide in the Trenches

I knew a simple soldier boy
Who grinned at life in empty joy,
Slept soundly through the lonesome dark,
And whistled early with the lark.

In winter trenches, cowed and glum,
With crumps and lice and lack of rum,
He put a bullet through his brain.
No one spoke of him again.

You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.

Siegfried Sassoon

If I understand your obfuscating logic correctly, your skepticism trumps principle, and you think he should be left free to visit horror on the future.

OK, Clint, I'll try not to obfuscate. What are your plans for post-war Iraq, and how will war make the world safer? Easy enough?

Actually, I think his logic is:

1. If, as you claim, opposing war in Iraq means supporting genocide . . .

2. . . . then, in turn, opposing war in [insert name of many, many other countries here] also means supporting [insert genocide or other atrocity here] . . .

3. . . . and since the Bush administration is cleary not interested in going to war in [repeat name of country from #2 above] . . .

4. . . . the Bush administration must be supportive of [insert atrocity from #2 above].

None of which was meant to really suggest that the Bush administration supports atrocities, but rather point out that the notion of your premise is fundamentally flawed.

And I think he got you pretty good there.

Clint, FWIW, I think you made a very good point to say that our failure to act in [Random Country X] is irrelevant to whether we could or should act in Iraq. But declaring we have a "moral" obligation to act gets you in some trouble - if the obligation is "moral," than it DOES extend to those other countries, and we should be condemned for failing in invade all of them.

I think it is fine to suggest people are politically wrong to oppose the war in Iraq, but if you are going to take the moral high ground, and declare protestors as genocidal advocates, you better have a good way to explain your own moral duplicity in failing to urge the dogs of war on a host of evil nations . . . .

I see where it says on the poster, "The World Says No to War."

Did they take a scientifically-credible poll of the world? Did they get 51%? Did they notice that the leaders of 8 democratic Euro countries have signed on with Bush for the possibility of war? Did they notice Australia, New Zeland, and several Middle Eastern countries have signed on? Did they notice many democrats have signed on? Did they notice several South American and African countries are currently practicing war? Did they notice the Palestinians are practicing war? Did they notice Al Quaeda is practicing war? Do they realize war just liberated Afghanistan from despotic rule and reduced our risk of attack? Do they know that the U.S. is the world's lone superpower because of others' use of war? Do they notice there's a veritable war on some of our urban streets? Do they notice the French and Germans oppose war because they make a lot of money off the status quo in Iraq?

The poster should say, "OUR World Says No to War."

And who is "our" world? Since they seem to not notice much except their own shouting, and since they never feel the need to tell us exactly why "their" world says no and artculate alternatives, "their" world always seems to come down to two words lately: "Hate Bush, Hate Bush, Hate Bush, Hate Bush, Hate Bush..."

Not good enough, children.

DB, obfuscation includes introducing considerations having no bearing on an issue. What to do about Iraq involves a hierarchy of decisions. I have limited my comments to the specific issue of eliminating Hussein as a response to his extreme violation of the highest moral code. That analysis and determination is mutually exclusive of any consideration of a post-Saddam Iraq. And in that regard, it only remains to reject or accept my proposal of a transcendent morality; whether Hussein is in violation; and whether he should be deposed. I've obviously affirmed those questions and adopt invasion and forceful removal as the most expedient and safest strategy.

That said, I suggest a followup strategy that emulates what we did in Germany and Japan after WW II. Namely, establish an initial puppet government, introduce elected representation, and specifically exclude theocratic policies. A five year period of guidance may be sufficient time to foster a self sufficient state. And as compensation and reparations for the costs incurred by us and his victims, one-half the output of the country's oil fields for as long as it takes to recover, with time value added, the total debt. Does it go without saying that Exxon, et al, would be the operating entities?


Jimpy, perhaps earlier I was too oblique. We, the U.S. and every other civilised nation, are guilty of permitting, thus condoning, evil, wherever it has and is occuring. Every situation warrants redress via the appropriate action. Exterminating Hussein is a step in the right direction.

Clint: I’ll have to say that your moral absolutism is, as far as I can tell, commendable. On the issue of this war, then, it would seem that it comes down to a moral calculus. Why Iraq? Why now? Is Iraq where we will do the most good for the most people? Or just the most good for a limited set of people? (I realize that this is not the only way of prioritizing.)

I would posit that while you may be for eliminating Saddam Hussein on the principle that evil must be stopped, the US government is for eliminating Saddam Hussein (now) because it is politically beneficial, just as it was politically beneficial to maintain him in power before. That may not matter to you, but I find the sacrificing of thousands of lives just to show the world and the American people who’s boss to be reprehensible. In my opinion, there are more insidious evils that deserve our attention. (Mentioning them here would only throw a red herring into the conversation, so I will not so do.)

Granted, if we are to view the political world through a moral prism, we can presume that immoral or amoral actions one day do not invalidate moral actions the next. However, when regularly repeated, that pattern smacks of cynicism and other extra-moral rationales. Deathbed conversions (to push the metaphor a little far) don’t hold a lot of water with me.

TK, qouting from my earlier comments, "The undeniable facts are that Hussein has committed the ultimate atrocities and shows convincingly that he will do so again." The operative word is 'will'. It's not a matter of probabalistics; the threat is real. Wagging our fingers and stamping our feet at NoWar rallies only serve to strenghten his resolve and make him bolder. He is evil incarnate and will wreak greater ill, given the time.

Clint: You raise a number of issues in your comment, so I’ll try to address them.

What Saddam Hussein will do in the future is necessarily a matter of speculation. I’ll assume, since neither you nor anyone at the CIA is a mind-reader, that you don’t truly think that you know precisely what he will do. Moreover, what he will do doesn’ address the question of why now? Are his capacities more advanced than they were a year ago? Two? Three? Is his inclination to do harm greater than it was a year ago? Two? Three?

Similarly, what is the threat? And to whom? (I’m not being naive here, but rather looking for your opinion.) To the United States? My understanding is that he is not and was not expected to be a direct threat to our land or people except insofar as he supports terrorists. But this war is allegedly not about his support for terrorists, but rather his WMD and chemical/biological weapons. If the threat is to our allies in the region, there is again the question of what has changed in the past year or more to make now the time to act, as well as the question of whether our allies in the region are moral states. If they are not, why are we bound to support them?

And just so we know what we’re talking about, what are the ultimate atrocities? And are they greater (in your moral calculus) than atrocities elsewhere in the world?

As to whether Saddam Hussein gives a fig for what happens at anti-war demonstrations in this country, let me voice my opinion that if he doesn't care that the United States is going to drop in three days more bombs than were dropped during all of Bush’s Dad’s War (or whatever the precise figure was), I highly doubt that a few thousand peaceniks are going to strongly affect him one way or the other.

Finally, and this applies to M----- as well: I’m making a real effort here to be open to what you have to say; please do me the courtesy of not patronizing my thoughts as those of children and as my preferred actions as either schoolmarmish finger wagging or petulant foot stamping.

I've said all I care to say. EOD. Punto final.

I’m sorry that you don’t feel this is a discussable issue.

I did not mean to partonize anyone and apologize if it came off that way. I see pursuasive reasons for not going to war against this particular country at this time, and I'm on the fence about it. Selfishly and myopically, I'm concerned it would, in the short-term, be bad for my business. But I am waiting for street protesters to rise above "Bush wants to murder civilians", "war is evil" and a general disdain for Bush. I'm waiting for them to indicate they have some grasp of the global and regional geopolitics here, some grasp of history, the "art" of war, the history and objectives of this particular tyrant (Saddam, not Bush, to those who confuse "tyrant"), and the immense tangle of money and power that underlies the entire situation.

So far, I'm waiting in vain. As soon as the DC/SF protests were over a couple weeks ago, the leader of the DC gathering, probably realizing the event had failed to reach beyond the converted, wrote a letter to the New York Times that had a distinctly childish tone to it. Every other sentence began with "We demand!", and he offered no hint of having insight into the above collateral topics.

I think the one thing he did successfully was lobby the DC police into a crowd count higher than their 30,000 original estimate. But so what? The vast American middle - themselves skeptical of this war - gleaned absoutely nothing from the protests.

Now, Tk, I'll tell you what. I'll go to the NY protest and check it out. I'll see if TV news editors are chopping all the sophistication from their message - or not.

Fair enough. (Though of course, some allowance has to be made for political rhetoric. A multisyllabic, cogently formulated and diffcult-to-parse explanation of why a group is against the war does not make for a good protest chant.)

MD, you're probably right. I don't have an enormously sophisticated
> grasp of the global and regional geopolitics here, some grasp of history, the "art" of war, the history and objectives of this particular tyrant (Saddam, not Bush, to those who confuse "tyrant"), and the immense tangle of money and power that underlies the entire situation.

although believe me, I'm learning fast.

Bush and his speechwriters have done little to educate the public on these issues. It should be a little easier to provide a "multisyllabic, cogently formulated and difficult to parse" explanation during a State of the Union address than during a protest chant.

And, since Bush has couched the argument in terms of the US moral authority to unseat a dictator, I believe that his argument should be evaluated and responded to on moral grounds. Lest you complain that "murder is evil" is too much of an oversimplication, I refer you to the theory of a just war:

- possessing just cause (defined as self-defense against physical aggression, but sometimes extrapolated to anticipate probable acts of aggression) -- the debate has been over how probable SH's aggression might be.

- being declared by a proper authority (defined as residing in the sovereign power of the state, but "proper authority" becomes fuzzier when the government has not been properly elected).

- possessing right intention (a nation waging war should be doing so for the cause of justice and not for reasons of self-interest and aggrandizement). Hence the focus on the government's real reasons for waging war... is acquiring oil fields part of the cause of justice? Don't think so.

- having reasonable success, and reasonable costs. There's debate over the definition of "reasonable." Is hand-to-hand fighting in the streets of Baghdad a reasonable cost? And how about those innocent civilians?

- the desired end should be proportional to the means (amount of force) used. I'm going out on a limb here, but I still would argue that this argument suggests that war should be considered as a last resort, only after other means - which use less force - have been exhausted. And we haven't fully exhausted the other possibilities. I'm not talking about weapons inspections, but about a full-fledged effort of diplomacy and negotiation.

MD, you're probably right. I don't have an enormously sophisticated
> grasp of the global and regional geopolitics here, some grasp of history, the "art" of war, the history and objectives of this particular tyrant (Saddam, not Bush, to those who confuse "tyrant"), and the immense tangle of money and power that underlies the entire situation.

although believe me, I'm learning fast.

Bush and his speechwriters have done little to educate the public on these issues. It should be a little easier to provide a "multisyllabic, cogently formulated and difficult to parse" explanation during a State of the Union address than during a protest chant.

And, since Bush has couched the argument in terms of the US moral authority to unseat a dictator, I believe that his argument should be evaluated and responded to on moral grounds. Lest you complain that "murder is evil" is too much of an oversimplication, I refer you to the theory of a just war:

- possessing just cause (defined as self-defense against physical aggression, but sometimes extrapolated to anticipate probable acts of aggression) -- the debate has been over how probable SH's aggression might be.

- being declared by a proper authority (defined as residing in the sovereign power of the state, but "proper authority" becomes fuzzier when the government has not been properly elected).

- possessing right intention (a nation waging war should be doing so for the cause of justice and not for reasons of self-interest and aggrandizement). Hence the focus on the government's real reasons for waging war... is acquiring oil fields part of the cause of justice? Don't think so.

- having reasonable success, and reasonable costs. There's debate over the definition of "reasonable." Is hand-to-hand fighting in the streets of Baghdad a reasonable cost? And how about those innocent civilians?

- the desired end should be proportional to the means (amount of force) used. I'm going out on a limb here, but I still would argue that this argument suggests that war should be considered as a last resort, only after other means - which use less force - have been exhausted. And we haven't fully exhausted the other possibilities. I'm not talking about weapons inspections, but about a full-fledged effort of diplomacy and negotiation.

Comments welcome.

not sure why my comments got posted twice. sorry.

I think it printed twice because, well, the computer senses the depth of your feelings. I do, too, and I'll reply:

You say Bush hasn't made his case, but we all have to isolate our perceptions from large numbers of other people's perceptions. In precisely the recent period you cite - around the State of the Union - US public support for the war went from so-so to 66%. That is, a two-thirds majority thought Bush has made his case - for now.

You write "'proper authority' becomes fuzzier when the government has not been properly elected" While Bush was not elected, the fact that he was lawfully selected gives him all proper authority to run the executive branch, which encompasses the bulk of US foreign policy perogative. Of course, "authority" is not to be confused with the "political power" to do something, but all polls and the '02 elections indicate Bush has built up substantial political power - for now.

You also asked "is acquiring oil fields part of the cause of justice?" While the oil fields matter, there is no evidence that they are Bush's Iraq policy's reason-for-being. I'd have to defer the oil thing to another discussion, but it is a drastic, self-deceptive oversimplification for demonstrators to chant "No blood for oil!"

Finally, you quote someone saying "a nation waging war should be doing so for the cause of justice and not for reasons of self-interest..." Now that, Liz, is worth a laugh. Sadly, the dreamy idealist who wrote those words does not seem to have studied any history whatsoever.

MD - you're missing my point, and misquoting me. Can't have that.

I didn't say that Bush hadn't made his case, although he certainly hadn't convinced me or many other members of this list. I did say that Bush appears to be oversimplifying his case dramatically, particularly in his State of the Union address. (Powell, on the other hand, is bringing a full measure of complexity to the discussion. It's about time.)

The remainder of my post had to do with the moral and philosophical question of a "just war." This is not, actually, just the phrase of a dreamy-eyed idealist. It's a recognized doctrine that has been in existence since the 16th century. Michael Walzer is one of its 20th century proponents; I urge you to further your understanding of military doctrine through this lens.

Point-by-point response:

1. Reasonable minds, clearly, can disagree over the proper authority granted to a President who was selected rather than elected. I won't go into the numerous references to this disagreement that I've seen in the past two years. Bush's difficulty in building a coalition to support his position, and the numerous European references to him as a "cowboy" who wants to "go it alone," also suggest that he may not have had proper authority in the eyes of our allies to proceed. (Again, this context has changed since Powell's UN presentation.)

2. Fine, let's defer the oil thing to another discussion. But I'm sincerely curious - with your understanding of the art of war and the immense tangle of money and power that underlies the entire situation, what do you think are the strategic concerns behind the Administration's foreign policy?

3. Self-interest: My point was that Bush is denying the strategic concerns which underlie his fostering of war. Not that these concerns don't exist. He's trying to couch this argument in moral rhetoric, and doing so poorly. Hence my post.

Powell's evidence has changed the nature of the discussion enough that I'm ready to "move on" to another thread. (Note subtle plug for anti-war organization.... if they get a permit to march, I'm there.)

You say you're ready to move on to another thread so I'm not sure if you'll even read this, but I'll reply to your point 2, which is a question. I've seen no evidence that Bush's Iraq policy is driven by "Golly, I'd sure like to have all that oil." My take on the situation is that intricate and conflict-laden post-9/11 strategizing led to the de facto concept that any "rogue" state in the region, or state hostile to us, enables both the region's increasing "backwardness", and its borderless terrorist movements. They identified Iraq as at least rogue. The concept goes on to envision a long-term US presence in the region (in the territory of Iraq) as a progressive and stabilizing influence, not to mention a strategic base of operations against ongoing terror elements. Oil has practical applications in this context - it could help pay for war costs or post-war development. And, the reason everyone traditionally cares about the region is all about the political and economic value of oil, and more recently, terrorism. But it's not a greed for oil, per se, its that oil has turned the Middle East into a region that really matters.

What theconcept really comes down to is: Let's drain the swamp.

If there's war, will the concept be deployed? Don't know. Would it work? Don't know. Would there be major "kinks" along the way? Almost definitely.

On another note, Liz: I'm not trying to be mean, but c'mon, the "philosophical question of a just war" is exactly "dreamy-eyed idealism." It might be a "recognized doctrine", but it is completely irrelevant to the study of history and determining the intent of foreign policy conduct. Your concept might have been around since the 16th Century, but self-interest as a foreign policy has been around forever - and will continue to be around forever.

Governments often couch conflicts in terms of "justice" for sales purposes, but they always act in pure, dirty, unadulterated perceived self-interest.

In fact, rational self-interest - and the often difficult process of figuring out exactly what it is - has been a stabilizing influence in world history. Why? Because your idea of what's justice is rarely the next guy's.

I humbly suggest that if you want to see what's going on the world right now for what it is, start by disregarding all concepts that nations do anything for "just" anything. Think of it as a Darwinist schoolyard - because that's what it is.

And one more thing, if you're even reading this: I'd be careful not to confuse authority with power. They are very different things, often at odds with each other. We can pick this one up another time if you like.

Just Nuke them all. Kill the terrorist and the little terrorsts to be. F'em

M----- - I wasn't ignoring you, but I've been swamped. Yes, let's pick this up another time. You make some valid points - my main point was that Bush keeps denying the strategic reasons which you so cogently lay out, and substituting a statement of moral doctrine which, as you also point out, is more for sales purposes than anything else.