A CAT TOYING WITH A MOUSE
Driving back from Bakersfield yesterday afternoon, I was able to pass the time listening to Hugh Hewitt's show. I don't always agree with him, but I find his to be the most intelligent talk radio show on the air. He played a clip from this go round between Christopher Hitchens and Ron Reagan:
CH: Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?
RR: Well, I'm following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which...
CH: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it? ... At this state, after what happened in London yesterday?...
RR: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.
CH: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?
CH: Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?
RR: Well, I'm following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which...
CH: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it? ... At this state, after what happened in London yesterday?...
RR: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.
CH: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?
posted by stewdog | 11:25 AM | Permalink
|
35 comments
35 Comments:
Hitchens is playing fast and loose with the facts here. All this talk of Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas (the "man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the Achille Lauro"), and Abdul Rahman Yasin (the man "who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attack") is all smoke and mirrors. None of these men had any relation to Zarqawi. Nidal and Abbas were secular socialists with whom Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would have no truck, and Nidal was most likely assassinated by Iraqi intelligence. Yasin fled to Iraq after being released by the FBI and was, according to the Iraqi government, imprisoned in Iraq. Hitchens' whole argument- "if these guys got into Iraq with the permission of the Iraqi government, Zarqawi must have also"- is puerile. There are differences among the enemies of the U.S., some of them are enemies to one-another. Prior to the invasion of Iraq Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was the enemy of Saddam Hussein and Iraqi Ba'athism. Only the invasion of Iraq made an operational alliance between the followers of Zarqawi and Hussein at all possible.
"Hitchens' whole argument- "if these guys got into Iraq with the permission of the Iraqi government, Zarqawi must have also"- is puerile."
-- Ah, but where does Hitchens make that argument, Madman? He was responding to Reagan's suggestion that Iraq was not a state that supported terror. It's Reagan and others who make this argument who are being puerile and simplistic, not Hitchens.
"Only the invasion of Iraq made an operational alliance between the followers of Zarqawi and Hussein at all possible."
-- And why, exactly, is your suggestion that there could *never* have existed an operational connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda without the Iraq war anything more than smoke and mirrors? You support your claim by pointing out that Saddam and Zarqawi are ideologically opposed to one another, but I think you're either overestimating the extent to which people like Saddam and Zarqawi actually believe in their own propaganda or underestimating the extent to which Baathism or Wahhabism/Islamofascism are truly "ideologies" and therefore don't require consistency or rational defense.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kate Marie,
Hitchens implies the argument when he says, "Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein?" I don't wonder- he snuck in over the Iraq-Iran border with the anti-Saddam rebel group Ansar al-Islam and was living in hiding from the Iraqi government. Mr. Hitchens would seem to like us to believe that Zarqawi was an invited guest, a al Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, but that is a pure fallacy.
I don't see Ron Reagan making the argument that Iraq was not a state sponsor of terror here, perhaps that is in an earlier part of the interview. Iraq was most definitely a sponsor of Palestinian terrorism, as are Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Kuwait, etc. etc. etc. If we must invade all sponsors of Palestinian terror then we had better get cracking, as that is a LONG list.
As for there being no possibility of an operational relationship between Zarqawi (or al-Qaeda more broadly) and Iraqi Ba'athism, I've never maintained that ANY relationship was impossible, only the relationship that exists RIGHT NOW, where Zarqawi's minions and their former Ba'athist foes stand shoulder-to-shoulder in the field, working openly and hand-in-hand to kill U.S. soldiers. If that type of relationship had existed before (VERY unlikely, as these groups really are ideological enemies, whatever you might suppose) it would have triggered a US invasion of Iraq.
Maybe Iraqi intelligence had some very tentative and difficult to trace contacts with al-Qaeda (all that many US goverment departments and task forces have ever been able to uncover). Meanwhile, there is iron-clad, proof-positive evidence of the many, many, many substantive forms of technical, financial, and logistical support provided to al-Qaeda from highly placed Saudis and Pakistani military intelligence. If we were invading in order to weaken al-Qaeda, once again Iraq was just the WRONG place to go.
I believe Reagan does make that argument in an earlier part of the interview. Hitchens' point is that Iraq was a state sponsor of terror and that it's naive to assume Zarqawi's presence there could be dismissed out of hand.
I don't suppose those groups AREN'T ideological enemies, but I also don't suppose that being an ideological enemy means anything decisive in terms of the relationship between the two groups (operational or otherwise). Again, see Hitler/Stalin.
And again, who has ever claimed that the sole reason to invade Iraq was because of the threat posed by possible alliances between Saddam and Al Qaeda? Only those who were opposed to the war seem to make that argument.
I would never argue that invading Iraq was solely because of supposed "ties" to al-Qaeda. It was one of many reasons put forward by the Bush administration. I would only argue that of all the reasons put forward by the Bush administration, this is by far the worst, in that 1)any ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda prior to the invasion were far surpassed by ties between al-Qaeda and other countries, Pakistan being first on the list; 2)the invasion has forged ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq much stronger and dangerous than existed or would ever have been possible before (Hitler-Stalin notwithstanding).
Naive to assume that Zarqawi's presence there can be dismissed out of hand? What does that mean? It would be a phantasmagoric flight of fancy to suggest that Zarqawi was an invited guest of the Iraqi government. The group he led, Ansar al-Islam, which operated out of Iranian territory, would have to be an elaborate cover organization...the cooperation of the Iraqi and Iranian governments would be necessary in the ruse. Ian Fleming couldn't come up with a more byzantine or implausible plot.
What's more, Hitchens probably knows this is true. What is most troubling about Hitchens' kind of mendacity is that he is obviously fairly well-informed, thus he must be aware of the erroneousness of his own rhetoric. He must feel that Americans don't know the facts and are too lazy to learn them.
The Bush administration argued that Iraq was a state sponsor of terror. To argue that this reason was "the worst" is to view it isolation from all the other reasons for the invasion. You're free to do that if you wish, but that Hitchens himself does NOT is not proof either of his disingenuousness or his mendacity.
Why do you assume that, if Zarqawi was not there as an invited guest of the Iraqi government, his presence there was not a cause for concern? You seem to be suggesting that there are only two ways to think about it -- that he wasn't invited and therefore posed no threat or that he was an invited guest of the Iraqi government. Are those the only two possibilities?
Since Bush lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq, I prefer to look at Bill Clinton's justification for taking military action against Iraq back in 1998.
...Sounds familiar doesn't it?
Although, that military action was on the eve of his impeachment vote so I suppose he could have lied too just to save his ass. Either way, the left shows their hypocrisy. If they believe Clinton was telling the truth and supported him, then they're hypocrites for attacking Bush who has used the exact same argument for this military action. If they believed Clinton was lying, they sure didn't squawk about it. (I guess lying was just more in vogue then.)
Kate Marie,
Sure, Zarqawis presence in Iraq was a cause for concern, just as Osama bin-Laden's presence in Pakistan is a cause for concern. Zarqawi's drawing breath anywhere on the planet is a cause for concern. It was not, however, a reason to invade Iraq. Invading Iraq has made Abu Musab al-Zarqawi exponentially more powerful and influential than he ever was or ever could be.
"The Bush administration argued that Iraq was a state sponsor of terror. To argue that this reason was "the worst" is to view it isolation from all the other reasons for the invasion."
Here you are venturing into some roiling semantic waters. Among the myriad pronouncements ventured by the Bush administration, the phrases "links to al-Qaeda" and "state sponsor of terror" appeared many times. I argued that "links to al-Qaeda" was the worst reason in this murky, rancid stew of causes, for reasons that seem obvious (many other nations had much more fundamental links, the invasion has made Iraq much more fertile ground for al-Qaeda than it ever was or could be pre-invasion). "State sponsor of terror" is a marginally better reason, only because it was much more clearly demonstrable- Saddam was a big booster for the PLO and allied Palestinian factions, he harbored Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas. But this "state sponsor of terror" reason is almost as bad as "links to al-Qaeda." As I said before, if we were to invade every country that has harbored or financed Palestinian terrorists, we would have to invade practically the entire Middle East and beyond. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. By including "state sponsor of terror" in its rhetorical bag the Bush administration engaged in the same kind of cynical mendacity exemplified by Hitchens. It is irritating when a foreign pundit expects Amercans not to be able to distinguish between the PLO and al-Qaeda, it is shameful and potentially dangerous when the US government relies upon and promotes this misconception.
Wonderdog,
I never argued that the Bush administration lied about its reasons for invading Iraq, I just think that they were bad ones. Whatever overlap there may be between Clinton's justifications for air strikes in '98 and Bush's reasons for invasion in '03, support for the former does not invalidate opposition to the latter- air strikes are not an invasion. Am I inconsistent because I supported Bush's invasion of Afghanistan (which was undertaken for many of the same reasons he invaded Iraq) but oppose his invasion of Iraq? If not, then why is it a contradiction to support Clinton's airstrikes and oppose Bush's invasion, if I feel the former were wise and the latter not?
Madman, if you supported invading Afghanistan than you must support invading Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, to name a few. They harbor the same deadly enclaves of Al-Qaeda. And while I agree that the invasion of Iraq was not predicated largely on an Al-Qaeda/ Iraq connection, this judgment in a U.S. federal court is at least an indication that the link was greater than you'd have us believe. That said, I wouldn't say your support for Afghanistan and lack of support for Iraq is per-se inconsistent, simply misguided in light of the similar threat the world believed Saddam to be.
I do however see an inconsistency in supporting Clinton's air strikes and not supporting Bush's land war. The reasons for attacking were the same for both (Saddam's WMD and threat to the world community along with his defiance of U.N. resolutions). As for which military strike was wiser, which one deposed the tyrrant and implemented a Democracy and which left him, his torture chambers, mass graves, threats and continual world defiance in power?
Therfore, I do see an inconsistency in your position since, not only was the justification for going to war the same, but Bush's actions have yielded a much more positive and productive result.
Link Correction:
Contrary to the link in my last post, Gwynneth Paltrow is not evidence of an Al-Qaeda/ Iraq connection. Ouch...mangled that one bad.
Here's what I meant to link.
Madman,
I used the example "state sponosor of terror" because I really don't know who in the Bush administration claimed definitive links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and it's not one of the reasons for invasion that my support relied on -- as it was not for Hitchens. Iraq's sponsorship of terror, however, WAS a good reason given all the other reasons that existed (other reasons that did not exist in the instance of Saudi Arabia or even of Pakistan). If Hitchens is being disingenuous, then so am I ... or am I simply one of the idiot Americans who can't tell the difference between Al Qaeda and the PLO? Am I attempting to promote a misconception or am I just being ignorant? Or will you give me (and Hitchens) the benefit of the doubt and assume that we know the difference between Al Qaeda and the PLO AND that we understand that the American people know the difference. The crux of your objection to Hitchens here seems to be that he implied a definitive connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I think, on the other hand, that he responded to the oft-repeated and idiotic claim that Iraq was not a terrorist state or "center" of terror" by pointing out that it WAS, and that its sponsorship of terror was -- in conjunction with the other reasons -- a good reason to invade.
You have every right to disagree, but not everyone with whom you disagree is either disingenuous or stupid.
I deleted the comment with the link to the Stephen Hayes article, because it was messing up the page. See if this. works.
Here's another article from Stephen Hayes, with updated information.
Jim O'Sullivan, thanks for the video link and thanks for stopping by.
Great blog, by the way -- we should add it to our blog roll.
Kate Marie,
You are making fundamentally different argument from Hitchens. I've gone back and read the transcript of the entire exchange (through the link in Jim Sullivan's post), Hitchens is stumping the old Iraq-Al Qaeda canard. As to who in the Bush administration has promoted links between Al Qaeda and (pre-invasion) Iraq...hmmm....Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, even Colin Powell got on that bandwagon.
As for this very different argument from Hitchens' that you make, that Iraq's support for Palestinian terrorism was one good reason to invade Iraq, Iraq today is a much greater asset to Palestinian extremists than Saddam's Iraq ever was. Saddam's sponsorship of terror was never much more than tokenism and bluster- figures like Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas had already become very marginal within the PLO itself, Saddam's harboring of them did little to further the cause of Palestinian extremism. The groups most pernicious to the peace process today are Islamist factions like Hamas and Hezbollah. Neither group enjoyed good relations with Saddam, and both have new allies among the Sunni extremists operating throughout Iraq and a new fertile training and recruiting ground for the next generation of terrorists.
Among the many reasons for invading Iraq there is only good one. All of the other reasons- the war against terror, the fight to democratize the Middle East, WMDs, etc., are so much sound and fury. Wholly good intentioned and sincere they may be, but they are all for naught- this invasion will not help any of those situations one bit.
The one good that has come of this invasion thus far is the removal of Saddam Hussein, who was undoubtedly a monster to his own people. But setting aside the arbitrariness of deposing this one monster while so many others reign undismayed, the present difficulties of this war were all too predictable from the outset.
I simply disagree about what Hitchens is "stumping," Madman (and I read the whole transcript, too).
"Among the many reasons for invading Iraq there is only good one. All of the other reasons- the war against terror, the fight to democratize the Middle East, WMDs, etc., are so much sound and fury. Wholly good intentioned and sincere they may be, but they are all for naught- this invasion will not help any of those situations one bit. "
-- Well, okay, if you say so . . . I presume you were one of those voices crying in the wilderness in 1998 when Clinton bombed Baghdad on the WMD "pretext"? If those reasons were "sound and fury" in the case of a land invasion, why weren't they "sound and fury" in the case of Clinton's bombing?
Kate Marie,
You and Wonderdog make the same argument, that if one supported the bombing on the cause of WMD's one must support the invasion. This is like saying that if I support a root canal as an answer to tooth pain I must then support shooting the patient in the head to put him out of his misery if the root canal doesn't work.
Clinton ordered air strikes in an attempt to get Saddam to let inspectors back in to check for WMD's. I personally have never believed or argued that there were no WMD's in Iraq, but it is evident prima facie that whether or not WMD's did exist in Iraq invasion was not a good fix. If there were no WMD's (a possibility, though I would not insist a certainty) then obviously invasion was not necessary on that score. If there were WMD's they are now less secure and more dangerous than they ever were, as neither air strikes or invasion will deter whoever has them from using them.
Clinton wasn't just trying to re-start inspections, Madman. His administration's policy toward Iraq was regime change.
"If there were no WMD's (a possibility, though I would not insist a certainty) then obviously invasion was not necessary on that score."
-- Invasion was a better way than any other to find out.
"If there were WMD's they are now less secure and more dangerous than they ever were, as neither air strikes or invasion will deter whoever has them from using them."
-- By your logic, we should never exhaust the all the conventional military options because then we won't have anything to hold in reserve as a threat. If WMD did exist, I would argue that they were no more secure under Saddam than they are now, especially since he already had already used them without being challenged or punished.
Here's Clinton:
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently."
-- Those who support the war would argue that post 9/11 we can't afford to change regimes in places like Iraq as "prudently" as Clinton would have liked.
Kate Marie,
So you are saying that we invaded Iraq to "check" for WMD's? Is this how you would propose we gather intelligence as a rule? As for regime change post-9/11, does this new urgency apply in Burma? Cuba? Sudan? Syria? Saudi Arabia? North Korea? Certainly everything Clinton said about Iraq applies to North Korea- "As long as Kim Jong Il is in power he threatens the well being of his people, the stability of the region, the security of the world." Moreover, we are dead certain that Kim Jong Il possesses WMD's. When do you feel we should invade?
Madman,
We did not invade Iraq to "check" for WMD's, but the threat of WMD's was, in my opinion, one good reason among many to invade, notwithstanding the fact that we were apparently giving up our ability to use the "threat" of intervention as a way to influence Saddam's willingness to use WMD.
"Moreover, we are dead certain that Kim Jong Il possesses WMD's. When do you feel we should invade?"
-- Are you asking me whether I feel an intervention in Iraq is feasible or whether it's morally justifiable? If there was a way that we COULD depose Kim Jong Il through military intervention, you're darn right I think we should do it. Or do you seriously suggest there's no difference -- in terms of military plausibility -- between an invasion of Iraq and an invasion of North Korea?
Kate Marie,
So the leap beyond prudence that the post-9/11 world demands has limits? Why do you draw them at North Korea? Because they have nuclear weapons? The chemical and biological weapons we thought Saddam Hussein possessed were about as lethal, and North Korea's long-range delivery systems are still primitive (though developing rapidly, by all accounts). What kind of message do we send, moreover, if we will invade a country in order to prevent its acquiring WMD's but are cowed once a rogue nation acquires some critical number or strength? I would be very surprised if the US army could not defeat the North Korean army in the same time or less it took to defeat Saddam Hussein, WMD's notwithstanding. What is more, unlike Iraq, in South Korea there is the solid nucleus of a state that could take over sovereign authority of the entire peninsula, so that the current crisis of nation-building in Iraq would be handily avoided.
The reason we do not invade North Korea is because it would be incalculably detrimonious to our relationship with China (another ruthless despotism that has slaughtered its own people and continues to do so), to the point of risking open war. So prudence does guide our foreign policy even now, and prudence (both moral and pragmatic) should have precluded our invasion of Iraq.
"The reason we do not invade North Korea is because it would be incalculably detrimonious to our relationship with China (another ruthless despotism that has slaughtered its own people and continues to do so), to the point of risking open war. So prudence does guide our foreign policy even now, and prudence (both moral and pragmatic) should have precluded our invasion of Iraq."
-- So I ask you again, you think the invasion of Iraq has had/will have consequences as dramatic as the invasion of North Korea? My point -- notwithstanding your implication -- was not that we should abandon prudence altogether, but that the "prudence" which previously kept us from intervening in rogue regimes needed to be reconsidered. Our need to "contain" North Korea, like our need to "contain" communism during the Cold War, is a need born of tragic necessity, and I'm not as sanguine as you about the moral rightness of such "prudence" when there are millions of North Koreans (just as there were millions of Russians, Chinese, Eastern Europeans, etc.)who have been slaughtered or starved to death while the world sits prudently by.
Which nuclear superpowers has our invasion of Iraq been "incalculably detrimental" to?
Kate Marie,
So if Iraq had a nuclear-armed bully that was willing to shelter it the need to invade it would have been circumvented? I'm confused, just how much prudence is prudent post-9/11?
As for the world sitting sanguinely by in the case of North Korea, that world would include the US and its President. As I wrote before, the risk of a nuclear conflict erupting over North Korea is very low. Fear of nuclear war counts far less in that instance than the fact that the People's Republic of China is the largest holder of US treasury bonds in the world and our most voluminous trading partner. Invasion of North Korea would not be detrimental to China in the slightest, but it would piss them off plenty, and the economic fallout would land hardest here in the USA. Look through your house and check to see if anything is made in China. If so you have bought a little piece of responsibility for the servitude of North Korea's millions.
"So if Iraq had a nuclear-armed bully that was willing to shelter it the need to invade it would have been circumvented? I'm confused, just how much prudence is prudent post-9/11?"
-- I'm confused, too, Madman. First of all, the "need" to invade is perhaps an inauspicious term, and I'm not sure who used it first. In any event, weren't we referring to the justifications for invasion? As far as I'm concerned, the U.S. (or the U.N. or NATO or whomever else) would be *justified* in attempting to depose Kim Jong Il if they did it tomorrow. Does that answer your question?
Meanwhile, you aren't answering mine. Are you arguing that the invasion of Iraq has had/will have as dramatic consequences as an invasion of North Korea?
"As for the world sitting sanguinely by in the case of North Korea, that world would include the US and its President."
-- And who said it didn't? Look, you are the one who mentioned the "prudence (practical and moral)" of not invading Iraq (and by implication, North Korea). I merely suggested that the "moral prudence" of sitting by while millions of people are starved to death by a despot is not something I'm very proud of.
"Look through your house and check to see if anything is made in China. If so you have bought a little piece of responsibility for the servitude of North Korea's millions."
-- Again, Madman, if you had read carefully and with a modicum of generous interpretation, you might have understood me to INCLUDE the U.S., and therefore myself, in the "world" that sat prudently by while millions of Koreans (as well as Chinese, Russians, Eastern Europeans) were murdered or starved to death. So thanks for the lecture, but I might take it a little more kindly if you hadn't just lectured me about the moral prudence of leaving Saddam in power.
Kate Marie,
I certainly wasn't talking about the justification for invasion, I was addressing your claim that, post 9/11, regime change could not be undertaken as "prudently" as suggested by Clinton. North Korea is another regime for which we have a policy of regime change, and its threat to world security is as palpable as Saddam's ever was, if not more. Do you feel that the consequences for US and world security of our not invading North Korea will be as serious as the consequences of our not invading Iraq would have been? If not, then again I'm confused about how much prudence is prudent and which case demands prudence while which does not.
I'm sorry if you felt lectured, my point about the "little piece of responsibility" was that the question of who is "sanguine...about the moral rightness of such 'prudence'" is a loaded one. All of us are deeply implicated in the global structures of power that keep North Korea in tragic stasis. If only feeling bad about it could buy one a pass, then my hands would be no more sanguine than my heart.
As for the moral rightness of "prudence" with regard to North Korea and Iraq, I lean toward prudence because the moral questions underlying such actions are rarely as complex as the question of their real-world consequences. How does one quantify the suffering of the Korean people, and what should the world be expected to endure to set it right, morally? Yes, an invasion of North Korea would quite possibly cause an economic disruption on the scale of the Great Depression, but does that morally absolve the international community of inaction? In the final analysis the status quo is not shaped by such considerations, but by the pragmatic difficulty (impossibility) of asking a democratic electorate to send its sons and daughters off to die in a war that will impoverish them to boot, and I'm not sure that there isn't a gleam of morality in that impulse if one pokes around a bit.
Will the invasion of Iraq have the same dramatic consequences that an invasion of North Korea would have? We'll have to wait and see. The worst case scenario is almost identical in either case, though I'll grant that the odds of the worst case scenario are lower in the case of Iraq. In this sense I suppose one could say that Bush has gambled prudently with the lives and treasure of the Iraqi and American people.
"Do you feel that the consequences for US and world security of our not invading North Korea will be as serious as the consequences of our not invading Iraq would have been?"
-- We'll have to wait and see. The worst case scenario of not invading is almost identical in either case, though I'll grant that the odds of the worst case scenario are at least the same in the case of Korea.
"All of us are deeply implicated in the global structures of power that keep North Korea in tragic stasis. If only feeling bad about it could buy one a pass, then my hands would be no more sanguine than my heart."
-- *My* point was that that was *already* my point and I found it a bit odd to be lectured about moral rightness from both sides of the issue.
Let me ask you this, Madman. Since you're concerned about the prudence and arbitrariness of the regime change rationale, did you support Clinton's gamble with our lives and treasure in Bosnia and Kosovo? If so, would you have decided not to support it if you knew it would cost the same amount of lives that it has cost in Iraq?
Kate Marie,
I'm sorry if I mistook your point. I thought you claimed that you were less sanguine than me about the moral rightness of not invading North Korea. I never intended to lecture you, I only meant that unless your objections extend beyond feeling bad about it (to, say, boycotting all Chinese made goods) we are equally sanguine about it, as I feel bad about it too.
I definitely supported Clinton's actions in Bosnia and Kosovo. The "gamble" in that case was no order of magnitude near Bush's adventure in Iraq, as neither case implicated the US in the task of nation-building (much less one of the most difficult challenges of nation-building on the planet).
P.S.
"We'll have to wait and see. The worst case scenario of not invading is almost identical in either case, though I'll grant that the odds of the worst case scenario are at least the same in the case of Korea."
This is what I've been trying to get you to concede all along. In sum, your estimation is that-
1)the security imperatives of invading both North Korea and Iraq were the same
2)the moral imperative of liberating North Korea and Iraq were the same
Therefore
The SOLE criterion on which you judge invading Iraq correct and invading North Korea unwise is the potential cost to the US. You cannot insist that an invasion of Iraq was necessary and an invasion of North Korea is not, you are making distinctions on PRUDENTIAL grounds, just as I do. You seem very certain in your position, but it is built entirely on a presumption about what might have happened had a different course of action been taken, while mine is based on what has happened, what is happening right now, and what is tragically all too likely to happen in the future.
"The SOLE criterion on which you judge invading Iraq correct and invading North Korea unwise is the potential cost to the US. You cannot insist that an invasion of Iraq was necessary and an invasion of North Korea is not, you are making distinctions on PRUDENTIAL grounds, just as I do."
-- Yes, but I thought that was clear from the beginning, Madman. As I said, I wasn't advocating a wholesale abandonment of prudence but a reassessment of the prudence of maintaining the status quo in rogue state situations. In my opinion, the cost to the U.S. (and the world) of an invasion of Iraq -- though high -- would not have been as high as the cost of an invasion of North Korea.
As for my opinion being based on what might have happened if a different course of action had been taken -- I'm pretty sure that if we hadn't invaded Iraq, Saddam&Sons would still be in power and if we hadn't intervened in the Balkans, Milosevic and his henchmen would be finishing their bloody job there.
I'm sorry for suggesting I was less sanguine than you, but I was responding to your point about the moral prudence of not invading. And my purpose was not to suggest that I held some moral advantage over you, but that claims about the moral rightness and prudence of maintaining the status quo seem kind of empty to me, given the fact that -- in my opinion -- we are equally morally implicated in "standing by."
I think there's only one way to take this discussion, as usual, Madman. I therefore challenge you to a duel and designate Wonderdog as my second.
Kate Marie,
All right, you chose the weapon, I'll chose the venue- New Jersey! Poopypuppy (my daughter) will be MY second.
No fair! Your second is cuter than my second.
I approve the venue, and I suggest that we beat each other over the head with the scripts to Goodfellas and Miller's Crossing.
At my signal, take ten paces, turn and type!
Kate, Madman's second may be cuter but I'm at least potty trained.
Kate Marie,
Aha! Advantage Madman! "Goodfellas" weighs at least 50% more than "Milller's Crossing."
Wonderdog,
Do you imagine being potty trained is an advantage? If "Goodfellas" doesn't finish Kate Marie off one used diaper from my second will (they tend to weigh 50-75% more than the script to "Goodfellas," fully charged).
Post a Comment
<< Home