For the Record
Mar. 18th, 2003 11:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lawnrrdAs war looks imminent, I want to say what I believe. Not because I think it will make a difference, and not because I think I will change anyone's mind. But rather because I disagree with a great many people I like, respect, and admire, and because it's thus too easy for me to keep silent.
I believe that the coming war with Iraq is necessary and appropriate.
I believe that any nation on Earth has the right to invade Iraq to obliterate the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein. A government has a right to exist only insofar as it protects its citizens' absolute rights to their own lives, freedom, and property. No real government is perfect or close to it by this standard, but the government of Iraq is beyond all toleration. The citizens of Iraq have the right to overthrow this government, and any other nation has the right to do it for them.
I believe that this right exists regardless of the opinion of any "international community." I simply don't believe in sovereignty or international law in the way that most other people seem to.
While any nation has the right to liberate Iraq, I believe that no nation necessarily has the responsibility to do so. I believe that doing so is sufficiently in the interest of the United States that it should exercise this right. Certainly, it's about the oil, but not the way most opponents of the war seem to think. Iraq would be happy to sell the West all the oil it wants, cheap. But the profits from that oil would be used to build Iraq's armies, to develop further Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical arsenals, and ultimately to give Hussein control of the Middle East's oil. And however unlikely it may or may not be that the current government of Iraq will ally itself with Al Qaeda, that government will not last forever; can we be confident that militant Islamists won't then get those weapons?
While I believe that any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda is likely to be tenuous, I think the successful prosecution of this war will diminish Islamic terrorism in the long run. People who think they can build something in this world for themselves and their families are unlikely to blow themselves up in hope of paradise in the next one. But there are few opportunities in the Middle East for people to do this. A free, secular Iraq could change that. But more than that, it would remove many of the political reasons for the rest of the world to tolerate the failings of other Arab countries.
In the long run, then, I believe the liberation of Iraq would reduce the risk of terrorism. I consider the lack of Vietnamese, German, and Japanese suicide bombers to be evidence that the Arabs probably would not hold a grudge.
Still, in the short run, I believe the war will increase the risk of terrorism. I am afraid for myself, for my friends and family, for my country, and for the City I love so much that it hurts. But I think the United States must proceed anyway.
I believe a great many innocent Iraqis will die or be permanently injured in this war, and I feel for them and their loved ones. For that matter, most Iraqi conscripts are surely as innocent as anyone else, and they have mothers, fathers, wives, children, and friends too. But I think war is right anyway. When the Chechen terrorists seized the Moscow theater, the Russians went in when they thought the terrorists were shooting the hostages; many died, but many more were freed. I think the Russians did the right thing. Saddam Hussein has been shooting his hostages for a long time now--it's time to stop him, though we mourn the ones we cannot save.
The other objections do not convince me. There are many other evil regimes in the world, and we are unlikely to topple them. Does that mean we should not address this evil? Or if the United States were to commit to address all of them, would you support those wars, too?
Possibly Hussein is a creation of the West. Does that make him less of threat now to us or to his own people? Indeed, does that not give us a special responsibility to clean up our mess?
Certainly North Korea is a threat, too. That does not mean it has to be dealt with simultaneously. Moreover, I find it hard to take seriously objections based on North Korea, because I doubt that anyone who objects on this basis would suddenly support the war if North Korea were to disappear.
While I do not admire George W. Bush personally, I do not think he is a demon sprung from the pits of hell to revel in spilling the blood of the innocent. There seems to be some controversy about this last point.
And finally, I support this war because I think it will be fought sooner or later in one form or another, regardless of what Bush does now. And I believe that if it is fought later, the body count will have a few extra zeroes on the end.
I'm not saying this to start a debate, though I'll respond as best I can to anything anyone has to say. I suspect that enough people disagree with enough of the things I've said to keep me busy at this keyboard for days, if not weeks, non-stop. If I don't answer, don't take it personally, especially since I'm going to be computationally impaired for the next few days. And honestly, I doubt I'd change any of your minds, no matter what I said, and I doubt you'd change mine. Like LiveJournal itself, this isn't really for you, who may be reading these words--it's for me, so I can stop feeling like I'm hiding from myself or from anyone else.
I believe that the coming war with Iraq is necessary and appropriate.
I believe that any nation on Earth has the right to invade Iraq to obliterate the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein. A government has a right to exist only insofar as it protects its citizens' absolute rights to their own lives, freedom, and property. No real government is perfect or close to it by this standard, but the government of Iraq is beyond all toleration. The citizens of Iraq have the right to overthrow this government, and any other nation has the right to do it for them.
I believe that this right exists regardless of the opinion of any "international community." I simply don't believe in sovereignty or international law in the way that most other people seem to.
While any nation has the right to liberate Iraq, I believe that no nation necessarily has the responsibility to do so. I believe that doing so is sufficiently in the interest of the United States that it should exercise this right. Certainly, it's about the oil, but not the way most opponents of the war seem to think. Iraq would be happy to sell the West all the oil it wants, cheap. But the profits from that oil would be used to build Iraq's armies, to develop further Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical arsenals, and ultimately to give Hussein control of the Middle East's oil. And however unlikely it may or may not be that the current government of Iraq will ally itself with Al Qaeda, that government will not last forever; can we be confident that militant Islamists won't then get those weapons?
While I believe that any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda is likely to be tenuous, I think the successful prosecution of this war will diminish Islamic terrorism in the long run. People who think they can build something in this world for themselves and their families are unlikely to blow themselves up in hope of paradise in the next one. But there are few opportunities in the Middle East for people to do this. A free, secular Iraq could change that. But more than that, it would remove many of the political reasons for the rest of the world to tolerate the failings of other Arab countries.
In the long run, then, I believe the liberation of Iraq would reduce the risk of terrorism. I consider the lack of Vietnamese, German, and Japanese suicide bombers to be evidence that the Arabs probably would not hold a grudge.
Still, in the short run, I believe the war will increase the risk of terrorism. I am afraid for myself, for my friends and family, for my country, and for the City I love so much that it hurts. But I think the United States must proceed anyway.
I believe a great many innocent Iraqis will die or be permanently injured in this war, and I feel for them and their loved ones. For that matter, most Iraqi conscripts are surely as innocent as anyone else, and they have mothers, fathers, wives, children, and friends too. But I think war is right anyway. When the Chechen terrorists seized the Moscow theater, the Russians went in when they thought the terrorists were shooting the hostages; many died, but many more were freed. I think the Russians did the right thing. Saddam Hussein has been shooting his hostages for a long time now--it's time to stop him, though we mourn the ones we cannot save.
The other objections do not convince me. There are many other evil regimes in the world, and we are unlikely to topple them. Does that mean we should not address this evil? Or if the United States were to commit to address all of them, would you support those wars, too?
Possibly Hussein is a creation of the West. Does that make him less of threat now to us or to his own people? Indeed, does that not give us a special responsibility to clean up our mess?
Certainly North Korea is a threat, too. That does not mean it has to be dealt with simultaneously. Moreover, I find it hard to take seriously objections based on North Korea, because I doubt that anyone who objects on this basis would suddenly support the war if North Korea were to disappear.
While I do not admire George W. Bush personally, I do not think he is a demon sprung from the pits of hell to revel in spilling the blood of the innocent. There seems to be some controversy about this last point.
And finally, I support this war because I think it will be fought sooner or later in one form or another, regardless of what Bush does now. And I believe that if it is fought later, the body count will have a few extra zeroes on the end.
I'm not saying this to start a debate, though I'll respond as best I can to anything anyone has to say. I suspect that enough people disagree with enough of the things I've said to keep me busy at this keyboard for days, if not weeks, non-stop. If I don't answer, don't take it personally, especially since I'm going to be computationally impaired for the next few days. And honestly, I doubt I'd change any of your minds, no matter what I said, and I doubt you'd change mine. Like LiveJournal itself, this isn't really for you, who may be reading these words--it's for me, so I can stop feeling like I'm hiding from myself or from anyone else.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-03-18 10:50 pm (UTC)Both in the sense of direct U.S. support, and in a more general sense of broad Western influence. Not only did we prop him up in the '80s, but he is, really, the last of the Fascists, the last 'real' dictator who isn't a pseudo-Communist or a religious fanatic--he *is* a Westerner. That being said, I think a lot of us on the left would at least like an apology from the right (and by and large, this is a right vs. left issue) for the folly of the Reagan-Bush years, a reassurance that it's not going to be a repeat of those times, that the G.W. Bush administration is at least aware of why this is an issue, of what the big deal is. I don't think we're ever going to get it for a lot of reasons, but one is because the people pushing for war have no concept that Hussein is a creation of the West, and those are not the kind of people any of us want engaging in state-building once this war is over, or selecting the next target for 'the red, white, and blue man's burden'. In some ways, I kinda *do* hope we go to war (of course, I really wish we'd broker with Saddam an exchange of Saudi Arabia for his NBC capabilities--I'd like nothing more than to see that country invaded, and to use him as a lightening rod for Islamic fundamentalism, and if we hadn't of gotten involved in '92, he would have been) because I do think he is doing the things they say he is. I think, however, the opposition to this war is justified because of the way in which it happened, the fear that Iraq is the edge of a slippery slope, and that the opposition to this war (which I think has about a 50/50 shot at turning out to be the right thing, in the long term, to have undertaken) is necessary to ensure that Bush is not re-elected (both because Bush is *NOT* the man for the job anymore and no one drenched in oil money should have too much of a say in the rebuilding of a post-Saddam Iraq to avoid any conflicts of interest) and that our invasion of Iraq is not the first step in the establishment of a Pax Americana--*everyone* from the French to bin Laden agree that Saddam is evil. What everyone is objecting to is that it seems we haven't put nearly as much planning into what we are going to do to liberate Iraq as we have into taking out Saddam, two related but not identical things. Also, I think it's important to let the rest of the world know that we're all not a bunch of cowboys, becuase we're going to have to deal with the rest of the world after all this is over, and I think it will be very valuable if the rest of the world knows that the American people *did* oppose what they see as an unjust war.