Tuesday, January 28, 2003

Give War a Chance?  Honest to God, I cannot make up my mind what the hell I think about the impending war on Iraq.  For the longest time, I was fully opposed to the war.  But slowly I found myself changing my mind, believing that perhaps the hopeful estimates for what could happen with a democratic Iraq were compelling enough to justify military action.  Now I'm back the other way. I have to confess that part of my reticence to go either way is that I have little to no respect for huge portions of the pro-war and the anti-war camp.  Not all, of course, but many.  The pro-war camp seems manifestly incapable of considering the possibility that war would unleash hell in the Middle East, that war would increase the ability of Al Qaeda to recruit terrorists, that Saddam could react with weapons of mass destruction, that moderation in the Middle East would be replaced by an even more rabid anti-Americanism, with dire consequences for the safety of U.S. citizens at home and abroad.  Too many of the hawks boil their arguments down to pathetic demonstrations of machismo and simplified claims about what a bad guy Saddam is, as though that's enough.  There is a world after attack, and it could be a better world.  But it could be a terrible, terrible place, and I would like someone on the right to acknowledge that without resorting to name-calling.  This means you, Andrew Sullivan. The anti-war camp annoys the hell out of me, for the most part.  There are some very, very good reasons to oppose the war.  But "Give Peace a Chance", "War is Bad" and "Innocents Will Die" are not among the good reasons.  Why?  Because all of these slogans manifestly downplay the fact that Saddam Hussein a sociopathic monster with weapons of mass destruction and a demonstrated willingness to use them.  Will innocent Iraqis die in the case of war?  Yes.  And each and every one of those cases will be incredibly tragic.  But let's not pretend that the lives of all but the closest of Saddam's confidants in Iraq are anything but horrendous.  That doesn't mean I'm suggesting that those lives are therefore worthless--far from it.  Rather, it suggests that the deaths of some can be justified in order to liberate the majority, in my opinion.  Should we not have stopped Hitler because the attack would surely have killed some innocents?  Is it out of line to compare Saddam to Hitler?  Nope.  Read some stuff about Saddam.  It's unbelievable.  Then there's the other problem, which is that many war opponents have no alternative to the continued rule of Saddam.  Sometimes the ends justify the means. For a while, I was finding myself increasingly persuaded by the argument made by Fouad Ajami and others that a democratic model could be instituted in Iraq, and that with a serious commitment to reform, democracy, and administration in Iraq post-Saddam, a new future could emerge in the Middle East.  No serious scholar (which I am most certainly not) of the Middle East believes that the present situation is tenable--too much oppression, too few jobs, not enough hope, too much fundamentalism, and too much blaming of the U.S. for problems that are and are not related to American foreign policy.  It's a deadly combination, and something needs to be done.  A sort of shock therapy for the region, starting in Iraq, could be the ticket. I'm not speaking about the likelihood that the Bush Administration will do it right, since I have very, very little faith in that.  This is a bit idealistic, I know.  But things are going to get a lot worse, and there has to be some hope. So I was starting to think that maybe I was pro-war.  Then Salon writes their "worst-case scenarios" piece last week, and I start to remember the reasons why I opposed it in the first place.  Not because "Duh.......war is bad" but because a  war could easily result in unparalleled hostility toward the U.S.  Because the war could result in such an uprising against a U.S. military occupation in the Levant that bad-but-not-the-worst-possible regimes like Pakistan would be replaced by the-worst-possible.  Because Saddam could respond with WMD.  Because this is a plausible scenario for a nuclear conflict.  And then in today's New York Times, Nicholas Kristof writes this article about his rationale for opposition to the war, which is that the war will almost surely increase the vulnerability of Americans as Al Qaeda finds it easier to recruit terrorists, and Saddam orders Iraqi terrorists in the U.S. (which the Administration itself alleges are here) to go ballistic.  Thousands (millions?) of Americans would become more vulnerable to terrorism. Is that worth it?  I don't know.  Probably not. But I don't know.  The future is bleak.  The bumbling "policy" that the Bush Administration has created toward the Middle East and the Islamic world does not help matters.  I fear what is going to happen if there is not democratization in the Middle East.  But will war bring it about?  I don't know. I've dramatically oversimplified many of the arguments for and against war, and left some out, but these are the core issues.  I don't know what to think.  Oh, except for one thing--there's not a damned reason in the world to attack while the inspectors are still there.  Iraq is patently not a threat right now.  Which doesn't mean they couldn't be one awfully fast, but not while Hans Blix is inspectin' and disarmin'.  4:55:49 PM    Let's hear it. []

New article in Hyperbole Submissions by my good friend Sean Smith, who is one funny mofo.  He's got a problem with his maid. 10:57:06 AM    Let's hear it. []