Thoughts, comments, musings on life, politics, current events and the media.



Blogroll Me!


Comments by YACCS

 

What's on tonight?

I remember when Vietnam was called the first television war. Well, actually, I don't remember it at all; I was crawling around watching Sesame Street at the time. But I remember reading history books that made the claim. And now it seems so silly, doesn't it? Yes, footage of what was happening in Vietnam made it onto the evening news. Several days later. Ha! How... twentieth century. Now I can watch real-time footage. 24-hours a day. I smirk at you puny Vietnam War watchers with your puny evening news coverage.

Hmm. I wonder what the next generation of coverage will be. Interactive viewing? We'll get to pick from which camera angle we want to observe the war? To choose which satellites and radar systems we want our televisions to use to put together composite pictures of troop movements?


I jest, but it seems to me that these advancements -- and make no mistake about their imminent arrival -- are going to significantly alter the course of war. The news media is already pushing the envelope in the area of operational security; I've already seen, several times in the last two days, an "embedded" reporter yelled at, on camera, for giving out too much information -- or in one case, for giving away the unit's position with his camera's light. But since these reporters are embedded, the military does have some control over them, and in addition, the U.S. networks are generally being responsible in their decisions about what information to air.

Soon, though, it will be impossible to control the spread of information at all. Well, at least not without targeting journalists directly -- which might result in bad publicity. (And ultimately, even that won't be sufficient. Surely if the U.S. can build unmanned drones for aerial surveillance, so can large media corporations.) Certainly there are some technical solutions -- communications can be jammed, after all -- but that will merely hinder the media; it won't defeat them. Will it make warfare obsolete? Don't make me laugh. Hasn't every new technology -- steamships, dynamite, nuclear weapons, just to name a few -- been hailed as a means to abolish war? Unless I missed a news bulletin, war continues. But each invention has changed the face of war, and I suspect that it will happen again in ways we can't even begin to foresee. (Not including Tom Clancy, who already wrote this plot.)
posted by David Nieporent at 3/22/2003 04:03:00 AM |

 

Me Me Me Me Me

Is there any doubt in anybody's mind that anti-war protesters are just narcissistic children with too much free time on their hands? If there is, perhaps the latest mini-controversy at the University of Maryland will convince people otherwise. An editorial cartoon was published that some people found offensive, so there were protests, which the newspaper rejected:

Dozen of students continued to protest outside The Diamondback's newsroom yesterday, some saying they would continue to protest at the newspaper's office even if no one is there until an apology is made.

"We're getting the message out, even if they're not here - it's symbolic," said Justin Valanzola, a junior special education major. "We're here to do something. We can't be apathetic anymore."

See? It's all about the protesters. They want to feel like they're doing something, regardless of whether they're accomplishing anything.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/21/2003 04:11:00 PM |

 

The Law of Unintended Consequences

Q: What happens if you demand something from someone?
A: He may or may not give it to you.

Q: What happens if you demand something from someone, and then promise to punish him if he gives it to you?
A: He certainly won't give it to you.

And so, Robert Musil points out how "international law" deters Saddam Hussein from agreeing to go into exile. Of course, the odds that the Iraqi dictator would have ever gone along with America's demands along those lines were slimmer than slim -- but well-meaning Eurocrat/fools have made it certain that he will not.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/20/2003 05:15:00 AM |

 

The leftist case for war

It may seem somewhat pointless to continue to rehash the argument over whether to go to war, but I just read this piece and it was quite good. A leftist challenges other leftists to support the liberation of Iraq.

And yet, I wonder: Is it possible that some of the most vocal and visible elements of the left are vulnerable to a similar charge? Whether George Bush or his father or Al Gore or Bill Clinton is president -- in one basic sense, that is immaterial. Conditions in Iraq are what they are. With war now upon us, the deeper issue is about the relationship of American and European leftists to the people of Iraq, about our obligations to aid them in enormously difficult circumstances, and about the best means for doing so.

In the months leading up to war, the old paradigms of alliance and opposition have shifted strangely, or fallen apart. Though it is rarely visible in news accounts, the left is deeply divided. A huge and outspoken block of antiwar leftists finds itself allied with old soldiers of the Gulf War era, like retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft. Others once identified with the radical left, like the writer Christopher Hitchens, find themselves allied with George W. Bush, one of the most conservative presidents in the post WWII era. But the pro-war leftists, perhaps because they lack the numbers and a dramatic venue, are almost completely overshadowed by the antiwar leftists who can turn out millions for demonstrations around the globe.

In most every argument against the war, whether it is posed between friends over drinks or by the presence of 100,000 people at a wintry demonstration, there comes a crucial moment: "I'm not defending Saddam," the argument goes. "I know Saddam is a ruthless tyrant. I know he has committed terrible human rights abuses. But ..." What follows "but" is often a withering critique of Bush or the United States, Tony Blair, Jose Maria Aznar, or Silvio Berlusconi. Hidden in this argument is a curious dynamic: The words "ruthless dictator" and "human rights abuses" have been uttered so many times that they are like a dead key on a piano. They have lost their emotion and their power to convey anything close to the reality of ruthless dictatorship and human rights abuses.

One by one, he demolishes each of the leftist arguments against the war:

1. Conflict can be solved without war.
   
2. We can't solve all of the world's problems. The popular variant: Why Iraq? Why now? Why not North Korea?
   
3. We have to let the Iraqis solve their own problems.
   
4. Invading Iraq will give rise to a new legion of terrorists.
   
5. We have to let the U.N. weapons inspectors finish their job.
   
6. This is a war for oil. The general variant: Bush does not have the right motive for war.
   
7. The U.S. is guilty of gross hypocrisy because it backed Saddam in the war against Iran and helped him rebuild after the Gulf War.

Even though the war has begun, it never hurts to remind ourselves why we're fighting, so go read this. It's a good reminder that people with very different politics -- the writer "consider[s] Bush and his closest advisors dangerous" -- can come to the same conclusion on a given issue.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/20/2003 02:13:00 AM |

 

On to Pierre

Apparently the anti-war crowd who claim that George Bush won't stop with Iraq were actually right. Hmm. Pierre. Isn't that French?
posted by David Nieporent at 3/20/2003 02:12:00 AM |

 

Say it isn't so

If you can't trust the mafia, who can you trust? What's this world coming to?
posted by David Nieporent at 3/19/2003 04:20:00 PM |

 

Misunderestimating

I wonder if people might want to consider that George Bush is shrewder than they think he is. Yes, he failed to get France on board for the liberation of Iraq. Big deal. So he's not a magician. But while everyone else is talking about failed middle eastern and world diplomacy, we see:

• Egypt releasing a democracy advocate after pressure from the U.S. to do so. Not a huge step, but a step nonetheless.
  
• The PLO appointing a prime minister and giving him power, despite Yasir Arafat's objections. We'll have to wait and see whether it's genuine, and we'll have to see whether there's any follow through by this prime minister in stopping terrorism, but it does meet the first American demand in order to start the peace process.
  
• Turkey considering reversing itself on cooperating with the United States in this conflict.
  
• Countries in East Asia quietly cooperating with the United States in containing North Korea.

Perhaps, just maybe, Bush deserves more credit than people are giving him. No, he isn't very "diplomatic," as that word is traditionally used. But, frankly, how often does being "diplomatic" actually accomplish anything? (I don't count "winning the respect of the New York Times' editorial board" as an accomplishment.) Did it accomplish anything with regard to Iraq? Some might argue that it was the first President Bush's diplomatic skills that put together the coalition to defeat Iraq in the first Gulf War. And that may be true -- but on the other hand, it was that coalition that prevented the United States from finishing the first Gulf War, thus leading to this crisis. Some might argue that it was Bill Clinton's diplomatic skills (or, heaven forbid, Jimmy Carter's) that allowed us to reach agreement with North Korea and prevent a war in 1994. Again, that may be true -- but all it did was postpone the crisis and make it worse.

Traditional diplomacy is useful when dealing with countries who share the same interests. When both sides want the same thing, then they can negotiate how to get there. But when the two sides are opposed not just in means, but in ends, then polite talk isn't generally an effective approach. And when one side has everything to lose from making concessions to the other side, then polite talk is never an effective approach. Bush appears to recognize that, but too many people (both in the media and in foreign governments) don't have any other options, so they pretend not to recognize that. And then they criticize Bush for not pretending the same.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/19/2003 03:52:00 PM |

 

Looking ahead

James Taranto over at OpinionJournal's Best of the Web has a regular feature called "You Don't Say," where he mocks newspaper headlines that state the obvious. So how about Divided Democrats Concerned About 2004. That headline could be re-used just about every two years. (Yes, if you change the date. Stop nitpicking.)

The article points out the splits between those Democrats with national aspirations, who need to worry about public opinion, and those who are content to remain in Congress, like Nancy Pelosi, who only has to appeal to her own constituents. (The one exception: Howard Dean, who for some puzzling reason thinks that the country is ready for a French president.)

But here's a comment that I'll bet someone will be disavowing shortly:

Party officials, recalling that President Bush's father lost re-election after waging a successful and popular war against Iraq in 1991, said they remained hopeful that a second Iraq war would also be eclipsed by worries about the economy, and noted that polls showed unhappiness with Mr. Bush's management of it.

I'm not saying it's untrue; I'm just saying that it's probably not a good idea, even anonymously, for party leaders to be vocally "hopeful" that the economy is in bad shape. 

So if there's any better illustration of why the Democratic Party doesn't control any branches of government, I don't know what it is. On the one hand, they have Nancy Pelosi Pollyannishly pretending that the traditional Democratic weakness on the national security issue doesn't matter:

Ms. Pelosi said she did not believe Mr. Bush could successfully use the issue against her party. "They try to convey that image of the Democrats as weak on defense," she said. "I don't think we should take that. There is no party position on the war, much to the dismay of our grass-roots constituents."

That's at a time when the only successful Democratic presidential candidate in our memory, Bill Clinton, is backing war. And on the other hand, they have people praying that the economy tanks so that Bush will be unpopular. Hardly a winning platform.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/19/2003 05:51:00 AM |

 

Who needs them?

It's true that Germany won't support the U.S. liberation of Iraq. Maybe their diplomatic position, though, has less to do with anti-Americanism and more to do with the fact that their military is in worse shape than Phil Donahue's career. They're filled with crappy old equipment which would have been useful two decades ago if the Soviets had invaded, but which is useless now.

But there are bottlenecks everywhere: a shortage of engineers to inspect helicopters in the field, for example, and of anesthesiologists necessary for field hospitals.

The country has few precision-guided weapons and only outdated battlefield command-and-control ability. It has plenty of soldiers, about 290,000, but 90,000 of those are conscripts who get minimal training. Most of the rest are aging professionals who have never served abroad.

Most important of all, Germany does not yet have a means to transport its troops far beyond its borders. It had to lease Ukrainian aircraft to fly its troops to Afghanistan for peacekeeping. It is developing a military transport plane with several other European nations, but the first of the new aircraft will not be delivered before 2009.

Germany is developing an air-launched cruise missile and has started buying laser-guided bombs. But it has made almost no progress in developing an airborne ground surveillance system to allow it to survey a battlefield or use precision-guided weapons effectively.

Why is the German military in such bad shape? Well, one reason, the well-known one, is that NATO countries have felt free, under the umbrella of American protection, to skimp on military spending. Another reason, though, is the typically European confusion about the role of the government: even the military is a social program:

"We need to spend a minimum of 30 percent on capital investment, otherwise the modernization won't take place at the necessary speed," said Gen. Klaus Naumann, a former chairman of NATO's military committee, complaining in particular that the military is top heavy with civilians.

Mr. Thum and his broken trucks are part of the problem. He is a civilian mechanic inherited from the East German Army when it merged with West Germany's a decade ago. At 55, he works just 220 days a year and cannot easily be fired because under German law, civilians who have worked for the armed forces for 15 years or more are in effect guaranteed lifetime employment.

Keeping Mr. Thum and many of the military's 130,000 other civilian employees busy is one reason the German military spends just $40 million a year on new vehicles but $1 billion on maintaining them. On average, its trucks are 25 years old.

As Mr. Thum says, "Our future is in these old vehicles."

General Naumann said, "If we could free 6 to 8 percent of the defense budget now spent on pay and benefits, we could really begin to modernize the armed forces in a way that would be able to close the capabilities gap between most Europeans and the Americans."

When the last defense minister, Rudolf Scharping, tried to do that a year ago, he met such stiff resistance from workers' unions that he promised that for the next 10 years the military would not lay off any civilians — many of whom, a Defense Ministry spokesman noted, lack the skills to work in the private sector.

Hey: unskilled civilians! Exactly the sort of military asset any country needs by the bucketload. (On the other hand, the bright side for Germany is that France is still ready to surrender to them on a moment's notice.)

I'm sure the gap in capabilities (and commitment) between Germany (et al.) and the U.S. explains a large part of President Bush's disdain for so-called multilateralism. It's bad enough for Old Europe to tell the U.S. that we should wait for their approval before acting -- but since it turns out that there's nothing they could contribute even if they were willing to do so, their demands just seem insulting. What they're saying, essentially, is that the U.S. should wait for them because they bring superior wisdom and moral sense to the table. And George Bush doesn't believe that, and neither should we.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/19/2003 03:45:00 AM |

 

48 hours... and counting

From Bush's speech:

"If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."

As I noted earlier, the delivery wasn't anything to write home about. But the language itself was bold, idealistic, and inspiring.

Now, Bush needs to follow through on these words; if he doesn't, I'll join the chorus of voices criticizing him. But if he does, this could be one of the shining moments in American history.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/18/2003 06:04:00 AM |

 

Heads up

One of my favorite aspects of bias at the New York Times is that their editors write headlines which support their anti-Bush ideology, regardless of what the articles under the headlines actually say. I don't know whether this is because the editors are deliberately dishonest or just too lazy to read the articles.

Their review of Bush's speech? Headlined: Mixed Reaction to Speech. So what were those "mixed reactions?"

Jim Chamberlain would not call himself gung-ho, exactly, but he is relieved, almost, that the long buildup to war has ended, that the excruciating wait is over, that the diplomats will at long last step aside and allow the nation's military to do what needs to be done.

Keep in mind that this guy isn't actually responding to the speech; he was interviewed Monday afternoon, before the speech. But he supports Bush.

"The sooner we do it, the faster we do it, the better and safer the world will be," said Rodolfo Castillo, 40, a fashion designer, as he watched the president's remarks on a flat-screen television above the black marble bar at Le Méridien hotel in Beverly Hills, Calif. "The uncertainty of what is going to happen is the worst part of it."

Undaunted by the prospect of war, Mr. Castillo had been spending the day readying the gown and accessories that will be worn by the singer Anastacia at the Academy Awards ceremony on Sunday night. He had this to say about the president's performance tonight: "He made the case. He was straight to the point. He was coming from a position of power."

He supports Bush, and he gave the speech a positive review.

Standing nearby, David Siguaw, 36, the hotel's director for sales and marketing and the grandson of a war veteran of World War I and II, said, "President Bush pointed out quite clearly that the United Nations did not live up to its responsibilities."

"Finally, we as the American people have direction," Mr. Siguaw said after the speech. "He's announced directly to the American people a timeline of 48 hours."

So does he. 3-0, so far. Not "mixed."

"As far as supporting a war, I do, because I do think Saddam Hussein needs to get out of Iraq," said Alva Starling, 27, who is moving here from Texas and was having lunch with a friend and fellow dentist, Vanessa Dowdy, of Decatur, Ga.

He supports Bush also. And was also interviewed in the afternoon, before the speech.

"Having a daughter volunteer to be in the military and suddenly having her sent somewhere, I had to do a lot of thinking and re-evaluating," Ms. Reeves said. "I think there is a time when we have to say, `If we're not willing to fight for this, then what are we willing to fight for?' "

She isn't responding to the speech either, but she's supporting Bush. 5-0 in favor of Bush.

Ms. Breeden, who said she grew up in a fundamentalist Christian home, was scornful of President Bush's push for war. "I try to imagine him standing face to face with Jesus, with the traditional Jesus that a lot of Christians believe in," she said. "I just can't imagine Jesus saying, `Go for it, George."'

Finally! Someone who opposes Bush. She wasn't reacting to the speech either, of course. But at least we can finally call it "mixed." It's 5-1 in favor of Bush.

In tiny Bloomfield, Ind., however, Red Oliphant, 75, said he spoke for most of his neighbors in saying that he backed the president 100 percent. "I was hoping that Saddam would get the message and go into exile someplace," said Mr. Oliphant, a retired Air Force colonel who said he flew 250 air-to-ground support missions in Vietnam. "He's too obstinate."

Taking a break from cleaning up his lawn on one of the first warm spring days of the year in southern Indiana, Mr. Oliphant said he disagreed with those who said the administration should have done more to gain international support for war. "I think Bush has given them every chance to deal, and they won't deal," he said. "I've got no sympathy for the French or the Germans, either one."

He's not responding to the speech either. Did they just pull these quotes at random off some other newspaper's website? But he supports Bush, too.

In Richmond, Va., William G. Hamby, 54, a media consultant who says he still remembers the terror and anxiety of the Vietnam-era draft, kept clicking between his list of business contacts and a handful of news Web sites today for the latest on Iraq. "In some ways, it's suspenseful," he said.

He wasn't responding to the speech either, and I have no idea what his view actually is on Iraq. Call that one a tie.

So let's sum up: the "mixed reaction to the speech" consisted of two people who saw the speech both giving it high marks, and four of the six people who didn't see the speech giving Bush high marks, with only one person criticizing Bush. So what on earth is the Times talking about?

FOLLOWUP: The Times has changed this headline; it now says: "Wait Over, Americans Voice Relief and Anxiety." I guess that was too much, even for them.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/18/2003 06:02:00 AM |

 

Diplomacy Uber Alles

You have to give the New York Times credit for something. At least they recognize that continued carping about the president's approach will serve no purpose once the war starts. Unfortunately, they also think that pointless (and inane) Monday morning quarterbacking serves a purpose now. Their basic argument is that the entire Iraq war now represents a "diplomatic failure."

Since the Times doesn't exactly seem to dispute that the war may be necessary -- they describe it as "a war for a legitimate international goal against an execrable tyranny" -- they must mean by "failure" the fact that the French aren't willing to back us up. And yet, they present us with no reason to believe that France would have backed us up under any circumstances. (They do, laughably, imply that if only Bush had backed Kyoto, this split with France wouldn't have happened.)

But then, faced with the fact that countries like Britain and Spain do support us, they argue that it doesn't count because the citizens of these countries don't agree. Huh? So now "diplomacy" is defined not by the relationships between countries, but by public opinion polls in foreign countries? If you're going to discuss Bush's diplomatic track record, don't you need to acknowledge that the vast majority of European countries are on our side? What they seem to mean is that Bush's public relations approach to foreign populations isn't satisfactory for the Times' editors. To which I say: so what?

I wouldn't mind these criticisms if the Times demonstrated in any way that they had alternative approaches which would have gotten the results they want. But if the last decade-plus has taught us anything, it's that (a) nothing will induce Saddam Hussein to behave, (b) no amount of talking will convince France to stand against Saddam Hussein, and (c) the Times will never give credit to a conservative for anything. Sure, Bush could have gotten French (and hence UN) support -- to accomplish nothing. France would have gladly backed the U.S. -- in sending nasty emails to the Iraqi dictator. But no "diplomacy" would have accomplished the goal of regime change in Iraq.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/18/2003 05:36:00 AM |

 

Jokes whose punch lines write themselves

From the Independent:France will be a loser in the second Gulf War. Go ahead, you know you want to say it...
posted by David Nieporent at 3/18/2003 03:32:00 AM |

 

We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!

Okay, nobody has ever accused George Bush of being a Churchillian orator. Or Clintonian, or Reaganesqe, or Kennedyesqe. Or... well, let's face it: George Bush is not a particularly great speaker. But if we look past the superficialities of his delivery, and focus on the substance, it was a fine speech. Firm, decisive, and comprehensive. He quickly laid out the case for war and the case for acting without the U.N. He warned Iraqi forces not to use WMD, and prepared American citizens in case terrorists attack. And he sent the message that this will be a war of liberation, not conquest. He covered all the bases, and he was steadfast and firm. Exactly what we needed to hear. Two thumbs up.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/17/2003 09:12:00 PM |

 

Construction equipment 1, homo sapiens 0

It's a tragedy, of course, and yet I can't manage to muster much sympathy for the woman run over by a bulldozer when she lay down in front of it. The bulldozer was there to demolish a building in Gaza; the woman, a representative of the Bored College Students Who Think They're Still In the 1960s movement, was there to stand with Hamas et al. against Israel.

Here's the quote that was puzzling to me:

The Israeli troops "have shot over our heads, and shot near our feet — they have fired tear gas at us," said Michael Shaik, media coordinator for the group. "But we thought we had an understanding. We didn't think they would kill us."

Huh? How confused can these people be? There's suffering all over the world, including in the United States. One would presume that if these people choose to come to Israel, it would be because they think the plight of Palestinians is particularly dire. But if they think so, they must think the Israeli government is exceptionally oppressive and evil. If so, why would they be surprised that the Israeli government was willing to kill them? And on the other hand, if they don't think the Israeli government is evil, then (a) why are they in Israel, instead of somewhere where they might do some good, and (b) why do they doubt the Israeli explanation that this was simply a tragic accident?

Have these people thought it through at all, or are they just being trendy and pretentious by going to Israel to Be Activists, as if this were all some sort of game? Yes, I should be sorry for the woman who died, but (as I've noted before) I really can't feel anything for "human shields" until I hear of ones riding Israeli buses to protect Israeli citizens from Palestinian homicide bombings. Of course, they don't do that because they know it would be futile to do so; homicide bombers don't care. And that's the problem, in a nutshell: they protest against Israel because they know Israel isn't evil; they don't protest against Palestinian terrorism because they know it is evil.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/17/2003 06:14:00 AM |

 

More on containment

It may be moot by the time anybody reads this, but I wanted to follow up on last week's entry where I addressed the question of whether Saddam Hussein is containable. A few additional thoughts:

1. Effective inspections (assuming such creatures exist) would be a key requirement for containment. But even the virulently anti-war Europeans such as Jacques Chirac concede that inspections are only taking place because of the credible threat of invasion by the United States. How long can the United States keep that threat credible? Hundreds of thousands of troops can't remain in the Gulf forever. For one thing, the United States needs them elsewhere (and many of them are reservists, who can't be kept on active duty indefinitely). For another, their presence is a source of friction between the U.S. and local governments in the region.
   
   
2. What if the inspectors claimed to have finished? What if the inspectors announced that they had found whatever there was to find, and that they had verified that everything had been destroyed? Would they remain active forever in order to maintain the containment approach? Or do inspections end, as it seems likely the "international community" would demand? If so, how does containment work at that point? With no inspections, what's to stop Saddam Hussein from restarting his weapons programs?
   
   
3. What happens to the Kurds of Northern Iraq (or the Shia of Southern Iraq)? Do the United States and the United Kingdom become the permanent air force of these groups? Given Saddam Hussein's behavior towards these groups in the 1980s, again right after the Gulf War, and then at various times in the 1990s, he certainly can't be trusted to leave them alone if they're unprotected. So do proponents of containment suggest we abandon them, or that we continue our current, hybrid approach in which the Iraqi government has only limited sovereignty over large portions of its territory? And if Iraq is given a clean bill of health by inspectors, can we be sure that Iraq's neighbors would continue to allow us to fly missions over Iraq forever?
   
   
4. There are costs to containment -- and I don't just mean the troop commitments and the strained relations with other countries in the region. While the effect of sanctions have almost certainly been greatly exaggerated, they do exist. (Indeed, before Bush pushed for a preventive approach towards Iraq, those currently opposing military force were opposing sanctions.) And in addition to the humanitarian cost, there's the economic cost imposed on neighboring countries which could otherwise trade with Iraq. How long will people tolerate these costs? Indefinitely? Will most countries stop respecting the sanctions after a while? Will humanitarian groups talk about malnourished children, and demand that the sanctions be lifted? At that point, what would containment consist of? Stern looks and firmly-worded UN resolutions?
   
   
5. In the Cold War, "containment" was a long-term state of affairs; we were waiting for an entire system of government to disappear. What's the exit strategy for containing Iraq? Do we wait for Saddam Hussein's death? Is the guy who replaces him -- very possibly one of his sons -- going to be any better, or will he need to be contained also? Do we continue until a democratic regime spontaneously appears in Baghdad?
   
   
6. The "C"-word. Credibility. If the United States backs down at this point, after all of President Bush's rhetoric, how can the United States ever give a credible ultimatum again? What if North Korea acts up, and Bush threatens to bomb them if they don't behave, why would they go along with our wishes? Why wouldn't they assume the United States would wimp out at the last minute just as we did vis-a-vis Iraq? It's a dangerous argument which needs to be used sparingly, because it could be used to justify just about anything the president wants to do. But in this case, we're not talking about the whim of a president; we're discussing a course of action authorized by Congress (and, even if they're trying to pretend now that it never happened, the UN Security Council), so the danger is minimized. And like it or not, it has to be a factor.
   
   
7. Related to the credibility argument, what about the effect on the rest of the region? What are the Kurds to think about how the U.S. feels about their plight, if the U.S. decides that allowing Saddam Hussein to remain in power is preferable to removing him? What are Iranian democracy advocates to think, if Bush backtracks? It will be a major morale booster for the Iranian dictatorship, for the Syrian dictator, for the Saudi monarchy, if they see that there's really no commitment in Washington to middle eastern democracy.

None of these items by themselves constitute conclusive proof that containment isn't a viable alternative. But taken as a whole, they make a strong case to that effect. And until I hear satisfactory answers to these issues, I won't be convinced that such answers exist.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/17/2003 05:44:00 AM |