WHY I CAN'T TAKE ROBERT WRIGHT SERIOUSLY
As I said in the post below, there are two legitimate stances one can take on Iraq:
People can rattle on all day long about multilateralism and the UN all they want to, but at the end of the day, those are the two stances. President Bush and company opt for #1. Europe opts for #2 by default. Their talk of weapons inspection after years upon years of failure demonstrate that they are idiots or, at the end of the day, they fear US hegemony more than they do Saddam Hussein. I do not intend to question the patriotism of those opposed to the war (and I hope you liberals believe me on that), though I do call on those calling for us to defer to the UNSC sensibilities to ask themselves whether or not they agree with that assessment. There are, as near as I can tell, five concrete rationales for opposing the war.
That the UN is not on board with the war is not a legitimate stance in opposition. If you're using that as an excuse to hide behind, you're evading your real reason, which is one of the above*. They are also, it's worth noting, mutually exclusive (with the exception of #s 1 and 4; and 2 and 5)
Now, on to Robert Wright, who assures us that while certain other liberals have fallen victim to common sense, he continues to take leave of his own.
Wright's reason for opposing the war in Iraq seems to be #2. He only dedicates a couple paragraphs to this, and for good reason. It reaks of appeasement. Of course it reaks of appeasement because it is appeasement. The question is will the appeasement work. Will letting one ruthless dictator stay in power so that they don't get upset make them less likely to attack us in the future? Is the greater threat Saddam Hussein or a little kid inspired by our actions to become a terrorist. This question doesn't make Wright very comfortable because it leads credence to the unpopular notion that it was US policy that inspired 9/11, so he glosses over it and says the latter. That he suggested terrorists would be less likely to attack us if we left Afghanistan in power does not lend me much confidence in his risk-analysis capabilities. He has, in fact, practically suggested that we do nothing, cross our fingers, and hope for the best (in regards to our war with al-Qaeda, to say nothing of Saddam).
Make no mistake, that's what he's suggesting here. Except he doesn't have the guts to just do it (or the brains to realize that that's what he's suggesting).
Instead he trots out the true-but-nonetheless-irrelevent point that it would look a lot better if the UN were involved. Well yes, it would. It'd also look better if it were done by Iraqi civilians. Actually, it would look better better if Saddam and all his lieutenants all dropped dead of a heart attack at the same instance. Better better better still would be if a giant Multilateral Consortium Of Unity and Cooperation For Everybody created a magic deathray, let's call it the Bad Guy Deathray, that only killed the people we want to kill. At a safe distance of course so no one would get hurt.
Back in the real world, there is no Bad Guy Deathray, another round of inspections won't do anything, the UN will always continue to ask for them, and at the end of the day they will support us or not regardless of whether we're on our 73rd try with diplomacy or our 93rd.
There will be no true weapons inspections. There will be no voluntary disarmament. If we don't attack, what there will be is continued sanctions (which liberals rightly abhored prior to the alternative being war), continued smattering combat, and eventually Saddam Hussin, or his kids, with a serious supply of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. That, by default, is an acceptable conclusion to those who oppose the war.
Should we just cross my fingers and hope for the best?
*- There may well be a fifth reason that I haven't heard, but it's not the UN or that weapons inspections can work.
As I said in the post below, there are two legitimate stances one can take on Iraq:
(1) Iraq is amassing weapons and evading inspectors. This cannot be allowed to happen.
(2) Iraq is amassing weapons and evading inspectors. This does not pose enough of a threat to justify a pre-emptive invasion.
People can rattle on all day long about multilateralism and the UN all they want to, but at the end of the day, those are the two stances. President Bush and company opt for #1. Europe opts for #2 by default. Their talk of weapons inspection after years upon years of failure demonstrate that they are idiots or, at the end of the day, they fear US hegemony more than they do Saddam Hussein. I do not intend to question the patriotism of those opposed to the war (and I hope you liberals believe me on that), though I do call on those calling for us to defer to the UNSC sensibilities to ask themselves whether or not they agree with that assessment. There are, as near as I can tell, five concrete rationales for opposing the war.
(1) The Franco-German and Asian view that the United States is a bigger threat to world peace than is Iraq.
(2) War with Iraq will only anger the Arabs.
(3) War with Iraq is a risky venture that could turn into another Vietnam or, at least, not worth the casualties that may be wrought.
(4) War with Iraq will get Bush re-elected and Bush is a bigger threat to the US than is Hussein.
(5) War with anyone in any circumstances is bad because it's not healthy for children and other living things.
That the UN is not on board with the war is not a legitimate stance in opposition. If you're using that as an excuse to hide behind, you're evading your real reason, which is one of the above*. They are also, it's worth noting, mutually exclusive (with the exception of #s 1 and 4; and 2 and 5)
Now, on to Robert Wright, who assures us that while certain other liberals have fallen victim to common sense, he continues to take leave of his own.
Wright's reason for opposing the war in Iraq seems to be #2. He only dedicates a couple paragraphs to this, and for good reason. It reaks of appeasement. Of course it reaks of appeasement because it is appeasement. The question is will the appeasement work. Will letting one ruthless dictator stay in power so that they don't get upset make them less likely to attack us in the future? Is the greater threat Saddam Hussein or a little kid inspired by our actions to become a terrorist. This question doesn't make Wright very comfortable because it leads credence to the unpopular notion that it was US policy that inspired 9/11, so he glosses over it and says the latter. That he suggested terrorists would be less likely to attack us if we left Afghanistan in power does not lend me much confidence in his risk-analysis capabilities. He has, in fact, practically suggested that we do nothing, cross our fingers, and hope for the best (in regards to our war with al-Qaeda, to say nothing of Saddam).
Make no mistake, that's what he's suggesting here. Except he doesn't have the guts to just do it (or the brains to realize that that's what he's suggesting).
Instead he trots out the true-but-nonetheless-irrelevent point that it would look a lot better if the UN were involved. Well yes, it would. It'd also look better if it were done by Iraqi civilians. Actually, it would look better better if Saddam and all his lieutenants all dropped dead of a heart attack at the same instance. Better better better still would be if a giant Multilateral Consortium Of Unity and Cooperation For Everybody created a magic deathray, let's call it the Bad Guy Deathray, that only killed the people we want to kill. At a safe distance of course so no one would get hurt.
Back in the real world, there is no Bad Guy Deathray, another round of inspections won't do anything, the UN will always continue to ask for them, and at the end of the day they will support us or not regardless of whether we're on our 73rd try with diplomacy or our 93rd.
There will be no true weapons inspections. There will be no voluntary disarmament. If we don't attack, what there will be is continued sanctions (which liberals rightly abhored prior to the alternative being war), continued smattering combat, and eventually Saddam Hussin, or his kids, with a serious supply of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. That, by default, is an acceptable conclusion to those who oppose the war.
Should we just cross my fingers and hope for the best?
*- There may well be a fifth reason that I haven't heard, but it's not the UN or that weapons inspections can work.
posted by R. Alex at
5:19 PM
