September 05, 2002

Pretty Close to Where I Sta...

Pretty Close to Where I Stand on Iraq: Matthew Yglesi the news that has broken since he wrote this post -- that the U.S. will be pressuring the U.N. for force-backed weapons inspections, for example -- point toward a possible Yglesisas-best-case-scenario (YBCS). Here's hoping.

Posted by at September 5, 2002 01:31 PM
Comments

..but there really are lots of regimes out there that are objectionable from a purely domestic-policy and to start toppling them at random without any international consensus would be to invite chaos in the global state system..'

'toppling' them?
at 'random'?

that's about as dumb a construction as I've seen yet from the anti-war crowd .. NOBODY is arguing that the US go out and remove unpalatable regimes -- this is a straw man, pure and simple ..

if you think this is trenchant analysis, then I just lost some respect for you cognitive powers..

Posted by: Jon Brennan at September 6, 2002 11:08 AM

Jon -- I don't intend to use this space for long debates about Iraq just yet, because I don't have the time or the tools.

What Yglesias might be getting at with that passage, is that the pre-emptive doctrine of removing hostile & potentially dangerous regimes is a very serious new threshhold to cross, even if the idea is to have the U.S. do it only once.

Why? Because India could use that doctrine in Kashmir. Or Russia in its Near Abroad. It could -- *could*, mind you -- lower the accepted threshhold past which countries are generally allowed to wage war. It could also, of course, lead to the long-denied flowering of democracy in the Middle East ...

I am worried about another thing, that the pre-emptive doctrine may exacerbate: That if the world continues to be under the growing impression that the U.S. will always act with impunity (i.e., unilaterally), backed by history's most powerful military, enforcing new doctrines that lower the threshhold for waging war, then that will contribute to something unhealthy: A feeling of powerlessness, a sense of correlated irresponsibility, and (perhaps) a pool of grievances directed squarely at the Unipower. I worry that, even if we act in the noblest and truest of causes, using the most pristine of conduct, we will be in a damned-if-we-do position because the rest of the world will always consider us the Bully. It is entirely possible that my fears are groundless.

I am also worried about A) The Islamo-fascists that have declared war against the U.S., B) The U.S.' relationship with Saudi Arabia's government, which has helped nurture those Islamo-fascists C) Saddam Hussein building up his arsenal in the absence of weapons inspectors, and D) a whole bunch of other crap. FYI, whatever.

The part of Yglesias' analysis I liked, was the concept that weapons-inspections are the minimum that we require against a very real danger, and that banging the drums of war is probably the only way to make Saddam Hussein -- and Europe -- take the importance of those inspections seriously again.

But like I said, I don't feel like arguing about all that just right now, because it has no end, I am no expert, and I have bills to pay.

Posted by: Matt Welch at September 6, 2002 12:03 PM

I've commented on this.

http://www.interglobal.org/weblog/archives/001622.html#001622

Posted by: Rand Simberg at September 6, 2002 03:04 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






es about Iraq just yet, because I don't have the time or the tools.

What Yglesias might be getting at with that passage, is that the pre-emptive doctrine of removing hostile & potentially dangerous regimes is a very serious new threshhold to cross, even if the idea is to have the U.S. do it only once.

Why? Because India could use that doctrine in Kashmir. Or Russia in its Near Abroad. It could -- *could*, mind you -- lower the accepted threshhold past which countries are generally allowed to wage war. It could also, of course, lead to the long-denied flowering of democracy in the Middle East ...

I am worried about another thing, that the pre-emptive doctrine may exacerbate: That if the world continues to be under the growing impression that the U.S. will always act with impunity (i.e., unilaterally), backed by history's most powerful military, enforcing new doctrines that lower the threshhold for waging war, then that will contribute to something unhealthy: A feeling of powerlessness, a sense of correlated irresponsibility, and (perhaps) a pool of grievances directed squarely at the Unipower. I worry that, even if we act in the noblest and truest of causes, using the most pristine of conduct, we will be in a damned-if-we-do position because the rest of the world will always consider us the Bully. It is entirely possible that my fears are groundless.

I am also worried about A) The Islamo-fascists that have declared war against the U.S., B) The U.S.' relationship with Saudi Arabia's government, which has helped nurture those Islamo-fascists C) Saddam Hussein building up his arsenal in the absence of weapons inspectors, and D) a whole bunch of other crap. FYI, whatever.

The part of Yglesias' analysis I liked, was the concept that weapons-inspections are the minimum that we require against a very real danger, and that banging the drums of war is probably the only way to make Saddam Hussein -- and Europe -- take the importance of those inspections seriously again.

But like I said, I don't feel like arguing about all that just right now, because it has no end, I am no expert, and I have bills to pay.

Posted by: Matt Welch at September 6, 2002 12:03 PM

I've commented on this.

http://www.interglobal.org/weblog/archives/001622.html#001622

Posted by: Rand Simberg at September 6, 2002 03:04 PM
Post a comment
Rand Simberg at September 6, 2002 03:04 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






= true; } else { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> = true; } else { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //-->