Is Amitai Etzioni a pen name? I seem to remember something about the Etzioni brigade being led by Colonel Amitai in the '67 war. Is it just an odd coincidence?

Well, the answer to these questions seems pretty straightforward to me.

Because our government has placed all of its eggs in the unravelling basket of the "Bush Doctrine" and is expending a disproportionate amount of attention and resources on the war in Iraq, which has no bearing on any of the issues raised in this insightful letter.

This article by Etzioni seems reasonable.

Interesting point of view, but a review of his site and it's links gives me pause. Highly recommend more discourse before forming any opinions.

The President and his cabinet are doing a good job terriosts are not roaming free, no attacks State Side, No ground is safe for terriosts to operate, leadership is in the White House that would act and not wait for polls or focus groups to act,and most of all the troops are on the hurt now.

Along the lines of this post, the discovery and then roll-up of (most of?) the A.J. Khan fissile-materials-technology bazaar was probably the most consequential thing the US Gov't has done in the past four years to "make us safer."

And not doing more and spending more, specifically regarding Russia and the other states of the FSU, is the Administration's greatest failure in that regard.

Praktike: Amitai Etzioni is his real name. No idea if he's any relation.

Partisan commenters should note that the answers to Etzioni's questions will span several administrations, both Republican & Democrat.

Re: AMac's point - agree that rolling up the Khan proliferation network is a very big deal. Re: Russia, Gary Farber covered that well in a recent article - follow the links, too, there's a LOT there. The sad news is that more money spent there may just get more money stolen, with a net zero gain in security. Russian non-cooperation with these efforts is also a large problem. But doing more to pay and equip Russian scientists directly is a good use of funds.

I do agree that having the 9/11 Commission thinking in these terms, and so highlighting stuff like this... yes, that would have been very helpful.

Goood stuff in here from the CEIP.

Joe;

It doesn't matter that some problems span several generations, because Iraq is a new problem and it is all Bush's.

And it is impeding our ability to address the issues raised in the letter.

You can choose to view this as a partisan comment if you like, but the fact remains that this war is tied to a single administration, so it cannot be discussed in any other way.

Since you continue to support the Iraq war so vehemently, I don't expect that you want to face up to the consequences of this experiment (or even acknowledge it as such). But I'll give you a chance to prove me wrong: What would it take to convince you that the war in Iraq was a mistake, and that it diverted attention and resources better spent elsewhere?

(Span several adminstrations, that is, although generations is probably accurate as well.)

re: g) isn't there already the counterproliferation division within the CIA? Or are you talking about something else?

Just my thoughts

”We seem to ignore that Al Qaeda rarely attacks twice in the same way or in the same place. Indeed, we just found out that the next target of the terrorists in Spain was going to be a shopping center. Furthermore, we have so many soft targets, from subways to water mains, from stadiums to places of worship, that most of what we do on this front is meant to assuage the public rather than truly protect us from the next attack.”

On the first front
In regards to AQ rarely striking twice in the same place or in the same manner. One must consider that once a target is destroyed it is of no value to strike it again until it is rebuilt. As far as the same manner, one could argue there are a lot of similarities in how and by what means attacks occur. If the how and means of any quarter back are effective he will continue to run the same play over and over again until it is no longer effective.

In regards to soft targets does anyone in this forum truly believe it is the Federal Governments function to protect you at a football game let alone a mall? I should hope not. I agree given the mind set of terrorists these are and will continue to be targets of interest for potential terrorism. One could argue the value of specific targets all day long. Is Johnny’s elementary school in Lubbock Texas worth less than Mary’s University in New York City? I would have to say from a human perspective no and I would add that it is a civic responsibility to provide the security in these matters. The reason I make a point of this is because I get the impression that most people believe the issues we face are strictly a Federal Government issue when in fact they are not. Statements such as these sway and add to the argument that Federal Government isn’t doing enough when they shouldn’t even be involved. Part of my problem here is civic communities need to get off of their duffs and do something instead of blaming the Federal Government on this issue. Where is our sense of civic duty?

I’ll agree the Federal Government is responsible for ineffective immigration policy. I’ll agree the Federal Government should be or could be responsible for protecting our major ports of entry, our borders, and to some extent modes of travel such as the airline industry. Let’s be honest folks that’s as far is it goes.

On the second front
”The second front, which is a somewhat more promising one, is the effort to capture terrorists wherever they are, before they hit us. This is proving to be exceedingly difficult because, in some areas of the world, terrorists are supported by the local populations and protected by the terrain.”

I am going to hear a lot of flack about this one because it’s an argument that has been at the forefront of Kerry’s campaign. Cleaning up the world requires world cooperation on that front he is absolutely right. Where he is wrong is waiting for the world to cleanse itself without some sort of provocation for it is unreasonable. Depending on circumstances the provocation can be diplomatic or in the current case with Iraq pre-emptive. My point here is that we as a nation have to decide if and when each is appropriate, Sudan, Haiti, Kosovo, Iraq, Soviet Union, North Korea, China and yes even European countries. On this front one must realize world organizations do not dominate or dictate other nations policies. They are considered the world police when in fact they are not. They have no teeth and no allegiance. Drag your sorry butt up to the ICC file a complaint and see what happens. The same can be said for WTO, IMF, NATO, and yes even the IAEA.

On the third front
”which receives much less attention and many fewer resources, is the effort to ensure that terrorists will be unable to get a hold of nuclear arms”

This in effect holds the same weight as my argument for the second case. Is our Federal Government doing enough in this area and is it being neglected. One could argue on many points we are not but again it correlates more with the second front than any other arguments put forth. As I understand it now military forces have removed potential nuclear threatening material from Iraq only to be chastised by the IAEA (we had our eyes and our inventory on it all the time). If you believe the world organizations and can’t believe your own Federal Government in this matter then you better quit smoking what your putting in your pipe. Is the potential for nuclear threat real? Is the potential for terrorists to obtain nuclear weapons real? Any one who says no to either one of these questions isn’t in the ball game. What does all of this boil down to? The US intelligence on these matters needs to be shored up which is what we did in the beginning - ”trust but verify”. When you have other countries government officials secretly striking deals and selling the nuclear threat it becomes very probable that the intent of the purchaser is destructive. How did we find this out? By disregarding the diplomatic move and instituting the pre-emptive move into Iraq.

"Because our government has placed all of its eggs in the unravelling basket of the "Bush Doctrine" and is expending a disproportionate amount of attention and resources on the war in Iraq"

You fail to account for the vast resources it took to 'contain' Hussein, militarilly and diplomatically. Keeping the so called allies in agreement about the ineffective blockaid and inspections, not to mention the utterly corrupt UNSCAM program, was the main preoccupation of US foriegn policy for the last decade plus. For instance we now in fact have far greater leverage in dealing with Iran than we did. It would have been diplomatically and militarilly preposterous to rattle sabres at Iran with our hands full of Iraq. Clearly it also require vast resources to occupy Iraq, but the side benefit is the strong sword of 125,000+ US troops in spitting distance of the Mullahs (as well as Syria). Irans only hope is continued Iraq instability, and that simply isnt going to last forever.

Vesicle,

I'm sure Joe can answer for himself, but I'll take a shot at your comments.

"What would it take to convince you that the war in Iraq was a mistake, and that it diverted attention and resources better spent elsewhere?"

Some of the criteria for success have already been met: 25 million Iraqis have been freed from the depredations of a genocidal tyrant. At this point in time, using a basic deontological or utilitarian standard, the war is a moral success. (This is the dirty little secret the left acknowledges every time they say "Of course we're pleased that Saddam is gone but..."). This could, of course, change, if in the medium or long run, conditions deteriorate such that more Iraqis suffer and die than would have under Saddam & Sons.

It is not clear if the other criterion for success - the long-term reduction in ME generated terrorism - has been met. I suppose we won't know this for quite some time; at least until Iraq becomes a reasonably stable democracy (say 4-5 election cycles with peaceful transitions of power). One has to allow for the spread of democratic and liberal memes across ME culture. Once this occurs, I expect the petty Arab dictatorships now fighting to destroy Iraqi democracy will be more concerned with forestalling domestic political reform, upsetting, as Iraqi democracy will, the Arab poltical equation of domestic oppression + foreign terrorism = perpetual dictatorship.

So, to answer your original question, if nothing like this happens in the medium or long term - if, after the instantiation of stable Iraqi democracy, the ME sees no political reform and no resultant reduction in terrorism - then the war and its political program will have been a political failure (although not a moral failure).

Since I have given you an honest answer, let me ask you one: What would it take to convince you that the war in Iraq was a moral and political success, and that it was the best response from a selection of alternatives to address the moral, strategic and political problem of ME generated terrorism and its underlying causes?

Mark, good counter question, but I'm afraid Vesicle has an important "falsifiability" issue.

I estimate that, within 4 years, Iran will get nukes; and terrorists will get and use a nuke, with different probabilities:
Bush - 10%
Kerry - 40%

So, I support Bush -- and even if terrorists get and use a nuke, I'll feel my support was right.

Vesicle: Without explicitly saying so, Mark has also effectively revealed the rampant error in your assumption that Iraq is just Bush's making when it has actually spanned at least 12 years and three administrations. I will only add to his ample remarks that position in Iraq also allowed us to remove our presence from Saudi Arabia (a specific beef of Bin Ladin and other radicals) and simultaneously enabled us to be in the position to militarilly challenge SA if the house of Saud fails to contain their own radical problem.

Re the Etzioni piece, while many good points are made, some seem unfounded or closely wedded to conventional left groupthink. For example, the heavy emphasis on "nuclear buy-back" programs while ignoring any measure of effectiveness or evaluation of the effect on intentional mishandling or misappropriation of materials to instigate additional buy-backs or the "pay-off" of scientists to not peddle their knowledge to the highest bidder. The latter I liken to hair-brained ideas to pay criminals so they don't steal. While I am not categorically opposed to programs that help channel these individuals into productive and profittable careers, paying an immoral man who would otherwise be helping to arm terrorists smacks too much of a protection racket for me to be comfortable with making it a national policy.

As noted by AMac, the fall of the Khan connection has been a great coup in the nuclear arena, but Etzioni fails to acknowledge that PSI was critical in this. It was PSI that intercepted the DPRK shipment of centrifuges to Libya, helping to secure Kadaffi's capitulation. And it was intel gathered in that capitulation that directly lead to the exposure of Khan's actions. The PSI is, very wisely, doing what it can and not thrying to do everything all at once. Multi-lateral cooperative efforts, especially if they include non-traditional partners, do not take on the world overnight.

Another problem is Etzioni's simplification of what he calls the second front, elimination (not the capture) of terrorists where they are. What many forget is this is really a war on global terrorism. If there are these "so many millions of young, able-bodied men (and women) who hate our guts" signing up to join the terrorists it really doesn't matter provided we deny them the resources to act on their intentions. While it may be in our interest to assist allies with their local terrorist problems, if these groups lack the funding, support, logistics and coordination to plan, assemble, mount and execute an attack against us it is of no national security interest. One big gain from the Iraqi campaign was the removal of a known state sponsor and supporter of terrorists and terrorist activities. Even in the absence of evidence of operational collaboration between Iraq and Al Queda vis-a-vis 9/11, I still challenge anyone to honestly say they don't belive Saddam Hussein would have helped future attacks if he felt he could have sufficiently hid his involvement. That, now, is not a concern.

Mark;

The war in Iraq was not precipitated by humanitarian concerns, and I think it is the “dirty little secret” of the Right that they know this full well but continue use it as a justification because it is hard to refute: it is the last excuse standing.

If hatred of America and oppression of your citizens are valid criteria for invasion and overthrow, then one must ask why, among the long list of countries that also qualify, Iraq jumped to the top. (And I think that Hussein's “depredations and genocidal” tendencies have been inflated for the purposes of supporting this claim; not that he wasn’t bad, but there are and were much worse. And it didn’t seem to bother GHW Bush or Rumsfeld back when it was actually happening in the 90s. Furthermore, it seems Bush Sr. may have actually but inadvertently precipitated the gassing of the Kurds after GW-I.)

Which brings us to some of the “other” stated reasons for invading Iraq: that they were an immediate threat to America because they possessed WMDs. Well, none were found, so cross that one off.

Next, stabilizing the region and planting a seed of Democracy in the hopes that it might grow and spread to other ME countries and in doing so reduce the threat of terrorism to Americans. Seems to me that this is a worthy cause, although not high on the original list but again this will be hard to refute until history has a look.

That said, if historians in the future judge the invasion of Iraq to have been a positive rather than a negative turning point in the GWOT, even despite the total failure of most of the primary objectives given for the invasion, I might judge the whole thing to have been worth it in the end, perhaps.

But only after carefully weighing the costs of doing so, which most war supporters I have encountered here seem unwilling to do. Could these ends have been achieved in more peaceful ways? Were all the alternatives to war fully and honestly weighed? Since my answers to these questions are “Yes” and “No”, my threshold for judging the Iraq war to have been, on balance, a success is obviously much higher than those who support the war now even in the absence of evidence supporting this final lofty, but long-term, goal. That this all will come to pass is an article of faith, not fact, which raises the question of how anyone who weighs the situation critically can come down so strongly on the Pro-War side.

It is always fun to watch folks argue with Vesicle Traffiker: it always looks like two people talking past each other, almost as though it was a conversation between two people in alternative realities (which, in truth, it probably is.)

Vesicle:

"What would it take to convince you that the war in Iraq was a mistake, and that it diverted attention and resources better spent elsewhere?"

It’s difficult to weigh in on this one without putting some parameters on the circumstances. I’ll go with the assumption that this assumes a finite set of resources and allocation of resources in lieu of 9/11 and the resources being used prior to the war in Iraq.

From the military side we had a significant amount of troops stationed around the world whose main job had nothing to do with terrorism. We had highly reduced defenses due to a reduction of military manpower, military base and post closings leaving the national guard and coast guard as a primary means of a protection within the US. We placed or civic duty functions in the hands of the federal government concerning our police, fire, and first response units. Our coast guard and national guard acted as paramedics for every natural disaster within our borders. Fires, floods, and hurricanes to name a few.

From the federal government side we had degraded resources in our intelligence communities. We had ineffective and ignored border control. Amnesty for illegal aliens (It costs too much to stop them so make them citizens!). Amnesty is still on the plate no matter what administration is in charge. (You would think some people would learn instead of clamor for a vote.)

So where were our resources going? To me that is the bigger question if you want to put in terms of resources being used today.

From a financial side where was the money going? Increased social programs domestic and foreign, increased educational programs (don’t get me started on that one), not to mention a host of other pork barrel projects to satiate everyone’s thirst for a piece of the pie. In fact we had so much left over that a tax cut was proposed to return the money to tax paying citizens robbing non-tax paying citizens of their just rewards. This one befuddles folks because we were talking about future debt and reducing it while still being indebt on the current books and not applying the gain (hmm go figure).

I for one don’t believe the war in Iraq was a mistake and I still don’t think it’s a mistake. Iraq ... terrorist training camps ... terrorism ... US citizens slaughtered. I didn’t need WMD to justify the war in the first place. I for one took the president at his word when he said what he was going to do and I fully understood the implications of his language. Arguing about definition of the word “*IS*” is ludicrous. (How much did that one cost tax payers?)

We could have picked a host of other countries to take the war to the enemy but we chose Iraq. Don’t for one moment believe Iraq was the only country on the table. Logistically it was the best country to choose. Finally I don’t believe the terrorists learn everything by osmosis without training for action. If you can’t get a host government to stop it then by all means Mr. President do what you said you were going to do.

My point being what ever bit of resource you are concerned about were non-existent to start with. Every bit of these resources must be replenished. Some people may not want to replenish them and squeeze a buffalo nickel till it craps but the fact of the matter is I didn’t want to spend a lot of resources on a host of the other things we do either. I accept the fact I was out voted on the other issues.

Vesicle,

"The war in Iraq was not precipitated by humanitarian concerns, and I think it is the “dirty little secret” of the Right that they know this full well but continue use it as a justification because it is hard to refute: it is the last excuse standing."

I'm curious about why you would classify the moral effort to free 25 million Iraqis from slavery, mass torture and genocide as an "excuse". The moral case for liberation was clearly argued by the Administration; no amount of revisionism will make this go away, so you might as well either deal with the argument or concede that it was immoral to oppose the war. The reason the moral case is hard to refute has nothing to do with wicked neo-cons and their shifty syllogism; it's because freeing 25 million people from genocide, mass torture and slavery is a good thing. See how that works?

The "there were worse dictators in the world than Saddam" argument is invalid. At best, it demonstrates the inconsistency of the Administration; it doesn't show that the liberation was more or less justified. Since I expect that you are familiar with basic logic and we've been over this invalid argument many times, I can only assume that you are using it in an attempt to deceive your audience. As for your suggestion that Saddam wasn't that bad, I suppose we'll have to disagree on the definition of "bad". In my world, slaughtering several hundred thousand innocent people qualifies as bad; bad enough to warrant removal from political office. Once, long ago, the left could make moral judgments in the face of mass killings. Remember those days?

I'm willing to weigh the costs of invasion if you're willing to weigh the costs of inaction, Vesicle. I won't retreat from the brutal realities of war, the innocent lives lost and soldiers killed. I don't see many war supporters ducking those facts; I do, however, see alot of leftists evading the moral and pragmatic faiures of their theories.

USMC;

I respect your position that you don't agree with every program the government spends money on, but accept them anyway because we live in a Democracy where this is the way things must work. I feel exactly the same way, and am also flabbergasted by how much is simply wasted. I would also extend that to other issues, in my case. For example, I am opposed to the death penalty but am willing to defer to the will of the majority.

But this mutual tolerance can only work if one side does not get too greedy and too self-righteous and cross over into an area where their choice of resource allocation begins to have a large negative impact on others. (And if this is the goal, rather than an act of simple selfishness, that is a subject for another thread.)

In addition, you are taking a far too narrow view of "resources". When I speak of these, I am speaking in broad terms, i.e. human resources, moral resources, attention resources, ally resources.

Vesicle
Thanks for the clarification. That is why I put parameters on my statements. Now that I understand your definition of resources I can begin to formulate an answer you are looking for.

Mark;

"I'm curious about why you would classify the moral effort to free 25 million Iraqis from slavery, mass torture and genocide as an "excuse".

I use the term "excuse" because even if it did make it onto Bush's Top Ten Reasons to Invade Iraq list last year, if this were the only reason even fewer people would have supported it. Possession of WMDs was the key argument that precipitated the war. It's an "excuse" and not a "reason" because it's importance as a motivation or justification has become elevated by war supporters in the absence of any evidence supporting the top reasons.

IMO, there are other ways to solve a humanitarian problems that don't have to involve full-out war, but these were not given enough attention because, well, if you only have a hammer...

The "there were worse than Saddam" argument is not invalid unless you want to view the war in Iraq in a vacuum. A choice made forecloses an other; A big one forecloses many. We can discuss hypotheticals or reality, you choose, but you are ascribing far too many motives to my reasoning. This is an important issue to raise because it seeks to clarify the limits of this type of action for those who support it. It is not a question of moral or theoretical consistency.

Furthermore, the equation that asks me to balance the cost of war vs. the cost of inaction is unrealistic, because those aren't the choices. You may return with the follow-up that what we were doing before was tantamount to inaction, but I will disagree and offer the fact that Saddam had no weapons in the end nor plans to directly attack the US as evidence.

One thing we likely agree on: You accept the cost of this war, and I do not. However, I am not a peacenik; I supported, although with some reluctance, the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Why reluctance? Because I think all plans for war must be made reluctantly.

Vesicle,

You may ascribe a rank to the arguments the Administration made if you like, but this is irrelevant to the force of the argument itself. Moreover, it is nothing more than a transparent attempt to evade it. You can claim that the moral argument wasn't important to you, to Bush, to anyone else you know; the fact remains that it was a valid argument that ostensibly motivated the Administration and much of the pro-war public. It entered the public field of debate; telling people it really wasn't an issue won't make it go away. Address the issue or concede.

I have yet to see the moral case for war forcefully rebutted by the anti-war left. You are no exception. What makes you think I'll be fooled by your attempts to downgrade an otherwise valid argument?

Re: "there was worse than Saddam"

"This is an important issue to raise because it seeks to clarify the limits of this type of action for those who support it. It is not a question of moral or theoretical consistency."

This just rephrases the invalid counter-argument. You are claiming that it was wrong to support the removal of a genocidal fascist because there are worse genocidal fascists in the world. You object to the possible inconsistent application of the principle that "genocidal fascists should be removed from power when it is feasible to do so". This may be a valid concern for future conduct, but it doesn't address the argument about the moral case for removing this particular genocidal fascist. It is an attack on the character of the state actor ("possibly inconsistent character; possibly self-interested"); thus, it is an ad hominem tu quoque. In case you think I'm using my deadly neo-con debating tactics to fool you, go check out the (anti-war) HWR: they reject the "there was worse than Saddam" argument as well. No escape here either.

You can call the pre-war status whatever you like. I call it inaction, you call it containment. (Hinting that there was some secret feasible non-military plan to oust a man who murdered children with toxic chemicals is laughable.) Your semantic game won't change the fact that you were content to allow 25 million people to exist as slaves when you could have thrown your support behind a credible rescue effort. The choice wasn't between war and peace; it was between war and continued slavery, genocide and mass torture. In choosing as it did, the anti-war left - in particular, the academic left - lost whatever moral credibility it once had in a last bid for political relevance. Good riddance.

The WMD issue has been flogged relentlessly here in Australia too, but I regard it now as just as valid a justification as I regarded it then. If intelligence agencies erred over Saddam's WMDs (and the matter is not yet conclusively settled), they did so serendipitously.

Intelligence gathering is a highly inexact science, and considering the WMD programs that Western Intelligence underestimated (Saddam's previous nuke program, NorkCom's nukes, Libya's WMDs), I'm delighted that for once a mass-murdering evil dictator was not given the benefit of the doubt.

Oscar: I personally think Vesicle Trafficker is from Gor, the counter-earth, on the other side of the sun.

Vesicle: Intel is an inexact science, but you better believe that every possible analysis was performed. The Bayesian (a-priori) probablity that Uncle Saddam possessed WMD, given that he had them and no one could verify that he got rid of them was too high for manageable risk. Threat assessment is conservative by its nature-- it has to be. The penalty for type B error (you say it isn't when it is) is too awful to contemplate.

"What would it take to convince you that the war in Iraq was a mistake, and that it diverted attention and resources better spent elsewhere?"

Simply put, if we squander the enormous strategic advantage represented by occupying that particular piece of real estate --in opposition to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria/Lebanon. If in the next four years we do not eliminate the current Iranian regime, then I will probably conclude that on a strategic level Iraq was a waste of time and blood.

The Islamist War began in our Tehran embassy. It is the same basic crowd today, more powerful, more militant, more implacable. Their tentacles reach to North Korea in one direction, to Israel in another (Hizb'allah), and even to the jungles of Colombia and Brazil (Hizb'Allah alliance with FARC).

Iranian operatives are at this moment training Latino terrorists (in Mato Grosso, Brasil) for an eventual attack on the US. Sidebar: IMO our singular focus on drugs in Latin America is the greatest single strategic blunder of the Bush administration.

The Islamist War offers no chance of victory until the mullocracy in Tehran is decisively eliminated. You cannot effectively 'do' Iran unless you happen to be sitting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Which is more likely to get the job done in Iran? A second Bush administration, or a first Kerry administration, full of people like Sandy Berger and Madeline Albright?

Jinderella;

You seem to have forgotten all about Hans Blix and UNMOVIC, who were in a position to obtain more info (in fact were doing just that) on whether this was true or not, rather than just applying "probability theory".

Luckily our memories on Gor are a bit longer than you earthlings...

Mark;

I think it is typical that you believe you have backed me into a corner from which I cannot escape WRT whether the removal of Saddam by invading Iraq was "moral" or not. Since I do not think it is valid to consider this in isolation and since I know we will not be able to agree on what defines "morality", I see no reason to pursue this any further with you.

I agree with all those, including President Bush, who say that War should always be the last resort. War is a failure in policy, not a solution.

Vesicle,

Your refusal to address the moral aspect of the war, and unwillingness to offer a reason why the moral aspect should be logically and conceptually dependant on non-moral considerations, is tacit admission of intellectual failure. If this is the best the anti-war left has to offer - evasions, retreat, eventual surrender - you'd better prepare yourself for many years of intellectual oblivion. At least the French surrender after gunfire; you run screaming after a few hard questions.

Mark;

You must be joking. These are not hard questions, they're just not ones we are likely to come to an agreement on. And given that, I simply don't have the time or the will to argue with you about whose version of "morality" is superior, or how best to apply it.

I would offer in counter that it is the moral certitude and reliance on faith and presumption over fact of the Pro-war right that, while perhaps allowing you to continue on an intellectual level, will hopefully and shortly become recognized as policy poison.

I don't agree with Versicle, but I think Mark needs to calm down a bit. Comparing someone to the French is pretty harsh. Isn't Versicle saying that the moral value of liberating Iraq is limited because it precluded the choice of removing other genocidal tyrants? He's not merely saying it has no moral value because there are other tyrants.

Versicle, which other genocidal tyrant(s) would you have removed then? If there isn't another one that you would have advocated removing then I don't think your point stands.

If we had not gone to war with Iraq then it was only a matter of time before the sanctions on Iraq were lifted or so thoroughly breached that Saddam would have become more dangerous. I think major actors like Russia and France would have pursued their myopic economic interests and let Saddam out of the bag, especially if we had an administration that deferred to them so it would be liked!

I think you over-estimate the ability of Hans Blix and company to come to any conclusions that we could have based our security on. Saddam's regime was content to try and contain us with the threat of WMD's and strategic uncertainty. That is a precedent that would be unacceptable.

Saying that war is a failure of policy assumes that your policy can always control the motivations and abilities of other countries. I don't think the US is that powerful!! This assumption which you seem to make - that if we just made the right choices we could avoid war is one that I strongly disagree with. It seems to be the root of a lot of disagreements people have over foreign policy. Unfortunately, in war it DOES NOT take two to tango.

Sorry, I meant Vesicle!

Vesicle,

If you believe you are using a different version of morality than everyone else in the Western world, then feel free to set it out. Otherwise, your retreat into post-modern pseudo-jargon is of little value.

I'm not sure what faith you think I possess, nor why you think it's relevant. I've made no appeal to religious sentiments in any of my arguments or questions.

If you believe there are facts that are being ignored such that the moral debate would shift, simply direct my attention to them. Simple enough.

I think, Vesicle, that you cannot argue that your positon was moral, and now you are searching for excuses.

Since 25 million Iraqis are now free from a genocidal fascist, and this is not likely to change, I'm not sure how you can claim that my position is poison. You, however, have to contend with the fact that you agitated for the continued enslavement of your fellow human beings. Squirm all you like, this won't go away.

Mark;

You cannot see how opposing War is a moral position? You cannot see that some might find it immoral to cause the death of more than 10,000 innocent civilians, including women and children, in the name of "freeing them"?

Just so you know, "faith" does not only mean "Religious Faith" but any belief in the absence of fact (e.g., assertions that terrorism will be reduced because of the War in Iraq, or "...and this is not likely to change..."). That you only interpreted this as a non-secular reference suggests a rather unitary viewpoint.

And I hope you are accounting for the Sunni's when you keep repeating your preposterous claim that "25 million Iraqi's are now free...".

Also, was Saddam currently engaged in "genocide" when the US invaded last year?

Gary Farber did the best job of savaging Mark's moral imperative for war. The thread is here, and by its end, Mark's argument why invasion of Iraq was morally compelled while invasions of Burma and Zimbabwe are not was entirely conclusory, circular, and self-serving. I will even repeat again that Mark's belief that the politically wisest course (in his opinion) is a capital-T Truth and a capital-M Moral Imperative is the mark of a cult member. I've guessed Ayn Rand here; Mark refuses to say.

What I wanted to point out here is that Mark's premises are also false. Today, MSNBC reports that The Iraqi Christians are more endangered now than they were under Saddam. (I don't recall any churches bombed under Saddam, and I don't think the "sovereign" puppet government has any Christian as highly placed as was Tariq Aziz.) So, subtract 3/4-million from that bogus total.

Andrew;

Thanks for pointing that thread out...I obviously missed that one, but it looks like this is a replay of that one with the absence of you and Gary providing a much more thorough rebuttal to Mark then I have the will for. Mark, however, still seems to be making the same tired arguments and insisting that everyone see things his way.

Vesicle,

Since the deaths of several hundread thousand Iraqis over a period of 20 years isn't sufficient to engage your moral sense, I find your preferencing the months prior to the war to evaluate Saddam's genocidal record a bit odd (but not at all surprising). Also, if you have evidence that Sunnis are now enslaved to the will of a genocidal fascist, please produce it.

There is good reason to believe that ME terrorism is motivated by Arab political dysfunction. If I recall correctly, one of the most comprehensive studies of terrorism (Princeton, I think; will find link if you like) found the correlation between political illiberalism and terrorism to be most prominent (rather than economics, as marxism would predict). Of course, there is more to it than this, and much more to be said, but given that OBL is a wealthy Saudi and that many ME terrorists tend to be middle-class and educated, this seems plausible. Sound hysterical and "faith-based" to you?

Feel free to argue your own account of terrorism. Tell us how marx and the modern left explains ME terrorism. Apply that incisive emiseration theory and make it all clear for us. I'll wait.

Andrew,

Strangely, I remember the arguments differently than you. I thought my explanation of moral intervention was reasonably clear. I recall that you were unable to justify your refusal to rescue 25 million of your fellow human beings from slavery when it was feasible to do so.

I also seem to recall you having to admit that conditions in Iraq would have remained the same had you prevailed; that is, 25 million people would have suffered at the hands of a genocidal fascist for an indefinite period. Since you are one of the first leftist to explicitly admit this, I consider it a major concession; the consequences for the moral debate are devastating. Which is why you retreat to name-calling.

It's revealing that you have difficulty with the idea of "T" truth. Since I expect you are referring to the post-modern critique of tradional epistemology, I'm not sure it helps you the way you think it does. I don't need it for my argument; you can go through the thread for yourself. The West only and ever can use contextual, conditional moral arguments as it has always done. Your counter-argument that "there is no Truth" is, therefore, ineffective. Don't take my word for it; go to the original philosophical source material. Go to an academic website and reconstruct the arguments made by post-modern anti-epistemologists against trational epistemology. Until then, your tired, flaccid response that "you are a cultist who believes in a Moral Imperative" (actually, this would make me a Kantian), just betrays your misunderstanding of profound philosophical issues.

Alas, this is the best the anti-war left can do; attempt to vitiate debate by screaming invective. Your ad hominems are not even interesting. And you wonder why nothing intellectually significant has been produced by the left in more than 50 years.

Mark;

You are purposefully ignoring my main point, which is that if Saddam wasn't currently engaged in "genocide" but had done so in the past (no argument on this) then invading becomes more punishment than prevention. And there goes one of your central arguments that we invaded for humanitarian purposes (claiming all Iraqis were "slaves" is pure hyperbole).

It is self-evident that if we didn't invade, Saddam might still be in power. But then again, Iraq would not now be infested with terrorists either, and Islamists would not have the War as a powerful recruiting tool. And our 1000 soldiers and 10,000 Iraqi civilians would still be alive. Be a man and stand up from the Right to admit this as well.

You wanted to draw me into a conversation about morality, but when I posed several questions on this subject you declined to answer them. Curious. But if you answer those, consider this as well:

Is it moral for a leader to willfully mislead his people into war, regardless of how strongly they might feel about its justification?

Vesicle,

I'm not sure why you have difficulty recognizing slavery as such. Iraqis were subject to involuntary servitude; arbitrary arrest, torture and/or execution; arbitrary laws that revolved around the will of one man that was enforced by punitive rape, torture or execution of citizens or their family members; arbitrary seizure of personal and business assets; etc. All this, and the fact that many Iraqis describe their own experience as "a living hell", a "nightmare", "slavery" or worse. But what do they know. Hyperbole indeed.

I have conceded time and time again that soldiers and innocent civilians would die during the war. If you disagree, please quote from any of my comments on any threads where I resiled from this position. My argument involves, rather, a consideration of the horror of war set against the continued suffering of innocent Iraqis - which you stubbornly refuse to contemplate.

Retributive justice has always been a part of moral theory, so I'm not sure how you think this not a valid consideration.

I'm not sure I'd concede that Saddam wasn't committing genocide; the Marsh Arabs still suffered from his campaign to despoil their homeland. But lets put this aside for a moment and return to your "Saddam had finished killing" argument; I have been over it before. You can find it on many other threads (probably on the one Andrew provided). Saddam killed when he was politically vulnerable and when he knew he could get away with it. Your speculation that he was finished killing is just that: speculation. An evaluation of his career shows he was killing, on average, at the rate at about 10,000 year (see Geras using HRW figures; probably a conservative estimate, but nevermind). Your preference of the last years over the last 5 or 10 years is unwarranted; nothing about the Iraqi political situation or your insight into Saddam's psychological condition justifies this preference.

Again, hinting that you had a plan to rescue Iraqis from continued enslavement is fantasy ("Saddam might still be in power"). Either justify this statement or concede that you abandoned Iraqis to their fate.

To answer your question: In my view, willfully misleading an electorate into war would be morally wrong. It would be so regardless of how the electorate felt about the justification for war. The war might, however, conceivably, still be justified on other grounds. If, for example, during WW2, governments claimed "Nazi Germany intends to eventually invade North America", when they had no grounds to make this claim, other justifications - that ending genocide and freeing people from fascism is a good thing - might still obtain.

However, since you have produced no evidence that the US Administration willfully misled the electorate (note your requirement for deception - intention to deceive), I'm not sure why you think this is relevant.

I've answered the questions you've asked me, Vesicle. Answer mine:

Under what circumstances, and what moral theory, is it morally permissible to abandon your fellow human beings to slavery, mass torture and genocide? What moral theory are you using for this analysis?

The Commission has released its final report. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm