Comments on: Economists, sophists and calculators

By: John

John — Mon, 21 Jul 2003 23:28:43 +0000

I don’t understand why the US and Britain did not make the case more strongly that they were already fighting a low-intensity war with Iraq (i.e. the no-fly areas) and, combined with the unintentional suffering caused by the sanctions, had to be brought to a head once and for all. Given that Saddam would surely have attacked the Kurds if they were unprotected, it would have put pressure on the other Western powers to either share the burden (which they wouldn’t do)or let the Allies take the lead.

By: Dick Thompson

Dick Thompson — Sun, 20 Jul 2003 03:15:05 +0000

Everything that was old is now new. This is the new world order, and the Iraq invasion wasn’t some old colonial adventure, but a phase in the self-declared war on terrorism. The single nation that spends more on its military than all the rest of the world combined had defied the UN, scorned Europe, and flexed its mighty muscle. No leader of any nation can fail to wonder, what’s next?

By: Russell L. Carter

Russell L. Carter — Sat, 19 Jul 2003 15:16:25 +0000

“The invasion was truly a new thing in the world” Utterly wrong, nearly illiterate. It was the oldest thing in the world. Ancient indeed.

By: Dick Thompson

Dick Thompson — Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:51:00 +0000

I don’t see how you can have both that the invasion made the worldwide WMD problem worse, and that it has no effect on the Israel/Palestine peace efforts. The invasion was truly a new thing in the world, and it had its effect on leader’s minds in both cases. The proto nuclear states thought they’d better speed up development, lest they be caught with their pants down like Saddam. And the calculus of power in the Israeli cockpit was transformed, “confrontation states” lost some of their menace, and that broke a little of the logjam.

By: raj

raj — Sat, 19 Jul 2003 06:45:24 +0000

This isn’t a joke, is it? “First, Saddam had repeatedly failed to comply with UN sanctions, and had lied about what he was up to. The UN needed to carry through if its threats were to be considered credible.” This obviously relates to the portion of Security Council Resolution 1441 (the 2002 resolution regarding weapons inspections in Iraq) that indicated that continued intransigence by the affected party (here Iraq) might have dire consequences. The fact is, however, that most SC resolutions have similar verbiage, and no countries have taken it seriously. Regardless, the fact is also, that, following the passage of Res 1441, the US ambassador to the UN stated unequivocally that a further UN resolution would be required before the UN would be deemed to sanction war against Iraq. That was the resolution that the US sought—and failed to get—in February 2003. So the US’s subsequent actions in Iraq could hardly be deemed to be in defense of the UN. “Second, any delay in following through on the threat would possibly have led to divisions among the allies.” I have seen BS, but the fact is that this BS really stinks. Bush’s virtually unilateral attack—without UN approval—on Iraq has caused divisions among the allies. Unless, of course, the (UK publication) Economist believes that “the allies” consist only of the US and the UK. “Third, America and its allies are doing their best to make the country and the region more peaceful and less threatening.” Oh, really? And what are the US and the UK doing in regards the region? What are the US and the UK doing in regards, say, Afghanistan, which was known to harbor terrorists? I hate to tell you, but the fact seems to be that the US—in ignoring Afghanistan and virtually unilaterally attacking Iraq—has virtually squandered any international good will that it had.

By: Jack

Jack — Sat, 19 Jul 2003 03:29:32 +0000

Cure, your second paragraph raises an interesting question. If we regard Saddam’s rule as illegitimate, how can we use his actions as justification for killing Iraqi civilians? If it was legitimate, what were we doing invading?

By: cure

cure — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 23:10:55 +0000

Henry, the two strongest reasons for the just Iraq war remain as valid today as they ever were: humanitarianism and regional stability. The 1991 Resolutions made clear that, as terms of his surrender in Kuwait, Saddam had to stop his WMD program as well as stop his internal gestapo brutality. There is no question that Saddam was stilling killing dissidents and those out of political favor straight up until this March, and I see no reason that he would have stopped. As far as regional stability is concerned, positive changes have already occurred in the I/P quandary, Saudi politics, the Iranian democratic movement and the Syrian attitude toward suicide bombers. That is significant. If Iraq becomes a liberal, wealthy democracy, as I believe it will, the Middle East will have reached a turning point the likes of Attaturk’s reforms. As the ME has been an intl. flashpoint for decades, this is significant. Saddam’s WMD program combined with a desire for greater regional control by any means makes the situation even more pertinent – an Iraqi official told the coalition after the war that he didn’t know of any nuclear program then existing, but that Saddam certainly had plans to acquire a nuke and was merely waiting for the beat of wardrums to blow over. That said, the question is: could the above objectives be achieved without as much suffering among innocents? The answer is yes. Civilian casualties are very low for a full-scale invasion of a nation that defended itself with guerrila tactics. Saddam was offered countless opportunities to either cooperate fully with inspectors from the UN or choose exile, but he chose neither. A last comment regarding the UN Resolutions following the Gulf War. There are different types of UN Resolutions – the two pertaining to Saddam in 1991 laid out conditions of a surrender. Failure to comply with them technically means that Hussein’s surrender is invalid. No one is suggesting that the US invade every country that flaunts UN Resolutions (the US does it all the time; for instance, during the Noriega action in Panama). But countries that violate the terms of their ceasefire are like criminals robbing while on probation – there must be consequences.

By: PG

PG — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 22:07:22 +0000

It's fine for individuals and institutions to support the war, if they think it was the right course of action, whether for humanitarian reasons or otherwise. But a false case for war, one that claimed Americans were fighting for their own security instead of the freedom of Iraqis, is dangerous to democracy.

By: Henry

Henry — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:44:18 +0000

Pathos – a quick response to your points. Your first point doesn’t really address my argument. I was saying that credible threats have to be conditional – that is, that the threatened party should know that the threat will not be carried through if they behave well. Contrary to what the Economist implies, the US threat was not conditional in this sense. The US made it clear that they were going to invade in any event, and that what Hussein did in response was more or less irrelevant. If you’re right in saying that “we know that Saddam would never comply,” then the Economist is wrong; the UN resolution etc wasn’t about credible threats intended to change Saddam’s behavior. It was about posturing for the benefit of the international community; trying to win support for a policy that the US was going to follow through on anyway. I happen not to think that you were right; but your analysis was obviously shared by the US administration. On whether or not delay would have had any effects – this again depends on whether or not your argument that Saddam was irreformable is true. If it is, then you’re right – but again, the Economist is wrong. The implication that follows from your argument is that nothing would have changed in Saddam’s behavior, regardless of what the international community did. So again, the credible threat argument falls. On your final point, you’re attacking an argument that I don’t actually make. What I say is that US “efforts to jump-start the Israel-Palestine peace process” have nothing to do with “the merits or defects of the US invasion of Iraq.” What you seem to think I said is something like – “the collapse of Hussein’s regime has nothing to do with the Israel-Palestine peace process.” Which is actually quite a different claim, and one that I don’t make. I’m making an argument about US policy towards Israel/Palestine, and saying that this policy does not reflect positively or negatively on what it’s doing in Iraq. This is a claim that can be debated, I’m sure, but I do think that it’s a tenable position. But I simply don’t see how your (correct) statement that Hussein supported the families of suicide bombers has any bearing on my argument. What I’m asking is why we should be concerned with US behavior towards Israel and Palestine, when we’re trying to debate the US invasion of Iraq? They’re different matters, which should be evaluated separately. Reg. I disagree that the only people who we ought to be concerned about with WMD are the bad guys. Stopping WMD proliferation requires a multilateral effort – in other words you need to convince the good guys too. The US is more powerful than any other state by an order of magnitude – but it isn’t big enough to stop WMD on its own. And its credibility with potential allies has been seriously damaged. But I’d better shut up now, in case my reply ends up being longer than my original post :)

By: apostropher

apostropher — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:38:46 +0000

“Yes, for example, how about a decade of sanctions. That might have worked.” Well, given the vast stores of illegal weapons that we have recovered, it seems to me that a decade of sanctions and six years of inspections did a pretty good job after all. He was completely boxed-in and contained, and at a much lower cost to our Treasury, alliances, and troops than this invasion and occupation has proven to be.

By: pathos

pathos — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:23:03 +0000

“There existed a wide array of possible options for the UN to increase pressure on Hussein, without the need to invade a sovereign nation (no matter how disgusting its ruler might be).” Yes, for example, how about a decade of sanctions. That might have worked . . .

By: BJ

BJ — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:09:18 +0000

With respect to the issue of flouting UN resolutions—that’s no mark of a rogue nation. Many states have done so without retribution from the mighty US military, or anyone else for that matter. To use that as a justification for a full-scale military invasion is arbitrary at best. At worst, it’s low-grade political cynicism. Moreover, the tactic as employed implies that there is no room for any sort of measured progress between “inspections” and “serious consequences.” It’s as if you discipline your unresponsive child only by two methods—sitting in the corner, or beatings with a wire coathanger. There existed a wide array of possible options for the UN to increase pressure on Hussein, without the need to invade a sovereign nation (no matter how disgusting its ruler might be). The fact is that Bush and Co. simply chose not to employ any of the alternatives, or indeed to admit their existence. On the issue of Israel/Palestine, Pathos cannot seriously believe that funds to suicide bombers’ families have suddenly dried up in Hussein’s absence. Neither Palestinian nor Israeli fighters have ever had any difficulty getting money, guns or moral support. Hussein may have been a convenient source, and it may well have been in his political best interests to see the Israel/Palestine conflict fester, but don’t believe for a minute that his removal has contributed in any measurable way to progress toward peace.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:05:34 +0000

There’s an easy scenario under which the invasion made things worse. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Bush and Blair, etc. were correct about Iraq having WMDs. Where did they go? We sure as hell haven’t secured them, and it’s not like we have a great idea where they may be found. If Bush was right about WMDs existing in Iraq ca. 3/03, then they must have gone somewhere, no? Who has them now? We don’t know. That sound like a good scenario to you?

By: Reg

Reg — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 20:54:16 +0000

Too bad we didn’t just leave Saddam alone, eh? We wouldn’t have to deal with this ‘debacle.’ Isn’t it a bit silly to say the threat from WMD proliferation is greater after getting rid of Saddam? How so? Because the US has less credibility now? In whose eyes? The only ones that count when limiting WMD proliferation are the bad guys, and it is hard to see how this war will increase their ability to obtain WMDs.

By: Pathos

Pathos — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 20:48:48 +0000

1. The argument can only be seen as “non-conditional” because there was no chance that Saddam would actually disarm. Condoleeza Rice made the argument very compellingly here, comparing Iraq to the countries that did voluntarily disarm: http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh03012401.html It was not about FINDING weapons, it was about their showing them to us. That included digging up the parts under the rose bushes and stuff like that. By not doing what Kazakhstan and South Africa did, Iraq was failing to actively comply with U.N. resolutions. Yes, we know Iraq would never comply. That knowledge doesn’t make the resolution non-conditional, however. 2. Delay. The delay had been going on since the first of the 16 binding resolutions. This hadn’t just been going on a few months, even though most of the world wasn’t thinking about it in the 1990’s. Delay would have just led to a few more hundred or thousand dead and tortured Iraqis. If there was no movement toward real disarmament (see #1), waiting doesn’t do any good. 3. Israel/Palestine is not a non-sequitur. Saddam was providing funds to suicide bomber families. That was one less ally for the terrorists. The threat of the U.S. actually taking terrorism seriously caused the Palestinians to lose other allies (although Europe still refuses to consider Hamas a terrorist group) and increase pressure on them to come to the bargaining table. Knowing the U.S. will back up its promises (see #1 again) brings stability to the region.