Comments on: Axis of Evil, Part 2

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 03:56:29 +0000

The point is not that NK isn’t evil or that (like Saddam) it doesn’t have nuclear weapons but that there’s no plausible sense in which it could be said to form part of an “axis”. It’s been proven from repeatedly by David Kay and others, through interviews with scientists and computer hard drive evidence, that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy Rodong missiles from NK. Syria, your other candidate for “Axis” status, happened to be the site of the negotiations. These transactions are believed by many to have failed precisely because the US invasion gave Pyongyang a bit of a scare. There’s your “axis” between Iraq and NK. As for Iran and NK… well, I’m tired, but it’s all over the web. Sure these aren’t iron alliances, but collaboration existed nonetheless.

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:15:59 +0000

Both the Iranians and North Koreans deserve their place on the ‘axis of evil’ list and the sooner GWB is re-elected and topples their regimes the better it will be for all – their citizens, their neighbors, and the rest of the world. Those who dismiss Bush as stupid probably thought the same of Reagan and his crusade against the ‘evil empire’. They were wrong then – and remain so today.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 23:37:50 +0000

Sebastian, if you read the post again, you’ll see that it’s not about how things are developing within Iraq, but rather about whether this has had any significant impact (positive or negative) in the region as a whole. My answer, illustrated by the case of Iran, is that it hasn’t. That may change over time, if Iraq turns out much better or much worse than I expect (a government broadly similar to what Khatami advocates for Iran, dealing with continuing guerilla attacks but no outright war), but I don’t see it at present. Similarly, wrt Cyprus, the issue isn’t the shift within Cyprus itself, but the geopolitical implications, which are profound.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 23:17:09 +0000

Hmm, for someone who is willing to praise the UN for perhaps helping to solve the Cyprus problem after decades, John, you sure are in a hurry to judge the results of the Iraq invasion. I say perhaps only because we still don’t know if the problem as come to a resolution. It just looks more hopeful than it has in many years.

By: obliw

obliw — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 06:54:00 +0000

“I agree with your points except this one. IIRC sanctions on Libya were lifted in 1999 as part of the constructive engagement approach I was referring to.” U.N. sanctions were lifted; U.S. bilateral sanctions remained. Since Libya’s oil infrastructure was mostly contructed during the brief and hopeful reign of Idris I, Libya’s first and last official monarch, by American oil companies, Qaddaffi needs U.S. spare parts to make the pumps go, a rare case where bilateral sactions were very effective. As for this, “I agree that civil wars, in general, can have truly horrific consequences. But a civil war in which American troops are on hand to intervene on one side is likely to be much shorter and less brutal, and to have more heartening results, than the average internecine conflict ignored by the world.” Which side? One of the most likely scenarios in which a civil war could happen is one in which Sistani, the Shiite Object of Emulation, declares that expanded governing council is taking too long to hold elections and orders massive civil protests on the part of the Shiites. They take to the streets and violence erupts, very probably involving the three alread organized and armed Shiite militas—- the Dawa boys, Muqtada Sadr’s Mahdi Army, and the SCIRI’s Badr brigade. Would the U.S. army then leap in on the side of a governing council widely viewed as illigitimate—- i.e., as our puppets—- and against a uprising representing the majority of the population?

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:20:03 +0000

It was widely and credibly reported that the first draft had Syria in place of NK, or, more generally that NK was added so that not all the members would be non-Muslim. See here,here, and here. The point is not that NK isn't evil or that (like Saddam) it doesn't have nuclear weapons but that there's no plausible sense in which it could be said to form part of an "axis".

By: linden

linden — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 04:27:15 +0000

“It is number 2 country in the Axis of Evil (and everyone knows North Korea was only thrown in at the last moment for rhetorical balance).” Oh, please. This is such crap. To believe this you’d have to completely ignore all the information that has come out about North Korea’s concentration camps and experimentation with chemical and biological weapons on humans, as well as the huge amount of information about its role in the proliferation of wmd.

By: Doctor Slack

Doctor Slack — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 00:05:32 +0000

I doubt that Iraq’s neighboring peoples are particularly disturbed by the prospect of American military action. Kinda depends on how the Iraq thing turns out, wouldn’t you say? But a civil war in which American troops are on hand to intervene on one side is likely to be much shorter and less brutal, and to have more heartening results, than the average internecine conflict ignored by the world. Well, maybe it’s time to have a think about historical examples. How have American attempts to take sides in civil wars worked out in the past? Did the American intervention conclude or exacerbate the conflict? Does the US appear to have the necessary intelligence to make this outing work better, if it comes to that? Of electoral significance: can the Bush team be trusted to handle that kind of eventuality competently?

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:59:20 +0000

“I would think that when a hostile, monied superpower attacks and occupies a country, and announces its intentions to ‘transform’ the entire Middle Eastern region through military action, sponsoring of subversives etc., that neighboring countries might well regard it as an ‘imminent threat’.” Well, I’m not terribly concerned about what the local despots think. With the possible exception of Jordan, whose pro-American monarch pretty much immunizes his country against American attack in any event, I doubt that Iraq’s neighboring peoples are particularly disturbed by the prospect of American military action. “I find your blitheness about the possibility of civil war astonishing. If there’s any scenario that could generate more death and suffering than Saddam could have, that’s the one.” I agree that civil wars, in general, can have truly horrific consequences. But a civil war in which American troops are on hand to intervene on one side is likely to be much shorter and less brutal, and to have more heartening results, than the average internecine conflict ignored by the world.

By: Doctor Slack

Doctor Slack — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:22:32 +0000

Well, John’s point was about Iraq’s geopolitical impact. That’s fair, if debatable. O’Neill’s point seems to be that Iraq itself is unimportant, which strikes me as more than a bit dense. The invasion was the centrepiece of an ambitious military doctrine being pushed by a powerful faction in the halls of power in America. Anyone trying to pretend that’s unimportant is kidding themselves. And you know, to rant about the O’Neill piece a bit—this is a guy who not too long ago was denying the existence of any effective anti-Coalition forces in Iraq, and he evidently isn’t too pleased about having to notice the violence: “What kind of national liberation movement does not declare its aims? Or take responsibility for its actions? Or posit an alternative to the powers-that-be?” I just can’t buy his pose of exasperation-with-all-and-sundry when he’s so obviously taking up one of the opportunistic positions he’s pretending to deride: namely, that there is no real “resistance” and that the violence in Iraq is pointless, motiveless Evil terrorism for its own sake. (Oh, and it’d be nice if he’d read something about guerilla warfare, too. Since when do guerillas issue manifestoes or claim “responsibiliy” after every operation? Oh, but this can’t be guerilla warfare, because it must be Nihilist Terrorism. And gosh darn, guerillas attack and then run away again? Shocking! Stand and fight, you dastardly villains!) I’ve got to say that people like this baffle me. I understand his contempt for those trying to romanticize and adopt the Iraqi resistance, but he’s committing an equally egregious error. How do you propose to fight guerillas if you refuse to acknowledge to yourself what their motives are, or even that they could have motives that it’s possible for you to learn about? Faceless enemy hordes driven by abstract Evil are heady fun in LOTR movies, but it’s dangerous and stupid to approach real life this way.

By: ginger

ginger — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:25:06 +0000

I tend to agree with John on this. And also, when I'm in a particularly skeptical mood, with something like this:

The coalition chased a weakened regime out of a weakened state, with little sense of what might take its place - leaving a vacuum that various armed and opportunistic groups have moved in to. Now, it seems, opportunistic elements in the West are following them, seeing great battles of purpose and meaning in postwar Iraq where none exists.

By: Doctor Slack

Doctor Slack — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 17:24:06 +0000

But Saddam would be awfully hard for the next leader to match for brutal despotism, and awfully easy to improve upon. Hopefully you're right, but though Saddam was one of the worst, I tend to think his degree of abstract evil gets exaggerated. His cruelty did not spring from nowhere, and even with his torturers, his pogroms, his mass graves, his corruption and his wars, he was simply no Pol Pot and no Hitler. It may not be as hard to get as bad, or worse, as you might think. Other scenarios can be just as bad as totalitarian dictatorship, albeit in different ways. I find your blitheness about the possibility of civil war astonishing. If there's any scenario that could generate more death and suffering than Saddam could have, that's the one. What on earth does Israel have to do with this discussion You mean apart from being widely regarded as the West's key ally in the region? Not a thing. So if that's not part of your argument, fair enough. I'll clarify the point on regional stability later, if I have time.

By: BP

BP — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 07:35:31 +0000

“Perhaps when the US has occupied Iraq as long and as ruthlessly as Syria has occupied Lebanon, or Iraq would have occupied Kuwait absent American intervention, you can say that. Till then, the comparison, frankly, is just silly.” Heh. Heh heh. I would think that when a hostile, monied superpower attacks and occupies a country, and announces its intentions to ‘transform’ the entire Middle Eastern region through military action, sponsoring of subversives etc., that neighboring countries might well regard it as an ‘imminent threat’. “A civil war wouldn’t be optimal, but there are worse outcomes – one of which might have been the continuation of Saddam in power” There are worse outcomes than a civil war? Like what, pray tell? Saddam is no superman; you are thinking as simplistically as GWB’s speechwriters. He is not capable of single-handedly killing thousands of people. For Saddam to match the bodycount of a civil war he would have to be involved in another Iran-Iraq magnitude war, with substantial portions being waged in Iraqi urban areas to simulate the damage civil wars cause. In fact such a war would probably be preferable to civil war, since civil wars have the tendency to fester,spread to neighbors, and wind up in balkanization and ethnic cleansing.

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 06:46:38 +0000

“I don’t see how it’s clear that a continued US presence in Iraq will necessarily be less neighbour-threatening.” Perhaps when the US has occupied Iraq as long and as ruthlessly as Syria has occupied Lebanon, or Iraq would have occupied Kuwait absent American intervention, you can say that. Till then, the comparison, frankly, is just silly. “I don’t see how one could spin another strong man on that model as being a ‘benefit to the health and progress of the region.’” I agree that another Saddam would not be a sign of progress. But Saddam would be awfully hard for the next leader to match for brutal despotism, and awfully easy to improve upon. “(If by ‘less anti-Western’ you mean ‘friendlier to Israel,’ then you probably need to make peace with the fact that your chances of installing sympathy for Israel in Iraq are substantially worse than your chances of turning it into Switzerland-on-the-Tigris.)” What on earth does Israel have to do with this discussion, and why on earth would you suspect me of conflating “less anti-Western” and “friendlier to Israel”? Wait—perhaps you suspect me of being one of those dreadful little people with their pushy ways, stubborn beliefs and inordinate affection for Israel? What do they call them these days….oh, yes—”neoconservatives”. Don’t worry—I’m certainly not one of those…. “The real question isn’t whether we’ll be seeing a “democratized” Iraq anytime soon — the rhetoric about ‘democratization’ was laughable from the get-go — but whether we’ll be seeing a civil war in Iraq. That’s when we’ll know what the geopolitical impact of the invasion was.” A civil war wouldn’t be optimal, but there are worse outcomes—one of which might well have been the continuation of Saddam in power. If there’s somebody worth supporting in the fight, then it might actually prove useful. (Think of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001, for instance.)

By: Doctor Slack

Doctor Slack — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 01:24:51 +0000

Morever, with regard to Libya, sanctions had a lot to do with Qadafi’s actions. I agree with your points except this one. IIRC sanctions on Libya were lifted in 1999 as part of the constructive engagement approach I was referring to.