Wednesday, July 28, 2004
"Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied,
And vice sometimes by action dignified."
This is old news now, of course, but I’m trying to clarify my thoughts. You can argue about how the Iraq war was waged, but I can only see the following objections to it on principle:
1) The Saddam Hussein regime is “good”.
2) It’s none of our business. It’s an Iraqi problem.
3) Iraq is better off under Hussein than some American puppet regime.
4) Would really love to help, but do need the UN etc…
5) A dangerous precedent in interference in other states by the powerful is set.
6) It will make the world a more dangerous place.
OK, responses.
1) This can be dismissed out of hand.
2) This is morally reprehensible. First, it was not a legitimate regime under any useful definition. I don’t care about international recognition; there was no governing by the will of the Iraqi people. Secondly, this argument implies a belief that not one British life should be spent combating oppression of “other peoples”. However, if you believe that, you know, we’re all people, then the argument falls down. It also begs the question, “What do we still have an army for?” If not to protect the downtrodden around the world, if not to combat ruthless murdering bastards, then why do we need armed forces at all? Personally, I lose no sleep over the Danish menace. And everyone volunteered for service, these aren’t conscripts. You could, of course, say, “Yes. We should completely disarm.” I’m alright, Jack etc. Fine. Nice one.
3) No. The American forces may not create a Mesopotamian Amsterdam, but they would be hard pressed to install a more repressive regime.
4) Well, the international coalition *is* broad. Also, if the UN could not fully get behind intervention due to the enormous contracts the French and Russians had with the Baathists, then the moral legitimacy of the UN is lost. I’ll take what I can get outside of it. (NB: The sanctions killing all those kids was UN-supported. The no fly zones weren't.)
5) Since when have powerful states not interfered in weaker nations? Even over the last thirty-odd years we have the US overthrowing Allende in Chile, meddling in Nicaragua, going into Panama… Please, this is no precedent. However, neither is it a simple continuation of US foreign policy. In Chile a democratically elected government was overthrown and a military dictatorship installed. This… is… the… opposite…
6) Who knows? Do we (democracies, those not subscribing to Sharia law) have to run all our policy past Al-Queda? Giving in to terrorists is everywhere and rightly condemned. And they hate us anyway, they don’t need any more reasons. See also: bombs in Turkey and Morocco. And Syria is shitting themselves, the dictator's bluff has been called. And the Saudis' oil monopoly is/will be broken. There are positive knock on effects too.
The “well, Saddam was the West’s friend once. Ahhhh…” argument is ridiculous. So nothing should ever have been done against him? A touching case for loyalty to old pals. In fact, a salutary lesson that “the West” shouldn’t prop up maniacal despots in the interests of “stability”.
|
And vice sometimes by action dignified."
This is old news now, of course, but I’m trying to clarify my thoughts. You can argue about how the Iraq war was waged, but I can only see the following objections to it on principle:
1) The Saddam Hussein regime is “good”.
2) It’s none of our business. It’s an Iraqi problem.
3) Iraq is better off under Hussein than some American puppet regime.
4) Would really love to help, but do need the UN etc…
5) A dangerous precedent in interference in other states by the powerful is set.
6) It will make the world a more dangerous place.
OK, responses.
1) This can be dismissed out of hand.
2) This is morally reprehensible. First, it was not a legitimate regime under any useful definition. I don’t care about international recognition; there was no governing by the will of the Iraqi people. Secondly, this argument implies a belief that not one British life should be spent combating oppression of “other peoples”. However, if you believe that, you know, we’re all people, then the argument falls down. It also begs the question, “What do we still have an army for?” If not to protect the downtrodden around the world, if not to combat ruthless murdering bastards, then why do we need armed forces at all? Personally, I lose no sleep over the Danish menace. And everyone volunteered for service, these aren’t conscripts. You could, of course, say, “Yes. We should completely disarm.” I’m alright, Jack etc. Fine. Nice one.
3) No. The American forces may not create a Mesopotamian Amsterdam, but they would be hard pressed to install a more repressive regime.
4) Well, the international coalition *is* broad. Also, if the UN could not fully get behind intervention due to the enormous contracts the French and Russians had with the Baathists, then the moral legitimacy of the UN is lost. I’ll take what I can get outside of it. (NB: The sanctions killing all those kids was UN-supported. The no fly zones weren't.)
5) Since when have powerful states not interfered in weaker nations? Even over the last thirty-odd years we have the US overthrowing Allende in Chile, meddling in Nicaragua, going into Panama… Please, this is no precedent. However, neither is it a simple continuation of US foreign policy. In Chile a democratically elected government was overthrown and a military dictatorship installed. This… is… the… opposite…
6) Who knows? Do we (democracies, those not subscribing to Sharia law) have to run all our policy past Al-Queda? Giving in to terrorists is everywhere and rightly condemned. And they hate us anyway, they don’t need any more reasons. See also: bombs in Turkey and Morocco. And Syria is shitting themselves, the dictator's bluff has been called. And the Saudis' oil monopoly is/will be broken. There are positive knock on effects too.
The “well, Saddam was the West’s friend once. Ahhhh…” argument is ridiculous. So nothing should ever have been done against him? A touching case for loyalty to old pals. In fact, a salutary lesson that “the West” shouldn’t prop up maniacal despots in the interests of “stability”.
|
