(no subject)
Mar. 18th, 2003 11:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nibotIt looks like 0-hour of this war we've been hearing so much about is now not more than 24 hours away, and, I have to say, I think it's about time. With this level of inevitability, it's time to hope for the best, both at home and abroad. I half expect riots in San Francisco. But the war is another story.
This war has all the makings of something incredibly foolhardy. It's a war of choice -- remember, there was no direct provocation. Whatever happens, we should keep that in mind. Furthermore, the validity of the causus belli is dubious at best. The official reason for attacking Iraq is that they have or are attempting to make the exact sort of weapons that the United States already has. Iraq is telling the world exactly the same things about the U.S. as the U.S. is saying about Iraq, like some juvenile game of "I know you are but what am I?". The hubris is thick as pea soup and just as opaque. It's all the more disconcerting when we remember the degree to which the American public (and, indeed, the world at large) was deceived about the actualities of the first gulf war. Only years later did the facts creep out: The patriot missile was actually a complete failure. Soldiers were exposed to chemical weapons and contracted weird diseases. And so on. The media coverage this time is broader, but we must with vigilence seek to cut through the propaganda.
On the other hand, it's possible that the other official line of reasoning may take form: Saddam Hussein is a malevolent tyrant who must be replaced with democratic government. I do not agree with forceful implementation of democracy (which is probably an oxymoron anyway), but if democracy really is established in Iraq, then it will be good for Iraq, good for the Middle East, and good for the world. Bush has publicly committed himself to 'nation building' in Iraq, and I think that this is the main reason that public support for the war is as high as it is. I think he'll be held to it. Additionally, I think this forces him to pay more attention to the Israeli-Arab conflict and the establishment of a Palestinian state, as he has indicated with his 'road map' and as is supported by the election of a prime minister in the Palestinian Authority.
If this enterprise goes well, the invasion of Iraq will be seen as a bold and daring act of bravery, but if it goes poorly, then it will be remembered as a foolish act of hubris and unprovoked belligerancy. Now it's pretty much a roll of the dice. Let's hope for the best.
This war has all the makings of something incredibly foolhardy. It's a war of choice -- remember, there was no direct provocation. Whatever happens, we should keep that in mind. Furthermore, the validity of the causus belli is dubious at best. The official reason for attacking Iraq is that they have or are attempting to make the exact sort of weapons that the United States already has. Iraq is telling the world exactly the same things about the U.S. as the U.S. is saying about Iraq, like some juvenile game of "I know you are but what am I?". The hubris is thick as pea soup and just as opaque. It's all the more disconcerting when we remember the degree to which the American public (and, indeed, the world at large) was deceived about the actualities of the first gulf war. Only years later did the facts creep out: The patriot missile was actually a complete failure. Soldiers were exposed to chemical weapons and contracted weird diseases. And so on. The media coverage this time is broader, but we must with vigilence seek to cut through the propaganda.
On the other hand, it's possible that the other official line of reasoning may take form: Saddam Hussein is a malevolent tyrant who must be replaced with democratic government. I do not agree with forceful implementation of democracy (which is probably an oxymoron anyway), but if democracy really is established in Iraq, then it will be good for Iraq, good for the Middle East, and good for the world. Bush has publicly committed himself to 'nation building' in Iraq, and I think that this is the main reason that public support for the war is as high as it is. I think he'll be held to it. Additionally, I think this forces him to pay more attention to the Israeli-Arab conflict and the establishment of a Palestinian state, as he has indicated with his 'road map' and as is supported by the election of a prime minister in the Palestinian Authority.
If this enterprise goes well, the invasion of Iraq will be seen as a bold and daring act of bravery, but if it goes poorly, then it will be remembered as a foolish act of hubris and unprovoked belligerancy. Now it's pretty much a roll of the dice. Let's hope for the best.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-03-19 12:26 am (UTC)W vs Saddam
Date: 2003-03-19 11:08 am (UTC)Will a lot of angry Iraqis (and sympathizers) be a stabilising force in the world?