Bush did not invent preemption.
Certainly he did not invent the concept. However, he is legitimizing it, which I find quite dangerous for the future of this planet.
Will we do more harm than good to wait and see what aggression Saddam contemplates?
Assuming, of course, that he IS indeed contemplating some aggression. I don't see any convincing argument to this end. Do I like him? No. Would I like to live under his rule? No. However, is this distaste enough for me to agree with an invasion of his country, subsequent deaths in thousands, and a puppet government to exploit Iraq's oil reserves? Again, no.
There is no point in making rules against non- proliferation, or adjuring demilitarization of certain territories, or otherwise imposing international obligations, if there is neither the capacity nor the will to enforce them.
I agree completely. Where we differ is the method of enforcement. I happen to believe that invasion of a country is not the optimal method to enforce its compliance to obligations. Not only is it overkill, but is very probably counterproductive, for people who are invaded tend to be very resentful of it. This tends to benefit the opposition to the invading power.
I agree that compliance to agreements should be enforced. In Iraq's case, I see two important issues:
(1) Iraq has not aggressed its neighbours (or anyone else, for that matter) in the past decade
(3) There is no sign whatsoever that it plans to in the future
(2) The region is extremely unstable, hence an invasion might have very unfavourable results, especially since the neighbouring countries' people (with the exception of Israel) will undoubtably see this as (a) killing of their Muslim brothers (b) imperialism aiming the oil
If our priority is to ensure that Iraq will remain as docile as it has been since the Gulf War, clearly searching for hidden weapons (the existence of which is not clear and, even if they exist, can stay hidden despite inspections) or invasion (that alienates Iraqis, Muslims, and many other countries including Europeans alike) is counter-productive.
What we need is for Saddam to be certain that if Iraq threatens, aggresses, or tries to invade another country, they are toast. Certainty of destruction, after all, kept the mighty Soviet Empire from attacking anyone for a very long time. I am yet to see a convincing argument as to why it should not work for Iraq ("He is a madman" just does not count as an argument, unfortunately"), especially since a milder version has worked in the past decade. |
