Phooey! Walzer's article is a pathetic exercise in hand wringing.
You are absolutely right when you say this is an exercise in letting the "perfect be the enemy of the good."
He says continued embargo, containment and inspections more rigorous and intelligent than we have now is the way continue dealing with Iraq.
He also says there is no guarantee, given past performance, that the international community will support such things.
He says,
But however "smart" the sanctions are, they will still constitute a partial blockade and a forceful restraint of trade, and, given the way Saddam spends his available funds, they will impose severe hardships on ordinary Iraqis. It is fair to say that their own government is responsible for these hardships, since it could spend its money differently, but that does not make them easier to bear. Malnourished children, hospitals without medical supplies, declining longevity rates: all this is the (indirect) consequence of the embargo.
Indeed, if even half of what that fink Pilger has in his article is true, [reading forward]
Message 18643845
then letting things continue as they are is a crime against humanity.
He also admits that letting Hussein get his bomb and the other toys is unacceptable. His argument for this is sound.
Then he writes:
Defending the embargo, the American overflights, and the UN inspections: this is the right way to oppose, and to avoid, a war. But it invites the counter-argument that a short war, which made it possible to end the embargo, and the weekly bombings, and the inspection regime, would be morally and politically preferable to this "avoidance." A short war, a new regime, a demilitarized Iraq, food and medicine pouring into Iraqi ports: wouldn't that be better than a permanent system of coercion and control? Well, maybe. But who can guarantee that the war would be short and that the consequences in the region and elsewhere will be limited?
A number of things are guaranteed if things go on as they do now:
The Iraqi people will continue to suffer.
Saddam will sit still until he can make or buy the nukes.
The US (and the West) will continue to see their soft power erode.
The rotten conditions in the Middle East will continue to fester.
This last "Who can guarantee..." sentence is exceeded in fatuity only by what follows.
Well, when I read stuff like this I want to find the writer and kick his ass around the block.
Of course, I guess I'm wrong. What follows is a plan for an anti-war campaign which expects the war to take place and put an end to all the dreadful things he alludes to, but which is positioned to put forward a new vision after the war:
Or, better, we need a campaign that isn't focused only on the war (and that might survive the war)?a campaign for a strong international system, organized and designed to defeat aggression, to stop massacres and ethnic cleansing, to control weapons of mass destruction, and to guarantee the physical security of all the world's peoples. The threefold constraints on Saddam's regime are only one example, but a very important one, of how such an international system should function.
Gosh, here we are back to the Principles of the UN Charter which are eviscerated by the rest of the document.
This guy should be handing out signs in front of the UN saying, "Act on your Principles you hypocritical sluts!"
frank@ieatpeaches.com |
