Rascal,
Here's my review of Schroeder's article
Schroeder starts by proposing to consider the practical risks, and says that we have no open allies but Israel.
For starters, that's false. Are Britain and Australia chopped liver? they are open allies. But to jump to the conclusion that the war will be "fought with few allies or none" is pretty peculiar, considering that we are already getting practical on-the-ground support from Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Turkey among others. Lack of open support this minute is a far cry from having no allies -- remember Hawk's bully in the schoolyard analogy. When we commit, we will have plenty of allies.
Then of course, he paints the bleakest of pictures or the war "millions of casualties", etc. Remotely possible, but hardly likely.
The administration’s justification for preemptive war is the traditional one: that the dangers and costs of inaction far outweigh those of acting now...This essay proposes to confront this case for preemptive war on Iraq head on. My argument stresses principles and long-term structural effects rather than prudence and short-term results. It rests not on judgments and predictions about future military and political developments, which I am not qualified to make, but on a perspective missing from the current discussion, derived from history, especially the history of European and world politics over the last four centuries
This is called giving yourself latitude -g-. Also, to my mind, conceding that the administrations strongest arguments have been prudential and short-term, such as the necessity of preventing Saddam from getting nukes. So he opposes the war because it is
Illegitimate, because it cannot be justified on any of the grounds by which preemptive wars are and should be judged and would represent and promote dangerous, lawless international behavior; Incompatible with the purpose, spirit, and aims of the worldwide military and political alliances which the United States leads, and therefore harmful both to these alliances and to American leadership; Incompatible also with the two central principles by which the international system has evolved over centuries, namely, the right of all states to be recognized and treated as independent
First claim: the threat is not immediate because we don't know if Saddam has nukes and we are cynically against weapon inspections.
There is a history of Saddam's continuous desperate attempts to get nukes, which Schroeder ignores but I think has been clearly demonstrated elsewhere by now, and also a history of Saddam's non-compliance with inspections, which is also ignored (so is the entire Gulf War and all that followed it)
Second claim: we never overthrew Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, we even supported it, so we have no right to overthrow now.
So? So we react differently to countries that threaten our enemies than to countries that threaten us, so what? It is usually the liberals who claim that the US must only fight wars for pure altruism, no fair fighting for ones own interests -- but right and left seem to be merging in this debate. Considering the horrible nature of Saddam's regime, liberals should be cheering this war.
Third claim: Saddam would never be so suicidal as to attack the US, directly or through terrorists.
This morning's WSJ reported that he has already tried -- so failure to achieve a 9/11-scale strike was a failure of competence, not of will. All observers of Saddam agree that revenge is one of his top motivators. How rational was it to try to assassinate GHW Bush while American warplanes control one third of your country?
Fourth claim: Saddam didn't do 9/11, he's secular, and so on, so there's no motive for war against him.
The pro-war argument does not depend on Saddam's having actually done 9/11, just on his being both a state supporter of terrorism and an unacceptable threat. The claim that because Saddam is secular he would have nothing to do with Islamists is obviously false and is belied by Saddam's propaganda of recent years, where he wraps himself in an Islamist mantle, as well as his history of using and training terrorists, including Islamists.
Fifth claim: It's implausible that" a superpower with an historically unprecedented position of unchallenged military superiority, is threatened by an impoverished, ruined, insecure state halfway round the world"
Mohammed Atta did 9/11 with boxcutters, dude. The rules for threat assessment have changed. Actually Schroeder admits that Saddam is both dangerous and uncontainable and needs to go
If our basic problem is that Saddam Hussein is an evil ruler with hostile and dangerous attitudes and purposes, and if the only solution to that problem we will accept is to get rid of him right now, then the problem is indeed insoluble by peaceful means.
but then does a quick side step into the un-Americanness of the precedent that would be set:
Sixth claim: But you can't go around whacking just anybody you don't like.
But to claim that any ruler we consider evil and hostile represents a danger to peace and American interests and security such that he should be overthrown by American military power is a really extraordinary claim – one that the rest of the world must sooner or later find intolerable and one out of keeping with central American traditions and values
This is a charge often heard from the anti-war crowd -- we can't go around bashing just any regime we think is evil. But Iraq is not "just any" regime -- there is a whole track record of its uniquely aggressive and uncotrollable behavior, along with worthless armistice agreements and broken binding UN resolutions. This is not true anywhere else. Furthermore, America does reserve the right to use military might to protect itself from unacceptable threats, and it always has -- this is what the "sovereign" in sovereign states means.
Seventh claim: Deterence is working fine; Saddam hasn't attacked anybody lately.
Piffle. Go read Ken Pollack or anyone else who has been watching Saddam's behavior. He is not contained and what deterrence there is, is breaking down -- as Schroeder himself admitted a few paragraphs ago.
Then, having concluded that these seven claims "prove" there is no justification for the war, the author claims a war would shred the international system:
The United States will be declaring not simply verbally but by using its overwhelming armed force that a state may justly launch a war against another much smaller and weaker state even though it cannot prove that the enemy represents an imminent, direct, and critical threat, or show that the threat could not be deterred or managed by means other than war. It need only claim that the regime and its leader are evil, harbor hostile intentions, were attempting to arm themselves with dangerous weapons, and might therefore attempt at some future time to carry out their hostile aims, and that this claim as to an opponent’s potential capabilities and intentions, a claim made solely by the attacking state and not subject to any international examination, justifies that state in eliminating the allegedly dangerous regime and leader preemptively.
Here the case is a little stronger, though it was made much better by Henry Kissinger -- some respect must be paid to the opinion of mankind, a case must be made. And it's being made (or why are we mucking about in the UN?), which Schroeder also ignores.
Then Schroeder goes into the terrible damage the European-American rift over this war will do, doubting reflexive anti-Americanism, giving sympathy to the Euro's fears
What they fear is what they see as an ignorant, arrogant American hubris and recklessness in the use of that power increasingly evidenced by this administration, especially on this issue.
I must say, I don't expect this line of argument in Pat Buchanan's magazine, nor a sudden tenderness for NATO! There is a rift -- Euro (sans Britain) wants to appease the threat, while we prefer to confront it. In all the mourning over our lack of European allies, Schroeder doesn't explain why this is terrible for America. Has he noticed that only Britain is even capable of rendering military assistance? Nor will the other countries cease police cooperation -- they can't afford to. These Islamofascists don't have the sense to divide their victims by only attacking Americans -- they blow up French ships, Aussie and German tourists, whatever. We're all infidels.
Then Schroeder takes us on a little history of the international system, which we're supposedly going to wreck with this Iraqi war. I would refer to Jon Chait's arguments as to why those who defend international law should support this war -- the list of international laws that Saddam has broken is a long one. Does Schroeder suppose that the international system will be better maintained with no policing of broken treaties and armistices than with policing? Who will be the policeman, if not the US?
Then Schroeder makes the claim that drives me batty -- we can't object to Saddam's having nukes, it's not fair!
The charge is rather that states like Iraq, because they have undemocratic governments, unjust social structures, dangerous ideologies, and criminal leaders (all according to American criteria) have no inherent right to seek or possess the same weapons of mass destruction as law-abiding democratic states possess, and deserve to be restrained, punished, and finally militarily overthrown by the United States if they persist in developing them, regardless of what other states think about this procedure.
Only deliberate effort enables one fully to grasp the implications of such a position. It is as clear a negation of the fundamental principle of the juridical equality and coordinate status of all recognized states within the international system as one could imagine.
I could reply facetiously that I don't really think Saddam is old enough to have his own nukes, but I will just say that even under a judicial system (which does not exist internationally, despite attempts by Schroeder and his ilk to wish one into being), felons out on parole do not have the same rights as other citizens. Saddam gave up his rights to WMDs in the Gulf War armistice.
Then Schroeder brings out the heavy cannon: the war is Imperialist! We proclaim our right to arbitrate what goes in Iraq!
Yes. It's imperialist. But once again he acts like this is a novelty; in fact, it's been true for twelve years now.
Then comes the inevitable Cold War parallel. Deterrence is not so bad, it worked during the Cold War. We can wait around.
Schroeder thinks this is the coup de grace. But after Stalin got nukes, we had no choice but a Cold War and we ceded him Eastern Europe. Just as we will be deterred if Saddam gets nukes. Does Schroeder think ceding the Persian Gulf to Saddam is a good idea? Has it not occurred to him that we have national interests there, interests he is quick to remember only when warning about the risks of the war?
And the Russians were more rational than Saddam and had more to lose. They didn't live for revenge as Saddam does. We were pretty sure they wouldn't shoot off missiles for the heck of it, and we had their address if they tried. Who feels sure about what Saddam would do with a suitcase nuke, and who says he couldn't do it? Do you think that Customs could stop it? Be serious. That is why we cannot accept this level of threat. We knew it dimly before, but 9/11 brought it into sharp focus.
So altogether, this article seems very weak to me and its arguments are inconsistent. Saddam is a threat, but that's no reason to act. We'll shred the international system by enforcing existing treaties. There are only only two solid points on the anti-war side: that we will alter the international system and that deterrence might work. In each case, Schroeder fails to bring anything new to the table or even to lay out the best arguments of others. |
