perfidy

Go read this post from The Volokh Conspiracy's Orin Kerr. He weighs the arguments for and against war, based on expected outcomes. Money quote:

I envy those who seem certain that on balance one side is substantially more likely than the other. I see it as pretty close, or more accurately, far beyond my expertise to make a call one way or the other. All of which leaves me uncertain as to whether the President's strategy is the right one, and leaves me thinking, "Man, I sure hope he knows what he's doing."

'bout right.

Mike, as stated, I agree with you in large part about the war. Very queasy. Just a couple minor points so I don't come off like some Windy City quisling.

First: I think it's a little unfair to classify tear gas as a chemical weapon in the context of the war debate, although it manifestly is one on technical grounds. The term "Chemical Weapons" is undergoing some definition creep, as is "Weapon of Mass Destruction," but it can be understood to mean harsher agents such as mustard and nerve gases rather than the milder stuff used for crowd control. However, your point about the likelihood of police tear-gassing protesters is well taken. The discourse about the war, both on the pro- and anti- side has sunk very, very low, and a postmodernist might view tear gas as a type of "speech," perhaps as an argument-ender for the pro-war government. But I digress. That's about as much postmodernism as I can stomach in one day.

Second: The links between al Qaeda and Palestine, as you rightly point out, are clear and many. However, leaving the "issue for Israel" to deal with might not be the best strategy. After all, it is US policy to support our allies in their own struggles against terrorism, and leaving aside the thorny, convoluted mess that is Israeli/Palestinian fighting, if Israel begins working to get at al Qaeda operatives in Palestine, doesn't the US have a duty to help? Actually, that I'm just asking because I'm not so sure myself, again, given the history of that region.

I had NO IDEA that Ireland might be harboring al Qaeda fugitives. What's your source-- I want to know more!

A troubling story from Stuart Taylor, via The Volokh Conspiracy. If this is true, this is sad news regarding the way the USA is treating even suspected terrorists. I believe strongly that every criminal-- even terrorists-- deserve due process. If, as believed, they are terrorists, they will be dealt with. If, on the other hand, they are victims of mistaken identity, they can as it currently stands be cast into a "Kafkaesque" (Taylor's word) world of permanant jails and privation without appeal or recourse.

This is on of the many ways in which the US must watch its step, or risk sinking to the level of the people we are fighting.

Of course the ratio of civilians killed to bombs dropped has increased, we're dropping far fewer bombs. It would have to go up, even if fewer civilians were being killed.

The number of civilians killed also seems to be rising. Which is the reason for my objection. The last thing we need is for soldiers to become complacent about the quality of their technology. 
 

Have read and greatly appreciate the last couple of posts. That is they make me laugh. Shall we open up a debate on the coming war? Too bad, I'm firing the first shots. Metaphorically speaking of course. I have several objections to the coming war, or at the very least, things that make me very uncomfortable, and I will list them. 

Objection 1: Level of threat. Exactly what threat do Saddam Hussein and Iraq pose to the United States? As I understand it, the al Samoud missiles Hussein claims (yes, I'll certainly concede that it is a claim) he has been destroying have a maximum range of 93 miles. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the United States about 4,000 miles from Iraq (give or take)? He's going to have to tweak those missiles somethin' fierce for them to reach the United States. 

Objection 2: What if this were us? Okay, there are geopolitical legal issues. Hussein has, in all likelihood, not abided by the UN resolutions President Bush, Ari Fleischer, and other government boyos have been touting as cause for war. But here's the thing. Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, but then doesn't the United States? I mean, what if, oh say, France, or possibly the Norwegians, said, "Hey Mr. Uncle Sam with your big hat and funny pants! You have weapons of mass destruction, and we want them destroyed or we will go to war!" Come on. Americans would laugh until they soiled themselves. We do have such weapons, including the "nucular" variety (I'm sorry but I just can't get past that). We have chemical and biological weapons. Maybe some, who would support this coming war, would respond, "Yes, but we never used them on anyone else." I beg to differ. Ask the Japanese about the use of weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps this imaginary person would say, "Well that was a war, and Japan attacked us, but we never used chemical or biological weapons." Again, I beg to differ. Tear gas is a chemical weapon. It has been used on the American people by American government agencies, primarily local police, many times. It will probably be used on those who protest this war as well. 

Objection 3: Exit Strategy. Whatever comes of this, it will probably be bad news. The conquest and occupation of Iraq is going to cost a lot of money, and our economy is poor. The government is not in such great fiscal shape, thanks to the tax cuts President Bush and Congress have implemented. Granted, war has a way of stimulating economies, but we can't blow people up just to get McDonald's back in the black. If the United States removes Hussein, we could easily open the door to a much more anti-American government in Iraq than Hussein's. Perhaps the next government will actually attack the United States, not just Kuwait or the poor Kurds. 

Objection 4: What is this Iraqi terrorism connection of which you speak? I find it difficult to believe that these "links" between al Qaeda and Hussein's government actually exist. Perhaps Hussein has harbored al Qaeda fugitives, but I've got news. That might be true of the Republic of Ireland as well. If President Bush and his government wish to go to war with everyone who harbors, in any way, al Qaeda members, are U.S. marines going to invade Connemara? The clearest links between Hussein and any "terrorist" organization are found in Palestine. Isn't that more of an issue for Israel? 

Well there you are. I've got serious qualms about this war. I expect the fur starts to fly now. Johnny Two-Cents and Buckethead, thank you for the forum.

Windy City, you have just articulated objections that I have been trying to put that eloquently for months. At base, I remain conflicted about the role of the US in the world--are we restricted to just defending our safety as threats arise, or are we committed to a longer-view plan that spreads representative democracy wherever people are oppressed by totalitarian dictatorships?

I don't know. My greatest fear is that the stakes are so high, in so many ways. Will this invasion advance the campaign against global terrorism? Does this administration appreciate how badly a botched invasion will hurt the US's global profile (decades of moral, economic, and political capital... pfft!)? Will it bring about democracy in the Middle East (would that be a good thing (...yeah))? How many people are going to die as a result of this war?

I have some good friends who vociferously oppose the Iraq invasion, and one of them today pointed me to an article in the Christian Science Monitor. The article argues that "Smart Bombs" actually kill more civilians than conventional bombs, since a) they tend to hit what they aim for not matter what it is, b) are exceptionally lethal in their blast area, and c) tend to make spotters complacent about targeting, since they are so accurate, with the result that the target is often Red Cross camps or civilian bomb shelters.

In the Gulf War, just 3 percent of bombs were precision-guided. That figure jumped to 30 percent in the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, and to nearly 70 percent during the Afghan air campaign last year.

Yet in each case, the ratio of civilian casualties to bombs dropped has grown. Technology, say analysts, isn't the key issue. In Afghanistan, tough terrain, inability to discern combatants from civilians, and paucity of fixed military targets led to estimates of 850 to 1,300 civilian deaths. Red Cross food depots depots were hit twice, as well as some mosques, and so was a wedding party of mostly pro-US civilians last July. By one estimate, the number of civilians killed per bomb dropped may have been four times as high in Afghanistan as in Yugoslavia....

A number of factors contribute to this trend, including the changing nature of combat. The US is relying more on air power, in part to protect American lives. Its foes, aware of the propaganda power of civilian deaths, are hiding military equipment and troops in civilian areas. The Amiriyah bunker bombing illustrates some of the problems, including the lack of good intelligence on the ground.

The Pentagon targeted Amiriyah because it picked up electronic signals coming from the site, and spy satellites could see a lot of people and vehicles moving in and out of the bunker. It fit the profile of a military command center, says Charles Heyman, the London-based editor of Jane's World Armies. The Pentagon didn't find out until much later, says Mr. Heyman, that the Iraqis had put an aerial antenna on top of the bunker. The antenna was connected by cable to a communications center safely 300 yards away....

"Smart" bombs have advanced by magnitudes since 1991. But war takes place under imperfect conditions. Targeting data may be faulty, computer chips can fail, and greater accuracy can breed overconfidence.

The air campaign to free Kosovo of Serbian control in 1998 underscores the point, according to Fred Kaplan, author of "The Wizards of Armageddon." "Ton for ton, the bombing killed civilians at the same rate as the [Rolling Thunder] air campaign over Vietnam," Mr. Kaplan wrote. One reason was that the improved accuracy of "smart" bombs "emboldened commanders to aim more bombs at targets that required it," he says- leading to more frequent misses....

I have to confess. I remain horribly conflicted about the Iraq invasion. One one hand-- as an intellectual exercise-- I think getting rid of Hussein is a great idea. However, war is the opposite of an intellectual exercise, and whatever tortured calculus I try to work out within my head gets completely invalidated when masses of civilians die.

Long story short, I'm a long-haired, pussified, foppish, pointy-headed, intellectual milquetoast, and I'm going to stay right here on the fence, wringing my hands, and worrying. Squishy center, indeed.

Well, there were quite a few posts from you, and I read each. A few things to which I'll respond. First, about al Qaeda and the Republic of Ireland. I did write that the Republic of Ireland might be harboring al Qaeda members, not for sure. The source for that are members of the Taoiseach's government who stated in fall of 2001, at that the outset of the "fer us or agin' us" statement on foreign policy. Ireland has always had a very liberal policy when it comes to dissidents and activists of various sorts, adding a nod and a wink. So it's possible, that's all I meant. 

Secondly, this whole thing is a gamble, no matter how you slice it. Mr. Buckethead has offered an optimistic vision with military success followed by political success. But as I tell my students, few things ever go precisely according to plan. I'm not saying that the optimistic vision won't pan out, it might, but if it doesn't? What if the Iraqi troops and general staff don't fold? What if it does come down to street by street and house by house urban warfare in Baghdad? All the military technology in the world could get bogged down. You've got to go in with infantry in that situation, and that's where things can get very, very ugly. Even if the initial military campaign is quick and decisive, what about the occupation? More U.S. troops will probably die at the hands of suicide bombers during the occupation than in combat. The U.S. could be perceived as an illegal occupation force in Iraq, and could be further isolated diplomatically. 

Continuing on the pessimism theme, and on to the inapplicability of the Golden Rule to foreign policy. It's my opinion that the American empire is in decline, because the minute that internal borders have been compromised, it's only a matter of time. It's pretty clear that most people in the world hate the United States. Whether they're justified or not, if the U.S. empire goes down quickly, other countries are going to be looking for some payback. Maybe other countries can't attack us now and dictate things about our weapons, but that day might come, and we just might have to pay the piper. You can call me Chicken Little, and that's possible, but you never know. It does, in part, depend on how you look at it. I don't think other nations and their citizens are going to quietly applaud if the United States eliminates Hussein. They see us as arrogant, not a preserver of global harmony. We're throwing our weight around. 

As to the Palestinian problem meriting our attention, it does. But not in the way the United States has gone about it. The United States government has played favorites with Israel. We've been a bad Mom. A good Mom would say, "Both of you shut up, and sit down. I don't care who started it, knock it off." But we continue to favor the Israelis, while they allow American murder suspects from Maryland safe haven. 

Of course, back to previous topics, these are all mights and maybes and worst case scenarios. They might not even be germane to the subject. But frankly, I won't be participating in anti-war demonstrations. Not because I think the war is a-okey dokey, quite the contrary. I can object to this war until I'm blue in the face, and so can anyone else. The fact is, nobody is going to listen. This decision was made a long time ago at the highest levels of government, and come hell or high water, it's going to happen. There's nothing me, or anyone else in this country, can do anything about it. Nice "republic" we have here. I don't mean this as a personal attack on anyone else's opinion, I hope it isn't perceived that way, but I'm getting awfully frustrated.

...beef with the Norwegians? It's not like they can help it!

...a puce alert. Or at least Aquamaroon.