In my opinion, the practical side is pretty clearly a definite go. Saddam gone, threat to America reduced, increased leverage in the Middle East, decent shot at the good life for Iraqis, and France gets the shaft in Europe.
The theoretical questions are harder to answer. John remains conflicted about America's role in the world, and Mike poses several questions on when wars are just. What I think it boils down to is that Norway is different from the United States, and that international relations in general bear no resemblance to relations between the nations of the west, let alone between citizens of this country.
Last one first: international relations is the story of who gets screwed by who. History is a narrative of the follies and betrayals of mankind. International politics is just history in realtime. Over the centuries, we have seen that there has never been a time when someone could cry, Rodney King-like, "Why can't we all just get along?" and have it stick.
As a general rule, nations will act in their own interest. "There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests." This means that like minded nations can sign treaties, trade and work together; band together for common defense; etc. In this, they are like individuals. However, nations and more specifically their rulers are not always, well, reasonable. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, in rough order of murderousness are a few examples. Attempts at creating supranational organizations to fill the role that a nation has for individuals have uniformly failed. International relations is an anarchy.
Inside the United States, you and I can sign a contract (treaty), conduct business (international trade), etc, in the knowledge that the U.S. government will prevent abuses and ensure justice. With the threat of force backing a consistent, universal law. This is largely why we all get along - because we know that in we aren't going to get killed for making the wrong decision, and that everyone plays by the same rules. This situation is also the case in most of Europe, Japan, and a few other places.
Europe was able to create among themselves the beginnings of an international order. Why were they able to do this? Because the United States guaranteed the security of every western European nation. They were able to negotiate a larger framework because we provided security for absolutely everyone, not just the big nations. In the larger world, this is hardly the case. For most of the world treaties, resolutions and what have you have absolutely no meaning unless backed with a threat of retaliation for violating the terms of the treaty, resolution, etc. This is a Hobbesian world. As a nation, we have the sovereign right to decide on foreign policy, war, etc. We make these decisions in the light of our own security and interests. To do otherwise is foolish.
Happily, though, we are a good people, by and large. What we want is for everyone to get along, and have stuff, and not kill or oppress each other. We tend to use our power for these purposes. The United States, far more than the United Nations, has been a force for order and prosperity and freedom in the world. Because of the investment of trillions of dollars for arms, and at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives, we helped free Europe first from the horrors of Fascism, then from Communism. Our commitment to these principles over the last seven decades means that millions who were oppressed are now free.
Which is my segue into the other point, that the U.S. is not Norway. Because the United States is so phenomenally wealthy that even our poor are richer than 90% of the world's population, and because we are so technologically advanced and basically just really damn puissant, we can with very little effort (just over 3% of GNP) expenditure field armed forces that could conceivably take out every other military force in the world. The reason that this is the case is that we have liberty, and freedom, and rule of law. This allows us to be the free-wheeling, innovating, unpredictable, whimsical materialist, deeply religious, rig and run, can do, fuck with me and you're dead but after we kill you will bring you back to life and build you a mansion kind of people that we are.
We are the eight thousand pound gorilla. Even though it may be unfair for Norway, different physical laws apply to gorillas of our size. We affect international relations whether we want to or not. When we sneeze, the French dive under a couch and wave a white flag.
Robert Kagan had a wonderful analogy. Europe and America are like two people trapped in a forest with a rabid, hungry bear. The American has a laser sighted .50 cal Barrett sniper rifle with homing bullets. The Europeans have a swiss army knife. Naturally, these two will have a different perception of threat levels. It makes sense for the European to hang back, try to reason with the bear, or run away. The bear seeking bullet armed American is going to think, "I'll just shoot that B-ar."
We define acceptable threat levels, because we can act if we deem the threat significant. We weigh the benefits of actions against the cost. And even a very low probability of getting nuked at work (one block from the White House as I write this) is unacceptable. We fought the Axis in WWII directly, and directly caused millions of civilian deaths. And we were right to do so. We decided to fight the communists indirectly, and caused no Russian casualties, though perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilians dies in Korea, Vietnam, or through our inaction in Cambodia, etc.
We have the right to do this because we have a republican system of government that represents the entire nation, not just the will of crack smoking dictator. If the leaders of this country do things that are wrong, disastrous or immoral, then the American people will through the bums out. (eventually.) We have a free, self correcting governing system. We have for the better part of the last century fought around the world to increase freedom. Large parts of the world are now free, or at least much freer than they were. And Iraq is next.
You can't apply the Golden Rule to every instance of foreign policy. "What if somebody did that to you?" Well, they can't. What if a rapist complained to a policeman who shot him in the course of arrest, and said, "What if somebody did that to you?" Well, the policeman was justified, and the rapist isn't.
Moral equivalence is not a valid argument, because we are not morally equivalent to the Iraq and Saddam, or Saudi Arabia, or Syria, or North Korea, or even the first victims of WMD, militarist Japan. Using tear gas on some dirty hippy protestors throwing rocks at McD's is not the same as dropping sarin gas on a village of 5000.
Though we are not the same as Norway, we will not invade them. Now that we are past the need to ally ourselves with any fascist wingnut dictator who happened to be (or claimed to be) anticommunist, we are targeting the supporters of state terrorism, collectors of WMD, the threats to the tranquility of the world. The war on terror was specifically not a war on Al Quaida. It is war against all who use terror, or support those who do. Saddam counts on both. We don't need a direct connection to Osama, though there are connections. And all the other nations are, to paraphrase Francis from Stripes, "On our list."
I think that this is part of a long term - not plan - but rather process where the U.S. through direct action or by example moves towards freedom. The United States is like a wrecking ball for tyranny - every time we go up against one, we destroy it, and not always with military might. We are subverting the Middle East as we speak, and through no particular effort of ours. Just by being our crazy, whacky selves. Since we cannot crawl into a hole and drag it in after us, we must use our powers for good. (Which is why the dirty hippy protestors are important - if they ever manage to convince the middle of the body politic that things is goin wrong, then it all comes to a dead stop. Self correcting, and even dirty hippies can be useful.)
March 2003
on
| § 0
