perfidy

The problem with cesspools is that there are so many of them, and the temptation to try to drain them all is so strong. You can try all you want, but you'll just end up covered in filth.

Mmmmm, pithy!

Mike, in my opinion the case for libervading Afghanistan was much, much more compelling than that for Iraq. In September '01 all that was clear was that al Qaeda had planned the attacks, that they were currently being housed and supported by the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, and that swift action was called for. Fair enough. Ass-whupping and libervasion to follow. And, despite what I have said in the past about the US's role in muddling the situation in Afghanistan, I'm willing to count many things as total improvements there. Life is better. That being said, the libervasion of, and the improvement of life in, Afghanistan are two separate issues. The improvements are merely welcome side-effects to the real mission of crippling al Qaeda and their backers.

The same applies to Iraq. The difference is that, in the case of Iraq, the stated reasons for needing to invade at the moment have not, in my opinion, proven compelling.

Buckethead, I disagree with you on three fronts. First, you wrote in response to Windy City Mike, "Is it impossible for you to imagine that there might be good in this, and that the effect on the Iraqi people is net positive?" That's not the point. Of course there is good in this! But the effect on the Iraqi people is not the question at hand. The question is, was the President being straight up about the threat that the Hussein regime's Weapons of Mass Destruction posed to the US and other nations, and was he being straight up about Iraq's deep and abiding connections to Islamic terrorism? As I've said before, the net postive effect on the Iraqi people is a fabulous boon, but diplomatically, and for the purposes of whether Bush's case to the world was sizzle or steak, it doesn't enter into the question, for us or Bush. In his State of the Union address, the President devoted two paragraphs to Hussein's human rights violations. He devoted sixteen-- about 1,200 words-- to Weapons of Mass Destruction.

On that matter, you write, "But remember, this is not a court of law. We simply do not have to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that these nations are threats. So, the fact that we haven't found (yet) ironclad evidence of WMD is not that significant." I disagree totally. The Weapons of Mass Destruction were the main reason that Dubya offered to the American people and the world in the SOTU. Bush was careful to frame his argument in the context of Hussein's noncompliance with the UN, but also expressed certainty that Hussein was intending to use his WMD's shortly. His closing statement was "We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

Fine. We led the coalition. Now where the hell are the 30,000 warheads, 25,000 liters of Anthrax, and the 38,000 liters of Botulin toxin? And why did he cite the "significant quantities of uranium from Africa," knowing as we now do that the intelligence behind it was shaky? I find it disturbing that the President may have overstated his intelligence for the sake of a Grand Middle East Plan (as you posit), and horrifying that absolutely none of the material we went into Iraq to find has been located. 25,000 liters of Anthrax is pretty damn significant, whether diplomatically or otherwise.

Furthermore, our failure so far to find them has concrete results-- for example, India's decision not to send troops to Iraq to relieve the 3rd Infantry, currently in their 10th month of continuous deployment. India will send troops only under an "explicit UN mandate." Oooh-- burn!! That's not to mention the heat that Tony Blair continues to take for his bold decision to back the US. When you say that international opinion simply doesn't matter, you are simply dead wrong. We needn't be slaves to it, but it bears remembering that those once bitten bite back.

Buckethead, you also wrote: "We were attacked, and we are taking steps to assure that it does not happen again. If, in the process, we violate some nations' soveriegnty, so be it. If, in the process, we sledgehammer some fascist regimes and liberate their people, great. Eliminating international terrorism is doing a favor for the world. Like eliminating the international slave trade was when Britain did that in the nineteenth century." What are we, the Incredible Hulk? "Hulk smash! Napster bad!" Like the Onion put it, you are limiting our choices to two: blind rage, or measured, focused rage. Are these really our only choices? Besides, does defining our mission in this way excuse us from attending to the complexities of the situations we create? In the past, you have conceded that "with great power, comes great responsibility," adhering to the Spider-Man thesis of American foreign policy. Why ignore that now?