perfidy

Was arguing with Mike Burton the other day. Mike is uncomfortable with the U.S. exercising its military might in the Middle East. He was basically making the argument, "What right do we have to interfere?" Fair enough. So I asked Mike, a huge Spiderman fan, "What about, 'With great power comes great responsibility'"?” 

We have a moral obligation to use our power for good. We must think very carefully, to determine what course of action will bring about the most good. During the Cold War, we allied ourselves with some repugnant dictators, but with the larger purpose of fighting a greater evil, communism. Now, that reason no longer exists - we need no longer coddle jackbooted thugs in third world capitals. When we look at Saddam Hussein, we can see that he is clearly, solidly in the repugnant dictator category. He oppresses the Iraqi people. Rape, torture, arbitrary executions, economic privation and near total lack of freedom is the daily lot of the Iraqi citizen. 

Also, he gives support to terrorists of all stripes as a matter of state policy. He has invaded his neighbors. He has developed chemical and biological weapons, and used them. He has attempted to develop nuclear weapons, with the help of the French. There is a strong likelihood that Saddam would either provide such weapons to terrorists, or adopt terrorist methodology himself to deliver those weapons to American targets. These are all reasons that pretty much everyone agrees the world would be a better place if Saddam predeceased us. (The French have been very careful not to talk about Iraq - their opposition is based on America, not Iraq.) 

On the other side of the moral calculus, we must take into consideration the consequences of using military force. This, I think, is where John has the most problems. Mike seems to have more problems with justifications for war, even admitting that Saddam is the star of his own personal villainous Jackasserama. There are two groups of sane arguments against a U.S. invasion. One focuses on the practical aspects:

1) Civilian casualties 

2) Diplomatic blowback / Increase anti-Americanism worldwide 

3) Destabilize the Middle East / Make things worse

The other is more theoretical.

1) Just war theory / Applying the Golden Rule to International relations 

2) Moral Equivalence Arguments 

3) Great Power politics

In the first category, we have some potentially serious - less than optimal - outcomes. Are we justified in invading when things might end up worse? Are we justified in invading - even if we succeed in all our goals - if thirty thousand Iraqis die? These are the core questions. 

First, based on my study of the U.S. military, I can virtually guarantee that the now imminent conflict with Iraq will be swift and relatively bloodless. There will be no Stalingrads. (Ve vill not have much fun in Stalingrad, no.) The U.S. armed forces are in the early stages of a revolution in military affairs that is equal in importance to the adoption of gunpowder. No other nation has begun this process. The result is that our military has an unparalleled comparative lethality and effectiveness. 

The war will be over in two or three weeks, and civilian casualties will be low - probably less than 2000, though we will hear complaints from the left that casualties are in the tens or even hundreds of thousands. The Iraqi army will for the most part simply surrender. Those elements of the Army that do resist will be swiftly annihilated. The Iraqi army is to the U.S. military what the Zulus were to the British army. And yes, I know about Isandhlwhana - which was the result of stupendous idiocy on the part of the British commander - who did absolutely everything wrong. More important, as an example, was Rourke's Drift, where 100 British soldiers held off 5000 Zulus for almost a day, killing half of them in the process. Technology and discipline allowed the British to defeat vastly numerically superior forces. The same will happen in Iraq. (and the Iraqi army isn't as big as it once was) 

So, that objection is out of the way. The other two are closely related, and harder to figure. However, given that the calculated risk in terms of battlefield and civilian casualties is so low, that gives us wriggle room in our calculations for the other factors. 

Here are some points to consider. The French have always been pains in the ass. Their behavior over the last several months should come as no particular surprise, though we should wonder what they hope to gain from it. Nearly every European nation except France, Germany and Belgium officially supports us. Around the world, the reaction is mixed, but hardly uniformly against us. China and Russia are opposed, but China is still officially a communist nation for Christ's sake, and Russia has legitimate sphere of influence style arguments against American involvement, as well as lucrative trade deals and mountains of uncollected debt with the current regime. 

All of these nations are acting in what they perceive to be their own national interest. They are accorded no opprobrium for doing so. Only the United States is targeted with this criticism. The French, for example, have been fighting for months in the Ivory Coast without UN sanction. The African terrorists didn't destroy the Eiffel tower and kill 3000 French citizens, either. 

I don't think the world will hate us any more (or any less) after we induce Saddam to shuffle off this mortal coil. Most people will breathe a quiet sigh of relief that someone did the job. And though they wish the cowboy Americans weren't so damnably powerful, they certainly weren't going to do the job themselves. 

In the next couple years, I think that the real diplomatic blowback will be on the French and the Germans. They have pissed us off. They will be locked out of the settlement in post war Iraq. France's arrogant attempts to usurp leadership of the still nascent European superstate have alarmed much of southern and eastern Europe. I don't think that they'll be able to quietly slip through the pro-French EU constitution. And they won't get any help from us. France's position in the world has already been weakened, and will be weakened further once we successfully and very quickly put an end to Saddam's regime. 

As for destabilizing the Middle East, that's not a bug, that's a feature. We will be installed directly in the geopolitical heart of the Middle East. We'll have bases that no one will be able to dictate the use of but us. U.S. Army, Air Force and Marine units will be bordering Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia; the three largest surviving Islamic terrorist supporting nations. We will be able to put the arm on them, but good. 

And remember, similar fears were voiced about the first Gulf War. The eruption of the "Arab street" after our stunning victory was rather… anticlimactic. I think the same will be true here. And as for making things worse in Iraq, I don't see how they could be significantly worse. If we succeed in establishing a new polity that is as prosperous and free as say, South Korea in 1970, we will have achieved a great victory. If we do better - and we have in the past - then that's just gravy. A prosperous and free Iraq would virtually win the war on terrorism all by itself.