[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

Cool Hand, that's a very good analysis and I mostly agree that that's what Bush and cadre were thinking. In my opinion access to oil played a larger role in their thought process than you seem to think, but otherwise I think you are probably right.

Thanks, GD. Who really knows? It's just speculation.

I don't doubt that our interests in maintaining a ready access to trade in crude oil from the Middle East plays a substantial role in our presence there. The industrialized world is too dependent on Middle Eastern oil for us not to care about the political and military stability of the region. It may seem callous to some people for those interests to play a substantial role in policy making, but I submit that it's naive to discount it. Self-proclaimed peace lovers who denounce "No blood for oil" might find themselves shifting their stances somewhat if gasoline in the U.S. suddenly became in short supply, and as a result they couldn't drive to work and had to pay 3 times what they do now for groceries and other basic necessities.

Life in a complex world economy isn't so simple and binary. It's also a lot more pragmatic and dominated by self interest than many are willing to admit. I don't delude myself into believing that our actions are dominated by altruistic ideals. On the other hand, opponents of our actions sometimes act as if their opposition is premised on altruistic ideals when it truly isn't.

Where I differ with the Bush team (and maybe with you, I don't know) is that any of that thinking is reasonable. To mass all terrorism together into one movement that can be fought and defeated is like trying to attack the concept of guerilla warfare or attrition warfare by attacking particular targets. Terrorism is a tactic. I think most of us share the opinion that it is a despicable tactic (I do), but it is not a unifying ideology like anti-Semitism, communism, or even fascism. To attack Hussein because he provided some support to groups who use the same tactic as Al Qaeda is just plain silly.

I agree with you about the terrorism vs. terrorists argument. Transnational terrorism is mostly a tactic employed by the politically and militarily impotent. It's a last resort to gain attention to the causes of terrorists.

I disagree with your conclusion that attacking Hussein is silly due to his support of terrorists dedicated to harming the U.S. and its political allies. From a deterrence perspective, it is reasonable to punish those who fund terrorists.

And why should we fight Israel's wars for her?

That's a topic far too broad and deep to discuss in the context of this thread.

As to the UN being useless, I agree that many of Bush's team and many conservatives hold that belief. And frankly I find it very, very dangerous. The UN is by no means perfect, or even intended to be, but it still has utility in fulfilling its original purpose: encouraging nation-states to avoid war by facilitating negotiation between them and setting up a system for other nations to exert influence on nations that employ or seek to employ force.

That sounds nice on paper. I think it discounts the historical context in which the U.N. was formed. It replaced the failed League of Nations after WWII. The League was formed after the first world war in an effort to prevent another large scale war, mostly across much of Europe. The U.N. was established by the Allied Forces and China as reactions to the aggressions and atrocities committed by Germany and Japan. They had two primary goals, both of which grew out of those reactions. One was arms control of potentially aggressive nations like Germany and Japan, and the other was to prevent the recurrence of genocides like those committed by those same nations during WWII.

The Cold War began as soon as the ink on the U.N.'s charter was dry. It was never truly a peace-loving, humanitarian organization, despite the spin on its purpose being given it today. It was a pragmatic organization formed strictly as a reaction to the events which allowed Germany and Japan to terrorize and conquer their neighbors, and to massacre certain ethnic groups. Almost immediately, it became a roundtable for the world's nuclear superpowers to square off, and for the rest of the world to jockey for position seeking to keep them and nuclear proliferation in check.

The U.N. did not prevent nuclear testing or the proliferation of nuclear arms. Furthermore, it was not effective as a force in preventing the Soviet Union and the U.S. from nearly annihiliating each other. The deterrent effect of a policy of Mutual Assured Destruction and a healthy dose of luck prevented WWIII in the last century.

With no more internal threat to the security of Western Europe, with a Japan no longer seeking military imperialism, and after the fall of the Soviet Empire, the U.N.'s original purposes have largely become irrelevant. Today, the U.N. struggles for relevance almost solely as a check on the military and political influence of the U.S.

Yes, that involves limiting the US's actions in the world. That's part of the idea: to keep the most powerful nations from using military or economic power to dominate the rest. I support this goal even when - hell, especially when - my nation is the most powerful in the world.

Well, that's why many in the U.S. feel the U.N. is no longer relevant to the U.S. Of course nations who feel threatened by perceived abuses of the U.S. military and political might support the U.N. That's all they've got.

That brings up something I want to say about unilateralism. I can envision a situation where the US needed to do something on the world stage in order to defend itself, something which was opposed by most of the world community. But Iraq was not such a situation. Germany, France, Russia, and most of the rest of the world opposed our invasion of Iraq for a very good reason: we had not presented an adequate case for why we would be justified in invading Iraq and the world is justifiably - based on world history - afraid of any nation that undertakes military action for any reason other than self-defense, the defense of allies, or the prevent a humanitarian catastrophe - the very reasons stated in the UN charter as justifying war. Sure, those nations had selfish reasons for opposing the war as well. If their only reasons had been self interest it would have been a different story. But they had a good reason: they claimed there was no compelling evidence that Saddam had WMDs or ties to Al Qaeda, or that he was a threat to regional security. As we all now know, they were right.

I disagree. I think they opposed our actions because they see the U.S. as an imperial nation. They oppose any military action by the U.S. that doesn't serve the interests of the opponents. They're not interested in altruistic ideals like global peace. They want the U.N. to be an international governing body so they can feel enfranchised in decisions the U.S. makes which might impact them. That's understandable from their perspective, but it isn't exactly high-minded idealism. It's pragmatic, not principled. Thus, the U.N.'s objections sound hollow.

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. But that does not mean that invading Iraq (even if Bush had had a viable reconstruction plan, which he clearly doesn't) would result in an improvement inside Iraq or in the world at large.

Except that it has, regardless of the different justifications given for the invasion.

Cool Hand