(and, more on topic, I agree... but as you probably know less-publicized US intelligence was suggesting as much, on the nuclear count at least, before the invasion of Iraq. This is why the leaders of so many foreign countries were also so embarrassed when Colin Powell made that egregiously misleading presentation to the UN about Iraqi arms)
I'll say this, honestly, I watched to Colin Powell's presentation to the UN when he made it. It wasn't misleading; it was, rather, enlightening. Up until that point I believed the US intelligence agencies must have some, secret, but certain, knowledge of Iraqi WMDs. But seeing what Powell presented, I realized we had nothing, no facts, no certainty.
But Iran is now, truly, what we were told Iraq was then: a massive state sponsor of terrorism with a closed and hidden nuclear program. They also have an active missile development program. If Iran does not halt uranium enrichment and allow unconditional IAEA inspections, then it is an un-ignorable threat. Experts can speculate and hypothesize as to when Iran's earliest possible nuke might be hatched. But the very possibility is too much.
Of course Iran is not in any apparent or even conceivable way in league with AQ. But I've not seen that anyone says they are.
The problem is that the principle under which the UN and the US seem to work is this:
"Does the country have the potential to produce nuclear weapons any time soon? If so, is the country prepared to bow down before the US hegemon?"
And it's only a negative answer to the latter question that gives rise to action. Isreal, South Africa, Pakistan, India, and so on -- all are nuclear powers who have acquired such status outside the aegis of the non-proliferation treaty. However, since they are all, to a greater or lesser degree, prepared to act as subordinates to the US nothing happens.
That's not to say that Iran may not be a problem but you can see why the Iranians and others accuse the UN and the US of a double standard.
The NPT, even were it to be equitably applied, defines a double standard to start with: the nuclear weapons states, and the non-nuclear weapons states.
Of course one has to sign on. Isreal, South Africa, Pakistan, and India never did. Iran however did sign.
If one views the NPT as legalistic and rationalizing applied only when when a country we fear would "mis-use" nuclear weaons, well sure, of course we're more more concerned about Iran getting it than we were about Isreal.
And while it is true that we have more clout in the UN than, say, Estonia, even the UN was built on a double standard, permanent security council members, and the rest. It awaits reform, but this is the status quo.
The Bush administration, I think, believed its own hype on Iraq. But the Iran situation is not hype. And the way in which the US has approached the Iran situation is far from the unlilateral bullying we did versus Iraq. The intelligence supporting the claims again Iran seems similarly more open and multilateral. As such, it seems that a real international (read Security Council members' ) consensus is possible after years of attempted and still failing negotiations.
Just as a "what if" kind of game, What If they were right, Saddam had a real WMD program well hidden, and was moving towards an alliance of convenience with the religious freakazoids- he was, after all, the guy who added Allahu Akbar to the Iraqi Flag. He knew how to play the God Card.
And what if Bush had said "No, Rumsy, I won't go to war until we have absolute proof".
What would we say today to the survivors? I'm sorry, we were only 95% sure, and that wasn't good enough?
What would you think of a doctor who refuses to operate on the grounds that he is only "pretty sure" you have a malign tumor, and surgery before absolute confirmation is a mistake?
Does a person not have a moral obligation to act on the best available information?
If not- why act at all, ever, as nothing is ever known with 100% certainty beyond Cogito Ergo Sum.
We can say the US acted under erroneous beliefs- ironically errors that were in part fostered by Saddam himself. Or we can say that the US acted in good conscience under the best available knowledge at the time. Which is all we can expect from anyone, ever.
Of course one may disagree with this idea- but if you do, are you absolutely, 100% sure that you are right? If so, all discussion is pointless, and if not, there you go- you are less than 100% certain, but you are acting under the best available information making your best decision, and therefore, by disputing this, you tacitily agree to it.
Ben: Those aren't by any stretch the only two possibilities. What about not making the best decision under the best available information, because you are an idealogue, or out of self-interest, or .... what if you were looking for an excuse?
In your doctor example, if there is a higher judged risk in the surgery than the judged risk of a tumour, she certainly shouldn't operate.
Does a person not have a moral obligation to act on the best available information?
Yes indeed. That is why I am so upset that the Bush administration consistently marginalized anyone who told them what they didn't want to hear. Their repeated refusal to check their beliefs against the best available information is what makes the current situation so tragic.
What would we say today to the survivors? I'm sorry, we were only 95% sure, and that wasn't good enough?
What do we say to the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians now? We're sorry, but despite the fact that we didn't actually have anything approaching reliable intelligence indicating serious WMD programs or collusion with terrorist groups, and in fact had inspections teams on the ground reporting there was nothing there, we had to weigh that against the chance that Saddam was really a magician who might one day kill Americans. See, that was good enough. Because your childrens' actual lives aren't as important as the theoretical threats to ours.
The best available knowledge at the time was coming from the weapons inspection teams, which Bush ordered out because they were undermining his stated rationale for war.
and therefore, by disputing this, you tacitily agree to it
All very cute, if you live inside a philosophy 101 paper. Not so much when your body is being torn to shreds by high-altitude urban bombing.
and therefore, by disputing this, you tacitly agree to it
Equivocation on what "this" refers to. Following the stucture of the paragraph in which it appears, it should refer to "the administration acted on the best available information". But in order for disputing whatever it refers to to constitute tacit agreement, it has to refer to "one should in general act on the best information available."
Also, I do dispute that "one should in general act on the best information available." Imagine a situation of uncertainty with ten possibilities for how the uncertainty should be resolved, and in which you correctly weight one possible resolution as being 19% likely and the other nine as 9% likely. You should behave as if you have no fucking idea how it will be resolved, not based on the best (19% likely) information available.
the Sunday Times was pretty good this week. There's also a great op-ed piece by Slavoj Zizek called "Defenders of the Faith."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/opinion/12zizek.html
(and, more on topic, I agree... but as you probably know less-publicized US intelligence was suggesting as much, on the nuclear count at least, before the invasion of Iraq. This is why the leaders of so many foreign countries were also so embarrassed when Colin Powell made that egregiously misleading presentation to the UN about Iraqi arms)
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 03-12-06 10:06 AM
Oh,I know -- it's been out there since before we attacked -- it's just the grim prospect that theyr'e going to try to pull the same shit with Iran.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-12-06 12:37 PM
I'll say this, honestly, I watched to Colin Powell's presentation to the UN when he made it. It wasn't misleading; it was, rather, enlightening. Up until that point I believed the US intelligence agencies must have some, secret, but certain, knowledge of Iraqi WMDs. But seeing what Powell presented, I realized we had nothing, no facts, no certainty.
But Iran is now, truly, what we were told Iraq was then: a massive state sponsor of terrorism with a closed and hidden nuclear program. They also have an active missile development program. If Iran does not halt uranium enrichment and allow unconditional IAEA inspections, then it is an un-ignorable threat. Experts can speculate and hypothesize as to when Iran's earliest possible nuke might be hatched. But the very possibility is too much.
Of course Iran is not in any apparent or even conceivable way in league with AQ. But I've not seen that anyone says they are.
Posted by Mr. B | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 3:12 AM
The problem is that the principle under which the UN and the US seem to work is this:
"Does the country have the potential to produce nuclear weapons any time soon? If so, is the country prepared to bow down before the US hegemon?"
And it's only a negative answer to the latter question that gives rise to action. Isreal, South Africa, Pakistan, India, and so on -- all are nuclear powers who have acquired such status outside the aegis of the non-proliferation treaty. However, since they are all, to a greater or lesser degree, prepared to act as subordinates to the US nothing happens.
That's not to say that Iran may not be a problem but you can see why the Iranians and others accuse the UN and the US of a double standard.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 5:12 AM
wrt 4 -
The NPT, even were it to be equitably applied, defines a double standard to start with: the nuclear weapons states, and the non-nuclear weapons states.
Of course one has to sign on. Isreal, South Africa, Pakistan, and India never did. Iran however did sign.
If one views the NPT as legalistic and rationalizing applied only when when a country we fear would "mis-use" nuclear weaons, well sure, of course we're more more concerned about Iran getting it than we were about Isreal.
And while it is true that we have more clout in the UN than, say, Estonia, even the UN was built on a double standard, permanent security council members, and the rest. It awaits reform, but this is the status quo.
The Bush administration, I think, believed its own hype on Iraq. But the Iran situation is not hype. And the way in which the US has approached the Iran situation is far from the unlilateral bullying we did versus Iraq. The intelligence supporting the claims again Iran seems similarly more open and multilateral. As such, it seems that a real international (read Security Council members' ) consensus is possible after years of attempted and still failing negotiations.
Iran is different. It has an "n".
Posted by Mr. B | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 1:02 PM
Just as a "what if" kind of game, What If they were right, Saddam had a real WMD program well hidden, and was moving towards an alliance of convenience with the religious freakazoids- he was, after all, the guy who added Allahu Akbar to the Iraqi Flag. He knew how to play the God Card.
And what if Bush had said "No, Rumsy, I won't go to war until we have absolute proof".
What would we say today to the survivors? I'm sorry, we were only 95% sure, and that wasn't good enough?
What would you think of a doctor who refuses to operate on the grounds that he is only "pretty sure" you have a malign tumor, and surgery before absolute confirmation is a mistake?
Does a person not have a moral obligation to act on the best available information?
If not- why act at all, ever, as nothing is ever known with 100% certainty beyond Cogito Ergo Sum.
We can say the US acted under erroneous beliefs- ironically errors that were in part fostered by Saddam himself. Or we can say that the US acted in good conscience under the best available knowledge at the time. Which is all we can expect from anyone, ever.
Of course one may disagree with this idea- but if you do, are you absolutely, 100% sure that you are right? If so, all discussion is pointless, and if not, there you go- you are less than 100% certain, but you are acting under the best available information making your best decision, and therefore, by disputing this, you tacitily agree to it.
Ben
Posted by Ben | Link to this comment | 03-15-06 12:07 PM
Ben: Those aren't by any stretch the only two possibilities. What about not making the best decision under the best available information, because you are an idealogue, or out of self-interest, or .... what if you were looking for an excuse?
In your doctor example, if there is a higher judged risk in the surgery than the judged risk of a tumour, she certainly shouldn't operate.
Posted by soubzriquet | Link to this comment | 03-15-06 12:20 PM
Does a person not have a moral obligation to act on the best available information?
Yes indeed. That is why I am so upset that the Bush administration consistently marginalized anyone who told them what they didn't want to hear. Their repeated refusal to check their beliefs against the best available information is what makes the current situation so tragic.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 03-15-06 12:22 PM
What would we say today to the survivors? I'm sorry, we were only 95% sure, and that wasn't good enough?
What do we say to the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians now? We're sorry, but despite the fact that we didn't actually have anything approaching reliable intelligence indicating serious WMD programs or collusion with terrorist groups, and in fact had inspections teams on the ground reporting there was nothing there, we had to weigh that against the chance that Saddam was really a magician who might one day kill Americans. See, that was good enough. Because your childrens' actual lives aren't as important as the theoretical threats to ours.
Is this really an argument you'd like to make?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-15-06 12:52 PM
the best available knowledge at the time
The best available knowledge at the time was coming from the weapons inspection teams, which Bush ordered out because they were undermining his stated rationale for war.
and therefore, by disputing this, you tacitily agree to it
All very cute, if you live inside a philosophy 101 paper. Not so much when your body is being torn to shreds by high-altitude urban bombing.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-15-06 12:55 PM
and therefore, by disputing this, you tacitly agree to it
Equivocation on what "this" refers to. Following the stucture of the paragraph in which it appears, it should refer to "the administration acted on the best available information". But in order for disputing whatever it refers to to constitute tacit agreement, it has to refer to "one should in general act on the best information available."
Also, I do dispute that "one should in general act on the best information available." Imagine a situation of uncertainty with ten possibilities for how the uncertainty should be resolved, and in which you correctly weight one possible resolution as being 19% likely and the other nine as 9% likely. You should behave as if you have no fucking idea how it will be resolved, not based on the best (19% likely) information available.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03-15-06 1:04 PM
Gee, 11 sure was a good comment.
Posted by not washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03-15-06 4:37 PM