I'm trying to think favorably towards Kerry, but I just can't think of a reason to answer Yes to Bush's question. If Kerry had known what he does now, what would have been the point in authorizing the President to use force? I appreciate the nuance Kerry is making between the authorization and the actual implemation, but I just can't think of a reason for even authorizing it. Is he erring in this manner in an attempt to not seem a flip flopper?
This might have been before you were reading the site, but Magik Johnson and I had a couple of long and loving discussions about the stupidity of the electorate.
Michael: that's a good question. I wonder if there's more to it than a worry about being seen as a flip-flopper. (After all, he can say, plausibly, that when the facts change, he changes his mind, which is what a lot of people have done on just this issue.) If there's not-- that is, if it's simply a matter of avoiding the stupid f-f charge-- Bush has just performed a magnificent bit of jujitsu.
But if it is, then what?
sorry, that's totally unclear. I meant: if Kerry's answer is motivated by something other than the flip-flop accusation, what's he thinking?
What's Kerry's motivation for giving such a crappy answer? That's easy -- he's trying to get me to vote for him! It's by no means clear most Americans do think the answer to GWB's question is "no."
Kerry, classically, is trying to have it both ways: appealing to hawks and doves at once. His campaign does not want to fight their way against an ad that says: "if John Kerry had been president, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, oppressing his people destabilizing the Middle East, and acquiring WMD." No, Kerry wants to say he would have still kicked Saddam's ass, but better. The doves take solace in the fact that it's almost certainly true that had Kerry been president, Saddam would still be in power. Although I'll grant you he should do a better job of lying to the hawks.
And where is magik these days? He was great!
I miss Magik too. He's 1) no longer unemployed and 2) suffering from some sort of RSI. I'll pass along the compliment.
Please do. I hope his new job involves no typing and makes him a mint!
Also, are you back, back, by the way?
Already emailed him. Maybe he'll peck out a response with his nose.
And, nah, I'm not back, just procrastinating wildly...
FL, you so crazy.
Here's what I think are debatable points.
1. A sanctioned Saddam is not as bad for Middle east stability as the situation now
2. In princilpe, sanctions could have been ratcheted up to a degree to make Saddam's acquisition of nukes really hard.
Here's what I think are probable points:
1. Sanctions were really not going to work, long term. They were being evaded (with the assistance of France and Russia), they enabled free PR for Saddam, and were an humanitarian disaster.
2. The "tough" sanctions that would have prevented an nuclear program really amount to war lite. A permanent US garrison of 100,000 troops on the border threatening invasion. That's what was needed to get Blix back in. That's a deeply unappealing prospect, and likely not sustainable in terms of political will.
3. Kerry would not even have got to the point of 100,000 troops on the border. Just as Clinton did not. He would've kicked the can down the road.
So if you grant me the probable points, I've at least got "oppressing" and "acquiring WMD." Whether that's more "destabilizing" (sloppy language -- read instead: bad for american interests) than now is a judgment call.
So let me ask. If we just *stipulate* that absent invasion forcible regime change, Saddam acquires nuks in 5 years, do you still think the invasion is a bad idea? Or is your opposition to invasion predicated on there being a better way?
Sadly, baa, I hope you're right, because otherwise I have been completly unable to fathom any other answer. (sadly because I don't like this sort of fence straddling.)
As per your debate with F Labs, I would hope that the mess of the last year would have reminded us of a few things, among which are that in war there are no winners, and that war should be a means of last resort. I do not believe all other possibilities had even come close to being exhausted, and it is now clear that there was no immanent threat. Starting a war means death, someone's death, and so I really believe the question of whether it should be waged should always be personal. If you're a hawk, ask yourself, 'do I believe that this war would be worth my dying for?' Of course, you can't say this kind of stuff from the stump. Even if Saddam had a nuke, how likely would he be to use it? I know the rhetoric, but however many people I ask (quite a few in the last two years) no one seems to be able to provide me with much in the way of concrete examples of mad, evil actions of his in the last decade. There quite a bit from before that, but he seems to have been relatively quiet since Gulf War I. And not even Stalin launched a Nuclear Attack. Right now it seems certain Kim Jong Il has some, but we're not panicking over it. It would certainly have been bad if Saddam had acquired Nukes, but I don't see why even that would have been a reason to go to war.
I think you're right about war, Michael. It is, by nature, an atrocity, and thus can only be justified by counter atrocity. But atrocity needn't always mean clear and present genocide. Slobodan Milosovic, to take one example, was probably largely done slaughtering Muslims when the bombing of Serbia commenced. I am sure the NATO campaign killed innocents. Did you support that war?
So I suppose I'm sying that there is a place, an important place, for the use of American force to depose governments that we think are very likely to represent serious threats to US and allied interests, or which are serial abusers of human rights.
North Korea is an interesting example. People don't talk much about it because there's no palatable military option. An attack on NoKo would involve tremendous slaughter, might well provoke major attacks on South Korean population centers, and could even lead to a NoKo nuclear attack on South Korean cities or American military targets. But let's imagine that there *was* an option. You're the president, you come to believe that with minimal loss of American life you could depose the Kim regime. And further, that this would not involve indiscriminate massacre of North Koreans. Wouldn't that be immensely attractive option? What would you need to know in order to take it?
If "Nuclear Saddam" would have been such a strategic nightmare, then wtf are all our Trident missiles good for?
They don't deter suitcase bombers, but Al-Qaeda could get one from any number of willing sellers. Moreover, Al-Qaeda itself didn't come of age in a rogue state like Iraq used to be. Rather, it came of age in a failed state like Iraq is fast becoming.
With regard to whether I supported the Yugoslavia war, I'll have to answer in retrospect, because it occured at a time before I paid any attention to news or politics. I believe I would have supported the war, that is, I would have met the criteria I myself imposed above. Even if the majority of killing was done, it wasn't finished, and it wasn't the only crime be perpetrated. *Actively* committing genocide and driving a whole people from their home is not something that should be tolerated. Further, obviously in retrospect but it was also how the war was sold, only a handful, if any, NATO soldiers lost their lives, and few, if any (i do remember some questions of whether or not certain targets had been civilian) civilians were killed. The yugoslov campaign turned out different in this manner than the Iraq war, although they were both sold in the same manner (minimal casualties). I can say I never believed the selling of Iraq war. (I was over cynical, in fact, at least about the initial invasion, but i think a lot of people were surprised by the capitulation of the Republican Guard in Baghdad)
I agree there's no palatable military option with respect to North Korea, as we should have seen was the case with Iraq. But I'm afraid I'm going to have to back away from your question out of ignorance of the current state of affairs in North Korea. If the current regime were deposed, say a mass but quiet assassinatioin, who would likely fill the power vaccuum, or would it even be filled? Would there by anarchy, as has happened in much of Afghanistan and Iraq? Obviously, the US military is too tied down to see that another government could be democratically installed. I'm leaning towards better the devil you know. Further, I haven't seen yet that there's a very serious threat to us from North Korea. It seems Kim would rather negotiate, and that what the country really wants is energy. It's scary that there's the potential of a threat now, that we are vulnerable, and that's a worthy consideration. Does it seem like N Korea will pose a real threat to the US in the forseeable future? If the answer was no, I'd say leave well enough alone for now. If it were yes, and the option you mentioned was available, then what's likely is you're left with two bad outs. A rock and a hard place. I suppose I would favor taking out Kim Jong then, and hoping for an international coalition to help stabalize NK afterwards.
Sanctions did not hurt Saddam, they hurt the people of Iraq. If you think the people of Iraq were better off with Saddam and sanctions, then you have a flight to catch and you need to go see it for yourself. Other then a few nut heads, things are a lot better in Iraq and they will only get better. You Dove lovers need to wake up and see that American can be attacked from any country in the world. The oceans do not protect us anymore like they did many years ago. GWB had to do it, and it took a strong Republican to do it.
GO HAWKS!
For you to take this position with authenticty, you must have been staying in Iraq before and after the war. Have you?
You Dove lovers
Sane people who don't like war are doves; it has nothing to do with loving the bird.
The oceans do not protect us anymore like they did many years ago
think before you swallow talking points, or you'll choke on them. Since when have our oceans protected us? They were so great for that in 1812.
If you think the people of Iraq were better off with Saddam and sanctions, then you have a flight to catch and you need to go see it for yourself.
--that should have been quoted at the top of my previous post.