Haven't blogged much recently about the whole Iraq thing, largely because the news has been so incremental. Iraq earnestly promises to cooperate, the UN/EU alternately rings its hands and looks self-congratulatory, congressfolk make idiots out of themselves, and the clock keeps ticking.

I did run across this nice summary of arguments against war on Iraq, and refutations thereto, which I wanted to post a link to, though, addressing the issues of:

I've got to question the "We have no right without UN approval". Why not? Should we, as a nation, not be able to take steps in order to preserve OUR way of life? The president takes an oath, and every member takes an oath, to uphold and protect the constitution and the U.S. Not the US, nato, the UN, and world opinion. It's all to obvious that tyrants are not swayed by rhetoric. Saddam didn't care in the 90's, Slobadan sure as heck didn't care about it in Bosnia Herzegovina, why would Saddam care now? Unfortunately, the only way to stop a bully is by bloodying his nose. Saddam is nothing but a bully to his own people and the middle east.

Goldberg takes on a few of the easier objections, although he misses the point about not wanting to set a Bad Example for other UN members.

When Henry Kissinger is suggesting in a realpolitik sort of way that we don't want to set a bad example for folks like India and Pakistan, that's not a fluffy-bunny argument about the UN and national sovereignty. Sure, we should tell the UN to shove it if they really interfere with something we need to do, but that doesn't address the question of whether getting rid of Saddam is it.

What Goldberg doesn't address are the less simple objections to the war, for example:

- what about the Iraq situation is so special in particular that it merits a complete about-face in US policy on warmaking (i.e., why do we have to reverse a policy that saya we only hit back when hit or are in immediate danger of being hit?)?
- what the cost to international cooperation on other important issues, e.g., al-Qaeda terrorism, will be, and how the costs we'll pay in those areas is worth what we'll gain in a war with Iraq
- principled isolationist objections (not my forte, but they're legitimate arguments)

I'll be interested to see if he has coherent objections to the harder arguments later.

Not wanting to set a Bad Example for other UN members: When was the last time the UN actually stopped a country from going to war with another? As opposed to their being stopped by pressure from the US, Russia, etc.?

What about the Iraq situation is so special in particular that it merits a complete about-face in US policy on warmaking (i.e., why do we have to reverse a policy that saya we only hit back when hit or are in immediate danger of being hit?)? Actually, it's not that much of a reversal. We haven't actually been "hit" since WWII (9/11 notwithstanding in this context). All of our war and conflicts, both major as in the Gulf or Korea, or minor as in Grenada and Panama, have been in defense of US interests, not US soil.

Ironically, Iraq, through its ongoing clear intent to further develop and expand its arsenal of WMDs, actually poses a clearer threat to US citizenry than it did in Gulf I.

What the cost to international cooperation on other important issues, e.g., al-Qaeda terrorism, will be, and how the costs we'll pay in those areas is worth what we'll gain in a war with Iraq. Or, conversely, what the benefit is that we've received thus far, and how that benefit wil change. Will Germany really stop going after al Qa'eda cells just because they're torqued over the US actions in Iraq? Will France become more diligent about dealing with Muslim extremists in their own country (or be more willing to extradite al Qa'eda suspects to the US) if we back off from Iraq? Goldberg does actually discuss some instances where other country's self-interests may make them more willing partners in an Iraq venture, not because of an ideal of "international cooperation" but because of economic benefit.

Principled isolationist objections (not my forte, but they're legitimate arguments). Certainly, though they're not a lot of what I hear in the mainstream debate on Iraq, other than "Why do we want to get involved there?" The debate at present seems to be more along the lines of, "Okay, Saddam is a threat and someone whose abrupt death would probably be a good thing all around. Can that threat be better managed through the UN and inspectors, like it was in the 90s, or through threat of more direct action?"

Very thought provoking responses.
I think the UN has demonstrated its impotence in resolving, let alone preventing conflicts; even when the parties involved were using machetes to commit genocide. I firmly believe that until the politicians who are members of the UN put aside their own political aspirations, the organization will continue to be ineffectual.

International cooperation concerning Iraq. Once again, I think the self interest of the United States should be paramount. Saddam has SHOWN that he has so little regard for human life that he was used WMDs on his own people. Since we are the Great Satan, can there be any doubt that he wouldn't us those same weapons on us?

I actually wrote a rather substantive answer to your objections, Dave, but my browser seems to have eaten it.

The short version is this: Iraq actually is pretty different. There's not only no immediate threat to us, or to anyone else for that matter (as opposed to Gulf War I), there's no threat to the international system that keeps countries from attacking each other, except the US. And, sure, we do the heavy lifting for the UN, but I like it that way. Better us than a UN with an actual army.

The onus really isn't on people who say let's not go to war; it's on people who say war now, like Goldberg. And a lot of people who aren't willing to start a war are willing to finish one if Saddam Hussein starts it, or with the UN or a substantial subset of its big guns as allies, etc. But once anyone has conceded that there's no immediate threat, they're all wonking over terms and conditions, including Goldberg.

I don't like pre-emption unless I can see what we're pre-empting, and I find the Bush administration's ever-changing and in some cases flat out untrue rationales (IAEA report from 1998, anyone? Turkish uranium, anyone?) unconvincing. Bush also has a huge credibility gap with me because he lied about my state finances to pass his tax cut to get elected president, and I'm about to have to pick up the pieces as a taxpayer. So I'm a particularly hard sell.

I think for those of us who are paying attention, this is really an argument about the basis US foreign policy. I'm very unimpressed by Goldberg's "let's start by assuming we should go to war" thesis, which rests on some of the assumptions in Bush's National Security Strategy that I really disagree with. My philosophy is "don't start wars, even with scum, but finish the ones someone started with us." I don't want the flavor of the month to distract us from everything else in our foreign policy; that's part of how we ended up letting 19 guys kill 3000 of our people in the first place.

My $0.02, YMMV, etc.

So it's better that we wait for a small nuclear device, smallpox, or Serin to wipe out your city before we remove a tyrant from power? In kind retaliatory strikes (an eye for an eye) are the very reason that the likes of Osama and Saddam are still able to work evil. If we know that a dictator has the will and is developing the means to use a WMD, what possible benefit is there to waiting until our countrymen die? How can you doubt that, given the chance, Saddam wouldn't use a weapon to not only kill you, but every American you know and care about?
The current Bush is receiving a bad wrap because of the errors of others, primarily Bush Senior and Bill Clinton.

I'll go a step further than Adam. Saddam's ability to strike against the US is probably relatively limited -- though lack of missile range doesn't mean a container ship with Something Nasty can't find its way into a major US harbor.

If Saddam had one or more nuclear weapons back in 1991, where would Kuwait be today? Or Iran? Or Saudi? Or Israel?

I do think Saddam has shown pretty plainly he's willing to put his own plans over the welfare of his own people. So he's a perfect guy to blackmail his neighbors -- and the world -- with a nuke or two. Even if there's only a 50% chance that a SCUD would actually make it to Riyadh, do you think the House of Saud would actually not bend to his will if he threatened it? Especially if the deterrant US threat -- we'll turn Baghdad into a parking lot -- doesn't seem to worry him all that much?

The Cold War depended on the Soviets being unwilling to risk the damage that a US second strike would do (and, conversely, the US being equally unwilling to risk the damage a Soviet second strike would inflict). China, France and Britain are in much the same boat, as is Israel, as are the leaders of Pakistan and India. It's not clear that the Iraqi regime feels the same way, if there's some way Saddam can spin it into his being the Saladin that removed the Israelis from Palestine (collateral damage notwithstanding), or the US puppets in Riyadh from guardianship of Mecca, or whatever.

He is, in short, nucking futs. And once he does have a nuclear weapon (near certainty, IMO), it will be too late to launch a conventional attack on him. And the influence he will then be able to exert, with just a threat of attack (i.e., without actually going through with nuking anyone) will be a huge problem. The binary decision of "Either he's attacking us directly or we can just leave him alone" is overly simplistic.

Ginger, you note that the US does "the heavy lifting" for the UN, and better that than an independent UN army. I tend to agree (though given the UN's ability effectively organize efforts, I wouldn't worry too much about what sort of an army it could actually field).

But why, then, should the US suborn what it considers to be its national interests (separate conversation) to what the UN says? Or, rather, to what China, Russia, France, Britain, and the voting-but-non-vetoing rotating Security Council members say. Do Russia or China (or France) actually have some sort of moral authority over US actions? Do they, in turn, suborn their own national interests to the will of the international community? Chechnya, Tibet, and aboveground nuclear tests in the Pacific would indicate otherwise.

Why does Russia or China's willingness to not stand in our way make a war on Iraq morally more defensible? Or is it simply a matter of practical interests?

I do agree that a fundamental basis for any argument is whether you belief that Iraq is a substantive future threat. If you mistrust the Bush Administration (and the Blair Administration, and the wide array of experts and observers who have side with them on this), then clearly the whole war thing is a non-starter.

If you do think that there is a substantive future threat, then the question becomes what to do about it, if anything.