... telling us about how Saddam wasn't that bad ....
As of 17 Feb 2003, less than a month before the US invasion, the Bush
administration had not made the argumment that a new government would
help the people of Iraq free themselves from a cruel dictatorship.
It made it later.
It looks to me that discussion of an argument that the Bush
administration did not make until later takes attention away from the
other arguments that it made earlier. Moreover, dsuch a discussion
takes attention away from an argument it never made (except faintly)
but which I think motivated the US government as a whole and its
military: to intimidate others. (Doubtless the Bush administration
had a slew of reasons; but other parts of the US government were, I
think, primarily motivated by the intimidation argument.)
So let me repeat a part of a message I sent to this list on 17 Feb
2003:
... arguments put forward to invade Iraq. ....
1. To help the people of Iraq free themselves from a cruel
dictatorship.
Salmon Rushdie made this argument. No government that I know
of has said that this is a prime reason to go to war, although
all claim it would be a nice side effect.
2. To support UN Chapter 7 resolutions.
International laws and resolutions are a Liberal, Democrat,
and contemporary European ideal; they provide a mechanism for
restraining the actions of a super power.
....
Ironically, the primary argument that the U.N. should become
... an effective organization that helps keep the peace.
was made by US President Bush, not by others. Regardless
whether anyone thinks he is the least bit truthful in
expressing US hopes, the argument favoring a mechanism to
restrain a super power such as the US is powerful, and should
appeal to others.
3. Find and destroy chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons
The French point out they lived for years next to a power that
had chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and that broke
treaties. In this respect, the Iraqi government is neither
special nor unusual.
The US says that the Soviet government was successfully
deterred but that the Iraqi government is unusual in that it
cannot be deterred. The US points out that Iraq has twice
started disastrous wars in attempts to to gain control over
neighbors, and thus over those who depend on oil from the
Middle East, and may well try again.
(Note that the French, German, and other Europeans' economic
borders run through the Middle East. They are more dependent
on Middle Eastern oil than the US; hence the growth of a
Middle Eastern hegemony is more of a threat to Europe than to
the US.)
4. Overthrow the government of and establish a major US presence
in an Arab country so as to frighten the other Arab
dictatorships into greater efforts into policing against
enemies of US.
I think this is the primary motivation of the US government.
....
(And I still think #4 was the primary motivation. I also think that
the other reasons were good, but I do not think the US chose its
action on account of any of them alone.)
Do you think that US has been successful in intimidation? Especially
now, during `Phase 4' (to use a US military phrase) of the campaign,
which has been going on since the middle of April 2003?
What are your measurements of US success? To me they are three: a
feeling among people in the US and elsewhere that they are safer than
they were before the invasion, a lower price for oil (because a major
oil producing region is less susceptible to the actions of a small
number of people), and a gain in the felt legitimacy of US power by
more regional powers so the US need not spend so much militarily.
--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
