[Ramona_A_Stone]

Say you live down the street from a slightly deranged man that has threatened you and threatened all your neighbors and that you believe has a large cache of weapons to use against you and any of those neighbors at the time of his choosing, now say you call the cops about his threats, they beat down his door...they don't find any weapons but they do find out that he had killed his entire family and buried them in a large mass grave in his basement, now would you consider it a good thing that he was stopped?

Yes. I would. And we now have Hussein in custody. Hurray.

But, one of the many sloppy holes in the analogy is that Hussein "killed his entire family". He didn't. The cops beat down the door saying they were going to put an end to this "slightly deranged man's" power and stop him from killing and subjugating the rest of his family, ostensibly. Great. Standing at the door before they beat it down, the cops gave loud and clear lip-service about freeing the surviving family members and giving control of the house respectfully over to them, so they could lead a "normal, wholesome, democratic family life" with the big head asshole safely in jail.

So why are the cops still in the house killing members of the family and why are the survivors killing the cops? How many cops are going to disappear into that house, never to come out again? Why are the cops still in the house telling the families which newspapers to read? Do the cops think that the surviving members of the family didn't hear the cops promising to free them to run their house the way they wanted? And what will the cops do if the newly elected head of the house isn't any less threatening to the neighborhood?

Clearly the situation is much more complex than that handful of cops said it would be, more complex than you seem to be able to grasp. Clearly this incessant, nauseating appeal that Hussein, the head of the house was "the neighborhood's whole problem" was far wide of the mark. Clearly the cops were talkiing out their asses in more ways than one before breaking that door down, in order to assure the neighborhood everything was under control, minimalizing the situation as cops so often do.

"Don't worry folks, we'll have this fixed in a jiffy. No need to worry about any kind of escalation."

It's as if in your fantasy/analogy, all Iraqis are in mass graves. That would wrap up your attempt at logic very neatly if it were true, but it obviously isn't.

...

And since the rest of your post consisted of questions originally posed by Christopher Hitchens from Vanity Fair, and because my new policy is not to answer questions that are prefaced by calling people "nutjobs" because of their opinions, I'm going to spend as little of my time and original thought as you did and reply in kind by simply pasting some other people's opinions, collage style, from various sites on the web. Hope you find them at least as entertaining as being dismissed as a nutjob.

1. Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein’s regime was inevitable or not?

not. hussein's regime was effectively contained

2. Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better?

the underlying assumption of this question is that one of saddam's sons would have succeeded him. i'm not sure that's true. when someone like saddam dies, plenty of people would be in a position to throw a monkey wrench into the whole succession thing.

but assuming uday or qusay did end up in charge, i don't think a confrontation with them would be inevitable either. but if it did happen it would probably have been the same as with saddam.

3. Do you know that Saddam’s envoys were trying to buy a weapons production line off the shelf from North Korea (vide the Kay report) as late as last March?

yes, but so what. the weapons system was not a WMD but a longer-range scud missile. the system is famously inaccurate and unable to reach the u.s. besides, iraq probably would not have been able to complete the transaction if the u.n. inspectors had flooded the country per france's proposal. iraq was effectively contained.

4. Why do you think Saddam offered "succor" (Mr. Clarke’s word) to the man most wanted in the 1993 bombings in New York?

i tried a bunch of searches and can find no record (other than other blogs quoting this one) of clarke saying that. where's the link?

5. Would you have been in favor of lifting the "no fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq; a 10-year prolongation of the original "Gulf War"?

eventually, yes. i think everyone would. even the warbloggers do not seem to be against the fact that it is over now. under what circumstances are we talking about? frankly, this question on its own is pretty content-less.

6. Were you content to have Kurdish and Shiite resistance fighters do all the fighting for us?

they were not doing any fighting for us. once again, the entire question rests on an assumption that your opponent does not share. if you want to actually have a dialogue, you have to stop assuming away all of the most pertinent issues. the shi'ite resistence was pretty much dead after bush the first double-crossed them after the gulf war. the kurds were not actively fighting saddam anymore by the end of the 1990s, they had reached a stalemate and had their own statelette under the protection of the no-fly zone. most of the fighting in the early part of the 00s decade in the kurdish region was between different kurdish factions

7. Do you think that the timing of a confrontation should have been left, as it was in the past, for Baghdad to choose?

again, you are assuming that a confrontation is inevitable. it wasn't. half your questions have that unfounded assumption. did you even consider how these questions should proceed if someone answered "no" to question #1?

Posted by: upyernoz at April 5, 2004 at 07:03 AM

•

1. Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein’s regime was inevitable or not?

If "confrontation" means "war requiring 100,000 ground troups and $100B", certainly no. We might have faced another 1998-level confrontation (in 1 or 5 or 10) years, we might not.

Turning the question around, is it inevitable that we will have a confrontation with Iran, Syria, North Korea, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? If yes, why are we spending our money and tieing down our forces in Iraq? If no, what makes Iraq so special that we can be certain a war there was inevitable?

2. Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better?

It's impossible to know, but there's no reason to believe it definitely would have been worse. Saddam had a proven ability to keep control of his country; his sons had not been tested in the same ways. Their heinous personal behavior did not necessarily make them more dangerous to U.S. interests.

3. Do you know that Saddam’s envoys were trying to buy a weapons production line off the shelf from North Korea (vide the Kay report) as late as last March?

I do know that Saddam had vigorously pursued unconventional weapons for decades; the total U.S. casualties from such weapons is zero, and at the time of his defeat he was further away from having usable weapons than he had been in a decade. The threat was not significant, immediate, or growing.

4. Why do you think Saddam offered "succor" (Mr. Clarke’s word) to the man most wanted in the 1993 bombings in New York?

For any of a number of reasons, e.g. to tweak the U.S., or to associate himself with a (however puny) blow against the U.S. Did this "succor" add significantly to the ability of Islamic terrorists to strike the U.S.? Not at all.

5. Would you have been in favor of lifting the "no fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq; a 10-year prolongation of the original "Gulf War"?

No; they were a relatively cheap way to keep Hussein under wraps, and provided some freedom to the population in those zones.

6. Were you content to have Kurdish and Shiite resistance fighters do all the fighting for us?

They were fighting for themselves. Was I content to have the U.S. not do their fighting for them? Yes.

7. Do you think that the timing of a confrontation should have been left, as it was in the past, for Baghdad to choose?

Yes, because Baghadad had no good cards to play, and it was not in Hussein's power to force a confrontation that would hurt the U.S. or cost us what the war has cost us.

Posted by: jm, April 5, 2004 at 02:59 AM


•

Here are seven questions to answer his questions:

1. Was war in Iraq worth damage to our international credibility, and the damage done to key, longstanding friendships?

2. How did taking on a removing Saddam Hussein from power make it any safer to live in Dayton, Ohio, or Tulsa, Oklahoma (anyplace else in the United States, for that matter)?

3. How many casualities will be too many?

4. Would you be willing to forego repairs to interstate highways and health care assistance for the poor and elderly to pay for the war?

5. Was the War in Iraq worth stretching our military to almost its breaking point, and the call up and extended duty for reservists and National Guardsmen?

6. If Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction, and did not have conclusive ties to terrorist groups, then what made Iraq such a grave and gathering threat?

7. (This question is for the armchair warriors of both genders between the ages of 18-35) If the war was so freaking important to fight, then why didn't you quit your jobs and enlist?

To the rest of you -- Saddam Hussein was contained, or have you missed David Kay saying for the last three months that the administration should just own up to it?

Finally, to claim that war in Iraq would send any sort of message to the rest of the Arab world:

They got the message. We are unable to invade one country, topple a largely defanged regime, and pacify a country that had lived under an iron boot for three decades. The rest of them can pretty much do whatever they want.

Posted by: Captain Salty at April 5, 2004 at 12:36 PM

•

1. Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein’s regime was inevitable or not?

Big word, "inevitable". Absolutely not.

2. Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better?

"Better". Odd question. Better than attacking Saddam, presumably? Irrelevant.

3. Do you know that Saddam’s envoys were trying to buy a weapons production line off the shelf from North Korea (vide the Kay report) as late as last March?

"Trying to". Wow.
But as to the question: Yes, and uranium from Niger. Irrelevant.

4. Why do you think Saddam offered "succor" (Mr. Clarke’s word) to the man most wanted in the 1993 bombings in New York?

Irrelevant.

5. Would you have been in favor of lifting the "no fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq; a 10-year prolongation of the original "Gulf War"?

Perhaps.(But irrelevant).

6. Were you content to have Kurdish and Shiite resistance fighters do all the fighting for us?

Really, really stupid question. Irrelevant.

7. Do you think that the timing of a confrontation should have been left, as it was in the past, for Baghdad to choose?

Another really, really stupid question. And irrelevant.


Yawn.


Posted by: Nemesis at April 5, 2004 at 04:49 PM

•

If Hitch can use Clarke's words, then perhaps some more:

"And the reason I am strident in my criticism of the president of the United States is because by invading Iraq -- something I was not asked about by the commission, it's something I chose write about a lot in the book -- BY INVADING IRAQ THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS GREATLY UNDERMINED THE WAR ON TERRORISM."

Posted by: Good for the Gander at April 5, 2004 at 05:09 AM

•

Containment's a tough policy to follow. It requires consistency and determination. Some people will always be impatient with it and want to say "Let's fight now." The good sense of the European and American people resisted such calls during the Cold War, when much more was at stake. They were right.

Posted by: cartographer at April 5, 2004 at 05:47 AM

•

I've got some questions:

1) Now that we've "brought freedom" to Iraq, when free elections are held and the Iraqi's legally vote in some wackjob cleric will the US respect the results?

2) Assume for the moment at some point in the future the US is ruled by a nutcase dictator. If the US were then invaded & occupied by an Islamic state in the name of liberation, how far would you go to get rid of the occupiers? What would YOU do to the occupiers?

3) Now that we've pissed away world support for the war on terror and shot our collective wad on the poorly thought out pnac war in iraq, how do we define victory in iraq? Or is the war in Iraq another unwinnable war on drugs type war were every admistration (republican or democrat) for 30 years has lacked the stones to say we have failed?

Posted by: hugh jorgan at April 5, 2004 at 08:32 AM

•

My question for Hitchens is this: If the Iraqis are so damn happy with the "freedom" we have given them, how come they keep killing us? How come they burn and multilate the bodies of dead Americans? I mean, now it's the Shiites, who aren't exactly holdovers from the Hussein regime, so that whole argument that this insurgency is just leftover Baathist elements is ludicrous and patently false. We are on the verge of a full-scale armed revolt across Iraq. What is our response going to be -- should we kill more Iraqis now that they have the "freedom" we gave them and are using it to eject us from their country? Do we now kill more Iraqis in order to "liberate" them?

Posted by: john at April 5, 2004 at 03:40 PM

•

Firstly you have to remember what and who Hitchens is. Hitchens was a Marxist (indeed, a Trotskyite), not only in the 'seventies (when it was just about excusable) but in the 'eighties (unusual) and throughout the 'nineties (i.e. AFTER the fall of the Berlin wall). Does this strike any of the readers of this blog as an intelligent or moral political commitment? And don't give me any of the 'well he's changed his mind now' thing: he has NEVER apologised, and has NEVER backtracked from any of those political commitments. So: remember, when you ask your glib questions: Hitchens did and does think that the war in Vietnam was American imperialism, he did and does think that Clinton's attack on the Sudan was a war crime, and he did and does think that the first war in Iraq was wholly and completely unjustified (check out some of his books of essays for proof of this). He is also the man who said (extremely recently) October 2000, "To use 'vile' for 'viable' might look like misfortune, but to employ 'inebriating' for 'enthralling' looks like carelessness, especially in someone with his booze and cocaine record." In the same column he remarked, "Seeking to explain away his wastrel life and his obnoxious manner--nagging problems that persisted until his mid-40s--Bush invites us to believe that he mutated into finer personhood after having a personal encounter with God." speaking of Bush. Do you all agree with THIS as well? Or will you see, as less biased minds do, that Hitchens is a political whore of the first order, who simply jumps on any bandwagon that passes? He was a Marxist when it was fashionable, now he is 'pro-war' when it is fashionable. Perhaps he will shift back to Marxism later on, who knows? In any case, his 'political position' is completely incoherent and makes no sense at all: I do not for the life of me see how you can support the second but not the first gulf war.

Hitchens 'questions' (which i don't believe for a minute he has actually 'asked' any anti-war person, a penchant for being 'economical with the actualite' being one of Hitchen's most notable characteristics) are rhetorical, play to the gallery, and are essentially meaningless.

'Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein’s regime was inevitable or not?'

What sort of confrontation? Between whom? Define inevitable? Do you mean soon or in twenty years, or what? If you mean a confrontation between the Iraqi people and Saddam, then the answer is 'probably' If you mean the Iraqi people and the Iraqi regime then the answer is 'yes'. But if you mean: do you think a war between the United States and Iraq was inevitable (what he actually) means, then the answer is clearly 'no': just ask colin powell and 'condi' both of whom clearly thought so in 2000. What evidence does he have (apart from Bush's desire for a war) that war was inevitable?

'Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better? '
oh please less of your euphemisms. You mean 'war'. And the answer is probably not. For the Iraqi people. The question implicitly admits, incidentally, that war with Iraq was 'not good' or else the 'better' aspect of the question would have been meaningless.

3: yes i knew that. So what? Kay didn't think that Saddam was pursuing WMD (the reason for the war, as we have been told), and in any case, Saddam was allowed to have weapons. What state isn't? What's your point?

4: who cares? There are terrorist living in the US in the UK, in Spain, in France....almost everywhere in fact. A state terrorist (Pinochet) was given exclusive private healthcare in the UK until recently until the Spaniards had him arrested: Margaret Thatcher was outraged. Whats your point?

5: Given, Hitchens, that you opposed (and still do) the first Gulf War, and that, therefore, if you had been in charge, there would not have BEEN any 'no fly zones' will you accept that your question is totally meaningless?

6: What do you mean 'for us'? They fought for THEM!!!! What breathtaking arrogance and self-involvement!!! you accept, therefore that this was was about the US and US interests? Otherwise the question is meaningless. If the question is: should Bush (senior) have stabbed the resistance in teh back in '91, then the answer is clearly 'no'. But as i look at the papers i see the 'Shi-ites' doing quite a lot of fighting nowadays AGAINST us. Do YOU support THAT? If not, why not?

7: again, please, when you mean 'war' say 'war'. Since this question relies upon an affirmative response to question 1, and i have not given that, then as usual a rhetorical ploy.

The fact is that, as Colin Powell and 'Condi' proclaimed, Saddam was contained by 2001, as we now know for sure (and we do know it). The real threats were from Al-Qaeda and its sponsors, specifically those in Saudi, Pakistan and Egypt. However those are our allies so naturally we have done everything in our power to help them.

The US is not a global policeman, and it is not incumbent upon the US to invade every totalitarian regime. Go through all the above questions and substitute 'China', or 'Vietnam' for all of them: they fit as well. Why shouldn't the US invade Vietnam after all? is it not a totalitarian regime? or what about Cuba?

The fact is that, like Poland and Russia, totalitarian regimes are essentially unstable, they fall, and US interference normally makes things worse, as it now has done in Iraq.

Posted by: Brendan at April 5, 2004 at 07:54 PM