Bush and Blair

[Rywill]

Not to upstage Jason again, but there's a great analysis (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/08/nyt.kristof/index.html) of Bush vs. Blair on CNN. I couldn't agree with this article more. It makes me angry that Bush is president, but it makes me really sad that Blair is going to get ousted.

[Jason McCullough]

Stay the hell off my lawn!

I don't see what's wrong with firing Blair for lying about Iraq.

[Rywill]

I guess just because I don't see him as having lied the way Bush did. I didn't follow the British end of it that closely, so maybe I'd change my mind if I knew more facts. But what I did see, and my overall impression, was that Blair was pretty up-front about most of what was going on: that Saddam hadn't complied, that Britain thought he had WMD or could make them on short notice, that lots of countries didn't agree, but that it was imperative that Britain invade even in the face of international opposition.

Maybe it's just my predisposition because I've always liked Blair and always hated Bush, but I thought Blair handled this whole thing a lot better, and more honestly, than Bush did.

[Daniel Morris]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,916790,00.html

This speech is as important as any ever given by Churchill, and our grandchildren will study it in high school, and it will be a disgrace if Blair shares Churchill's ultimate fate.

[Jason McCullough]

His government released a document claiming that Saddam was "45 minutes away" from attacking with WMD. He's a better man than Bush, but his government appears to have knowingly lied.

Might want to leave some room for further hyperbole, Dan.

[Daniel Morris]

Some highlights:


What would any tyrannical regime possessing WMD think viewing the history of the world's diplomatic dance with Saddam? That our capacity to pass firm resolutions is only matched by our feebleness in implementing them.

That is why this indulgence has to stop. Because it is dangerous. It is dangerous if such regimes disbelieve us.

Dangerous if they think they can use our weakness, our hesitation, even the natural urges of our democracy towards peace, against us.

Dangerous because one day they will mistake our innate revulsion against war for permanent incapacity; when in fact, pushed to the limit, we will act. But then when we act, after years of pretence, the action will have to be harder, bigger, more total in its impact. Iraq is not the only regime with WMD. But back away now from this confrontation and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more devastating.



11 September has changed the psychology of America. It should have changed the psychology of the world. Of course Iraq is not the only part of this threat. But it is the test of whether we treat the threat seriously.

Faced with it, the world should unite. The UN should be the focus, both of diplomacy and of action. That is what 1441 said. That was the deal. And I say to you to break it now, to will the ends but not the means that would do more damage in the long term to the UN than any other course.

To fall back into the lassitude of the last 12 years, to talk, to discuss, to debate but never act; to declare our will but not enforce it; to combine strong language with weak intentions, a worse outcome than never speaking at all.



I have come to the conclusion after much reluctance that the greater danger to the UN is inaction: that to pass resolution 1441 and then refuse to enforce it would do the most deadly damage to the UN's future strength, confirming it as an instrument of diplomacy but not of action, forcing nations down the very unilateralist path we wish to avoid.



We must face the consequences of the actions we advocate. For me, that means all the dangers of war. But for others, opposed to this course, it means - let us be clear - that the Iraqi people, whose only true hope of liberation lies in the removal of Saddam, for them, the darkness will close back over them again; and he will be free to take his revenge upon those he must know wish him gone.

And if this house now demands that at this moment, faced with this threat from this regime, that British troops are pulled back, that we turn away at the point of reckoning, and that is what it means - what then?

What will Saddam feel? Strengthened beyond measure. What will the other states who tyrannise their people, the terrorists who threaten our existence, what will they take from that? That the will confronting them is decaying and feeble.



I will not be party to such a course. This is not the time to falter. This is the time for this house, not just this government or indeed this prime minister, but for this house to give a lead, to show that we will stand up for what we know to be right, to show that we will confront the tyrannies and dictatorships and terrorists who put our way of life at risk, to show at the moment of decision that we have the courage to do the right thing.

[Tom Chick]

Dan,

Where's the part where the lady tells Blair he's drunk and Blair tells her she's ugly? Something like that, at any rate. That's the best part.

:)

-Tom

[antlers]

Despite the pretty rhetoric (which Blair can do quite well, and Bush fails at miserably) it's difficult to argue that either Britain, the U.S., or the world at large are safer after the invasion of Iraq. Any WMDs that the Iraqis had are now under the control of no governmental entity that could possibly be held responsible. It is far more likely now, in the context of an extended guerilla war in yet another failed state, that Saddam's WMD's (insofar as they exist) will fall into the hands of terrorists, than it was when he was jealously guarding them/bluffing about them as some sort of weird bargaining chip.

We had no business to go into Iraq to remove the threat of WMDs without having any idea about how to do it once we were there.

[Daniel Morris]

it's difficult to argue that either Britain, the U.S., or the world at large are safer after the invasion of Iraq.

Actually, it's quite simple, if one understands basic strategic theory. The Romans did -- thus their classical admonition about preparing for war.

The world is safer now because a new international norm has been established (a precedent, if you will) -- outlaw regimes that defy international consensus will no longer be tolerated. As Blair points out, Third World status will no longer suffice as a shield...rogue regimes will be confronted and destroyed. Knowing this, the world's remaining tyrannies will be much less inclined to flout or plot against the wishes of the world's democracies.

Alternately, the course of standing down in the face of Saddam would have had the reverse effect of emboldening outlaw regimes, which, as Blair points out, would have had every reason to expect the international community not to mean what it said.

Bill Clinton (a guy I otherwise greatly admire) made this basic mistake throughout the Nineties -- every time terrorists hit US interests, he responded by disengaging. When the USS Cole was hit, he ordered the Navy not to anchor in Yemen anymore. When the embassies were bombed -- surely an act of war if ever there was one -- he utterly failed to hold the nations he knew to be harboring al-Qaeda accountable.

This only emboldened Bin Laden to pursue the nightmare strike of 9/11 -- and if you doubt that, I advise you to read the transcripts of OBL's recruitment tapes circa the late Nineties.

I sometimes wish that the people who get so choked up at Jean-Luc Picard's big speech about being pushed and pushed and finally having to draw the line would get similarly choked up about the real world.

Si vis pacem, para bellum. If you want peace, prepare war.

[Jason McCullough]

Unless they're Iran. Or Syria. Or North Korea. Or China. Or Pakistan.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

The world is safer now because a new international norm has been established (a precedent, if you will) -- outlaw regimes that defy international consensus will no longer be tolerated. As Blair points out, Third World status will no longer suffice as a shield...rogue regimes will be confronted and destroyed. Knowing this, the world's remaining tyrannies will be much less inclined to flout or plot against the wishes of the world's democracies.

I fail to see this norm being acted on in any serious way. It's great that we're getting involved in Liberia, but I see no groundswell of international pressure to oust the Burma junta, topple Castro or drive Lukashenko into exile. If we are out to end tyranny, Iraq was a great place to start but most of the world's leading powers are silent on the ongoing tyrannies in China, Laos, Tajikstan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. The expansion of democratic ideals has been a norm of Western international policy at least since the Helsinki agreement in the 70s. This is not the same as "not tolerating tyranny". We tolerated Eastern Europe for another 15 years.

The Iraq precedent, if you want to call it that, did not establish that tyranny shall driven from this earth. Weapons of mass destruction was the reason right? If that excuse was just a smokescreen to cover a crusade that the American people would have had little interest in, fair enough. But if you have to quibble about the reason, then it's hardly a new international norm. Blair pushed the moral argument hard so good for him. Bush didn't. Saddam was a danger to America and her allies because of weapons he had - not just because he was a mean guy. On this side of the pond, we only demanded that Hussein go into exile or turn over all his weapons.

Troy

[Daniel Morris]

Very interesting post, Troy, and a welcome respite from what usually passes as debate around here.


I fail to see this norm being acted on in any serious way.

With luck, it'll stay that way. The whole point of a "demonstrative" action is that it induces compliance in the other nations considered terrorist sponsors. As many folks will point out, we can't go around the planet removing all its dictators -- it's just not feasible -- but we can put them on notice that they will not be permitted to threaten international peace. And what we can do, we should.


This is not the same as "not tolerating tyranny".

No one is talking about "not tolerating tyranny," and certainly not me. I'm talking about not tolerating tyrannies that flout international consensus and pose transnational threats. If you want a reasonable starting point, I'd suggest these six from the list of nations regarded as state sponsors of terrorism -- Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, and Sudan. Cuba gets a free pass because, c'mon, let's face it, Fidel ain't bombing Miami anytime soon.

(It goes without saying that this is strictly a list of threatening nations. I'd argue that a moral nation, indeed a moral world, should have and ought still intervene militarily to save populations against murderous oppression from ruling regimes. If you want to talk tragedies, let's talk Rwanda, or the horrors brewing currently in Zimbabwe.)


I see no groundswell of international pressure to oust the Burma junta, topple Castro or drive Lukashenko into exile.

Neither Burma nor Belarus pose transnational threats. That's why the State Department does not list them as state sponsors of terror. And Castro, as I mention above, gets a free pass, since Cuba will be a democracy beginning approximately five minutes after he dies.


On this side of the pond, we only demanded that Hussein go into exile or turn over all his weapons.

On this side of the pond, we made the same demand, and added the last step of enforcing the demand when it was flaunted. Both France and Russia stated unequivocally that they opposed military action against Iraq under any circumstances. So you could have demanded whatever you wanted in as many languages as you liked, but without the consequence of intervention, Saddam and every other dictator on this planet would have -- and should have -- felt free to disregard international demands.

[Jason McCullough]

Daniel, should we invade and overthrow the government of Pakistan? Their army supports "terror"; they were in pretty tight with Al Queda.

[Brad Grenz]

Perhaps, Jason, you should reread Daniel's post paying particular attention to places where he uses the words "transnational threat" and "International consensus". Pakistan ain't all roses and lovebunnies, but they were sufficiently terrified of the US to be on their best behavior for the last couple years. There are continuing disputes with India, but I'm not aware of any UN articles similar to 1441 that have been passed, but I haven't really been paying attention.

Not to mention Pakistan already has nukes, is the biggest hotbed of anti-Americanism outside of Saudi Arabia, and already exists under the very tenuous rule of a military dictator. It's a precarious situation, and if Musharif (is that the guy?) fell to a fundementalist uprising, things could deteriorate quickly and perhaps action would be required there. But you guys have got to admit to yourselves that this stuff isn't an all or nothing, black and white proposition. You have no trouble recognizing gradiation of morality of action when you discuss Palestinian suicide bombers, or Bathist loyalists, but when it comes to the policies of our Republican president you insist that there can be no room to manuever. Frankly, your demands are absurd and hypocritical. I can understand Iraqi civilians frustrated because they expect America to be omnipotent, but educated westerners should know better. If "America" could snap its fingers and snuff out the life of every brutal dictator in the world simultaneously, we probably would. but that a complete fantasy. The political, moral and, yes, economic benefits of action have to be weighed against the political, moral and economics costs of that action. It would be foolish to demand constant action, just as it would be very dangerous to marry ourselves to inaction.

[Toddy]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,916790,00.html

This speech is as important as any ever given by Churchill, and our grandchildren will study it in high school, and it will be a disgrace if Blair shares Churchill's ultimate fate.

Ahem. Are you out of your mind? I admire (on the same level as I admire Jack the Ripper's skills at never getting caught) Blair as one of the world's finest politicians, but how can you compare him to Churchill? Aside from the whole crusade-against-Nazi-evil thing, Churchill's words united a nation. Blair's sowed dissent and mistrust, first with his party, then with the rest of the nation. He deserves to go. His personal policies don't mesh with his party or the British citizenry.

I know some of you Americans don't quite understand all this -- the UK and Canada have a far, far, far more open system, a system which saw Blair answering direct questions, in person, from MPs in an open forum broadcast live on BBC World yesterday (good luck ever seeing a US president on the hot seat like that) -- due to your electing a king every four years, but this is what happens in a real democracy. It's called accountability, and it's something that the US system has been sorely lacking for a very, very, depressingly long time.

[Toddy]

Actually, it's quite simple, if one understands basic strategic theory. The Romans did -- thus their classical admonition about preparing for war.

Simple? Nothing is simple anymore, and it certainly hasn't gotten any simpler since the US blundered into Iraq without a plan for what to do after the tanks stopped rolling. The world isn't safer now, largely because there is no international norm. To say that, you'd have to conclude that nations still mattered. They don't, at least not as much as you believe that they do. Terror doesn't need a state in which to operate. There are plenty of private financiers out there with endless sources of cash with which to provide lots of operating capital. Weapons of incredible destructive power, both destructive to the economy and to human beings, can be developed in bathtubs and spread by guys simply walking down a Manhattan street or through a farmer's field in the Midwest.

Oh, and groovy catchphrase notwithstanding, pretty much the entire history of imperial Rome involved pull-out-of-ass responses to threats. Rome was *never* really prepared for war, as the military was never that big and the frontiers beyond the ability of any ancient state to properly administer. There certainly is no way to compare Roman foreign policy to the hamfisted fumbles of the US tetrarchy of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. Rome hid behind walls, earthworks, fences, and watchtowers. It bought off and pacified enemies. There were very, very few preemptive strikes. And after the reign of Trajan, virtually all such endeavors were universally disastrous.


The world is safer now because a new international norm has been established (a precedent, if you will) -- outlaw regimes that defy international consensus will no longer be tolerated. As Blair points out, Third World status will no longer suffice as a shield...rogue regimes will be confronted and destroyed. Knowing this, the world's remaining tyrannies will be much less inclined to flout or plot against the wishes of the world's democracies.

But what happens when some of the terrorist groups aren't being propped up by these outlaw regimes? What if they're operating without homes, in lawless parts of the world, with operatives living in towns and cities across the West? How exactly do you destroy that? I don't know if you're really clued in on this, as polls seem to show a lot of Americans still don't realize that Osama and Saddam are different people, but Saddam Hussein didn't order the 9/11 attacks. He had no connection to Islamist terror groups at all. Bombing the bejesus out of Baghdad didn't do a thing to halt the operations of such organizations. Many lumped Saddam in with the US before the invasion of Iraq, and now those resisting the US occupations are saying that the Americans and the Baathists amount to the same thing.


Alternately, the course of standing down in the face of Saddam would have had the reverse effect of emboldening outlaw regimes, which, as Blair points out, would have had every reason to expect the international community not to mean what it said.

Right. So explain North Korea. Explain Iran. Shouldn't these outlaw regimes now be throwing open the doors to inspectors and begging the US not to invade them, too? I think you greatly overestimate the power of fear.


This only emboldened Bin Laden to pursue the nightmare strike of 9/11 -- and if you doubt that, I advise you to read the transcripts of OBL's recruitment tapes circa the late Nineties. I sometimes wish that the people who get so choked up at Jean-Luc Picard's big speech about being pushed and pushed and finally having to draw the line would get similarly choked up about the real world.

Okay, now this I agree with. But how does invading and occupying Iraq have anything to do with smacking down Islamist terror groups? The situation in Afghanistan hasn't even been settled, and the US wants to move on to Iraq? There's no exit strategy for any of this. It's all about hammering brown people so other brown people will know better than to fuck with the US next time. It's really ironic, too, because Bush was telling everyone in the US not to discriminate against Arabs after 9/11, that beating up taxi drivers with turbans would not be tolerated because these people had nothing to do with the attacks. Of course, neither did the average Joe in Iraq, but that didn't stop Bush and co. from "liberating" him with a bunch of bombs and throwing the nation into months of anarchy.

But what pisses me off the most about this debate is that a lot of young guys are serving as sitting ducks in Iraq right now. While you sit back and talk about this great grand design with Latin quotes you scarfed off Google, kids are getting shot in the back of the fucking head while they're trying to buy soft drinks. Is that your idea of a sacrifice that needs to be made to make the US and the rest of the free world safe? It sure as hell ain't mine.

[quatoria]

Unless they're Iran. Or Syria. Or North Korea. Or China. Or Pakistan.

Or America.

[Toddy]

Oh, and one more point, Dan. "Si vis pacem, para bellum" comes from the Epitoma rei militaris, a work written by Vegetius at the end of the fourth century during a period of dramatic decline. It is sort of a "Monday morning quarterback/sour grapes" tome, penned after the complete destruction of the Roman army under Valens, by the Goths at Adrianople in 378. This battle is regarded by many as a point of no return for Rome. The Western Empire died as a viable entity just over two decades later, when constant Gothic invasions forced Honorius to hole up in Ravenna and allow Italy to be pillaged for the better part of a decade.

The Epitoma rei militaris itself became influential during the Middle Ages, though there is no evidence that it had any effect on contemporary policy made in Rome and Constantinople (though at least it was apparently copied frequently, judging by its survival). If you've ever looked at it, you'll wonder how it ever became popular. The maxims are pretty much ludicrous and the whole thing is written in a folksy, degraded style that includes a lot of facts that can't be backed up. It's an interesting book, but it's hard to really trust it. Unfortunately, it and the Notitia dignitatum--which is more administrative but provides cool illustrations of military insignia with lists of civil and military positions in both East and West--are all we've really got on the Roman military in the late fourth, early fifth century.

Anyhow, this isn't the most credible of quotations to be citing here. Unless, of course, you were trying to draw an analogy between the US of 2003 and the crumbling Roman Empire of 378.

[Anders Hallin]

Unless, of course, you were trying to draw an analogy between the US of 2003 and the crumbling Roman Empire of 378.
And if you are, that would be stepping on my (and Jason et al, and, sadly, Cleve) turf ;)
Although I usually keep silent about my fears for the world.

[Jason McCullough]

Maybe if Bush didn't insist on inane absolutist foreign policy principles we wouldn't try to hold him to them.

[antlers]

I don't think having half of the US Army's deployable manpower tied down in Iraq for the forseeable future, in a conflict the continuing casualties, economic burden and questionable motivation of which will reduce public support for future US military adventures for years, will do a lot to deter other bad guys around the world from committing bad acts.

Iraq may yet turn out OK; I hope it does. We may get a nice international security force in there to settle things down during the transition to a democracy. What I fear, however, is an ever-more-isolated Anglo-American force facing a long-term, nationalist popular resistance.

[Daniel Morris]

Maybe if Bush didn't insist on inane absolutist foreign policy principles

Hilarious -- in the same thread, you accuse the US of molly-coddling the government of Pakistan, then turn right around and complain about how the US insists on an absolutist foreign policy. Which is it?

[Jason McCullough]

Stating you're "fighting a war on terror" and then spinning around and declaring Pakistan your best buddy is a bit of a conflict there. If Bush has a foreign policy principle that explains this, he might want to tell us, because it sure isn't "we're fighting a war on terror....by allying with terror!"

[Daniel Morris]

Alternately, in the rational world, you could hold up Pakistan as a model example of a government that "got the message" and has:

a) renounced its ties to transnational terrorist groups, namely al Qaeda...

b) sacked the high-ranking intelligence officers who sympathized with those terrorist groups...

c) made unprecedented guarantees to India to crack down on cross-border attacks by Kashmiri separatists...

d) cooperated and coordinated with the US on covert actions taken against al Qaeda fugitives, most notably obtaining the arrests of Khalid Sheikh and Ramzi bin Alshib in Pakistan.

[Daniel Morris]

But on the other matter, I'm actually still waiting for you to clear up some confusion. Which is it, Jason ---- am I supposed to hate Bush for his inane absolutist foreign policy, or am I supposed to hate Bush because he's a Macchiavellian plotter who thumps certain shady governments and cuddles up with others?

If you could just tell me which it is, I will hate Bush for that reason. But you're giving me both arguments and I can't help but notice that the arguments are self-annihilating.