(Un)Intended ConsequencesWhat's the future if we don't act?

Notes From The Fray Editor:

Two important strands in the Fray. The first concerns "consistency"—see RichardAN, MrZero and SSM below. The second concerns the historical record—Carter's complicity in arming Iraq. Publius, who has professional experience with the Democrats, thinks Hitchens' timing is all wrong; Joe_JP disagrees, and makes his case here.

Remarks From The Fray:

He follows his description of Paul Wolfowitz' "consistency" in demanding the removal of Saddam Hussein with the declaration that it "seems odd to blame Wolfowitz for having in effect been right all along," but that little phrase "in effect" beggars the entire debate, and the rest of the sentence simply asserts what it should be forced to prove. The issue is how to most *successfully* deal with the menace of Hussein, and the idea that a purblind and unwavering insistence on his removal by military means is somehow admirable because it hasn't changed in the face of radically altering circumstances is sheer nonsense.

-- RichardAN

(To reply, click here.)


Hitchens performs a service by reminding us of Jimmy Carter's previous fecklessness in relation to the 1991 Gulf War, but he's way off base trying to blame Jimmy for Saddam's September 1980 attack on Iran ("As president, he encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade Iran in 1979 and assured him that the Khomeini regime would crumble swiftly.") Carter did no such thing, and this must be some reverberation in Hitchens' mind of one or another leftist diatribes about US policy written by Hitchens when he was still a good little leftist.

In September 1980, the US did not even have diplomatic relations with Iraq, a state of affairs that had long been accompanied by a deep mutual hostility fostered by Iraq's chosen role as dependable Soviet client. There were, to be sure, conditions that influenced Saddam to think this was a good time for him to rip off a piece of Iran, because the latter was in revolutionary chaos, its military hounded by the ayatollahs who suspected virtually all officers of sympathy with the Shah, its trade at a standstill and its treasury bare. Moreover, Saddam surely thought, the US -- as the only power capable of stopping him -- could hardly be expected to intervene in favor of Iran which was daily denouncing the US as the Great Satan and continuing to humiliate Carter by holding the embassy hostages.

But that tacit acquiescence is the extent of any US encouragement Saddam got from Carter of the US. In fact, it was not until the following year when Reagan was President that the US began to explore ways to covertly prop up both sides in that war so they would balance each other out. To read some of the nonsense written today, you would think that we began shipping tanks and F-16s to Saddam. The truth is that the full extent of US help provided as a way to keep Iran from winning and threatening the rest of the Gulf Arab states was the following:

1) We provided intelligence on Iranian dispositions through the Saudi military;

2) We dropped objections to France's supplying Iraq with arms (as it had for many years); and

3) We extended trade credits to Iraq to enable them to import US agricultural goods.

That's it. One can subject the policy of a tilt toward Iraq to withering scrutiny and criticism. but it's more persuasive if one doesn't make stuff up in the process. And Jimmy had basically nothing to do with it. He was out before he had the chance.

-- Publius

(To reply, click here.)


I figure it's the faux-heroic style of British chickenhawks, but when Hitchens writes rubbish like:

"If consequences and consistency are to count in this argument, then they must count both ways. One cannot know the future, but one can make a reasoned judgment about the evident danger and instability of the status quo. Odd that the left should think that the status quo, in this area of all areas, is so worthy of preservation,"

the odd thing is that the status quo he so despises has, after all, worked since 1991. Iraq has been contained, has shown no indication of being able to break out of containment, nor has been able to put together a coalition to break containment (i.e. lift sanctions). The only thing really unstable about the status quo has been the efforts by the Bush Administration to undermine the credibility of containment by refusing to acknowledge that it has worked. In fact, the very success of containment has been the greatest foe of the Bush desire for war: in other words, the greatest threat to the security of George W. Bush has been the collective security apparatus in place versus Iraq since 1991, put there in large part by his dad.

-- SSM

(To reply, click here.)

Those of us who oppose invading Iraq have to be honest with ourselves about our motivation. And it seems to me that part of that motivation is this: Bush is for it. Therefore, it must be stupid and dangerous.

It's hard not to follow this line of reasoning, since pretty much everything else Bush has touched since he was appointed President has turned to poop.

But as a line of argument, it's not very convincing. We should be arguing this on its merits, not on the brain power of its chief proponent. And one big problem with the Peace side of the long public discussion has been that they are, or have allowed themselves to be perceived as, for any peace at any price. That simply makes no sense.

So I'm back where I started: let's have this war. There are only two possibilities, both acceptable to me:
1. Bush turns out to be right. We win in 6 hours, nobody gets hurt, the Middle East rushes to embrace democracy (look at the fabulous example we will have given them - vote, and then when you lose the vote, do what you wanted anyway), terrorism evaporates, Rush Limbaugh suffers a fatal heart attack from saying "I told you so" too many times. It's all good.

2. Bush turns out to be wrong. We end up fighting house to house in Iraq, live on CNN, and the world falls apart. Not pretty, but at least we get a new President next year, maybe even one that doesn't talk like Jed Clampett. Maybe this will finally be an election where we can get those stupid NASCAR voters out of the damn White House.

Either way, I'm ok with it. Just promise me we can invade North Korea next...

-- MrZero

(To reply, click here.)

(3/18)