"...is to deny that the Iraqi regime is particularly ugly, that it lies somewhere outside the range of ordinary states, or to argue that, however ugly it is, it doesn't pose any significant threat to its neighbors or to world peace. Perhaps, despite Saddam's denials, his government is in fact seek-ing to acquire nuclear weapons. But other governments are doing the same thing, and if or when Iraq succeeds in developing such weapons—so the argument continues—we can deal with that through conventional deterrence, in exactly the same way that the US and the Soviet Union dealt with each other in the cold war years. "
The right way;
"to oppose the war is to argue that the present system of containment and control is working and can be made to work better. This means that we should acknowledge the awfulness of the Iraqi regime and the dangers it poses, and then aim to deal with those dangers through coercive measures short of war. But this isn't a policy easy to defend, for we know exactly what coercive measures are necessary, and we also know how costly they are."
Clearly nothing will persuade some in the pro-war camp -- those (who seem in the majority) who appear to want a war not for the 'good' reasons, ie. to improve the lot of the Iraqi people or to neutralise the threat of Saddam to his nieighbours, but merely to show the might of American power and to obtain revenge for September 11th. Also such analysis provides cold comfort for those 'old Europeans', for it was them who have made the containment regime less effective than it ought to have been. For those in neither camp however it does suggest a way in which Iraq can be dealt with.
Also in the NYRB is this excellent article on Bush's tax cuts. Whether you support Bush on Iraq or not, it is very difficult to see how anyone could see any merits in his economic policy, if you can call it a policy,
posted by Matthew @ 2/26/2003 11:11:00 AM
Comments: 0
