catapult magazine

i was reading an article in sunday’s chicago tribune which explained that if the united states were to invade iraq for the reasons currently cited by our government, we could be charged with violating an international law under which seven top nazis were found guilty at nuremberg.

the tribunal in the nazi war crimes case quoted 19th century US secretary of state, daniel webster, in its decision: “Preventive action in foreign territory is justified only in case of ‘an instant and overwhelming necessity for self-defense, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.’” so, if we were to pre-emptively attack iraq, we would not be doing so to stall an imminent iraqi attack, but to prevent a possible attack in the future. essentially, our actions would be contradictory to international law.

then i remembered all of the US wrangling over the international criminal court (ICC) this summer. essentially, the US agreed to the ICC only after the UN security council granted a year-long immunity period for US citizens, during which US troops could not be charged with war crimes.

hmmmm . . . interesting.

“Eichmann in Jerusalem”, a book made up of a series of articles written by Hannah Arendt in New Yorker Magazine in the mid- 60’s, looks at the trial of an ex-NAZI that took place in Jerusalem. In the book, Arendt talks about the justifications Hitler used to attack other nations, things like “If Germany doesn’t attack, it will be attacked by other nations”. I know Bush bristled at the suggestion by German Justice Minister Herta Daubler-Gmelin that the U.S. was using Hitler’s logic to justify a pre-emptive strike, but in some ways this is true.

Though Bush ought to resent being compared to Hitler, I don’t think he needs to apologize for thinking pre-emptively. This is indeed new territory for U.S. foreign policy. Our short-sightedness often leads to waiting for an attack before we do anything. 9-11 has changed the way we think. We must learn how to negotiate these complex issues now that waiting for an attack is no longer an option for deciding whether or not we’ll engage in war.

I think Bush has more than enough evidence to link Hussein’s regime to the war on terrorism. Whether Hussein is hiding Al Qaeda or not, most of Hussein’s (potential) weapons are “weapons of terror”. If anyone has the time, Alan Dershowitz’ “Why Terrorism Works” traces the uses of terrorist tactics in the Middle East and shows how we have encouraged terrorism by giving terrorists what they want. Another way of looking at this whole U.S.-Israeli-British attack on terrorism is as an attempt to show that terrorism hurts the terrorists and their demands much more than it helps. Ousting Hussein might send a clear message to Mid-East terrorists that the acts of 9-11 were not beneficial for their cause, and may show the suffering peoples of the Mid-East that a Saddam-less Mid-East is a safer Mid-East.

Like most Democrats (although I am not one), while I think Saddam is a tyrant and deserves to be taken from power, I have no stomach for an actual armed conflict, yet I can’t offer an alternative except to delay the debate. Even though the Democrats seem to not posess the nads to take a stand one way or another, I can’t help but sympathize with them. Personally, I feel if you want to fight a war, be willing to pick up a gun and volunteer. Or send your brother, your son, your father, husband or friend. ‘War is hell’ may be a cliche, but it’s still true.
Part of the reason why I have my reservations about invading Iraq is that I second guess Bush’s motives. Actually, I may be willing to believe that Bush is as pure as he is portraying himself, although I doubt it, but I can’t believe it about his insane adminstration. I’m sorry. I sound like a typical smug, high-minded liberal who dislikes him simply because of his personality, but I can’t get around it. I realize this is just a gut feeling, so it doesn’t prove much. But besides the actual fighting itself, which has its own set of questions, what about afterwards? Another delay tatic for the Democrats (but still very legitimate) is to ask about what will happen afterward if we actually suceed in removing Saddam? The U.S. doesn’t have the best reputation for following through with rebuilding countries. Does anybody remember Afganistan? The starvation rate is getting worse and supposedly we were going to help a great deal. The aid that we promised to send in rebuilding that country has shrunk to a tiny trickle. So instead we put on a big show about dropping supplies from airplanes once or twice and then we all forget about it. Is this really helping the war on terror?
This all looks a bit like Panama to me, in which a formerly US supported leader, although they are not nice fellows by any means, now must be removed by force because we allowed him to get bigger than he should have in the first place. In the mean time, we’ll be killing lots of civilians when we go in there with guns blazing. Over a 1000 killed in Panama and actually more civilians in Afganistan then were killed on Sept 11. I don’t think, wait, I know the US doesn’t have the stomach or the patience to occupy Iraq for as long as we may have to, which may take decades.

I don’t know. Again, I don’t disagree with you in theory. I just think it’s extremely more complicated than the Bushies (whom I cannot trust) are making it sound like. I think what it comes down to is what we think would be the result of an invasion. Some say it will teach terrorists a lesson and some say this is only going to breed more hatred for America. Since I tend to be a cynic and a pessimist, I feel the later will be the case, but who knows?

See, there’s no real arugments here, just delay tactics.

It is somewhat surprising to hear Americans suggest that we should “occupy”, “guide” or “stay” in a country for a sustained period following military engagement.

As a former colony that was dependent on a major empire, I can see why the U.S. does not traditionally stay and build nations after a war. The U.S. does not like to think of itself as a Britain, France, Portugal, Spain or Holland of old. It is much simpler and more consistent with our nation’s history to play the liberating role—to overthrow “evil” regimes that hinder people’s freedom—than to stick around and set up someone else’s country for them.

Our great hope would be that the Iraqi people will take some initiative for their own future with the “inspiration” of the U.S. military. Only time will tell just how “American” the Iraqi people really are. (sorry for all the quotation marks)

Oh yeah. And on what cursed planet are we to find human beings with “pure motives”?

I recently read an editorial over here in Portland in which the writer pointed out the fantastic gymnastics that Bush is doing with foreign policy here on this issue. Not even a year ago Bush was putting out the call that “If you are not with us, you are against us,” which galvanized the allies and we all rallied behind Bush and went into Afghanastan. Now it seems like he is saying to the world “If you are not with us, we don’t care,” and our allies, I think, have good cause to be wary. It does not build confidence among nations to say one day that we must all unite, and then the next say that if you don’t back us we will do whatever the hell we want. I thought that was an interesting thought, and one more piece of this frightening puzzle..

The gap between what Bush says in public and what he may be actually thinking seems so great to me (and I don’t think the problem is unique to him) that I find the notion that we might be able to actually figure out what he is really thinking absurd. I think his public personal works well domestically, where the more shallow voters get exceited about his tough talkin’ and his more thoughtful supporters recognize that isn’t really what he thinks (or is it?. Internationally, though, his words can be embarrassing. The “If you’re against us, you’re not with us, but we don’t care” attitude being a prime example.

The bottom line is that Bush is going in. You can speculate on his reasons, but he’s made up his mind. Nothing is going to stop him. What I find most disgusting is that he is using the deaths of the thousands of people in the World Trade Center to pursue his own selfish agenda.

Grant, I’ll have to disagree with you — Terrorism is one thing. Iraq is another. Nobody likes Hussein but he’s no Islamic fundamentalist and for Bush to suggest there is a connection is simply shameful. But regardless, Bush wants to give the American military some practice, and to leave his own mark on history.

I can empathize with the leader of the world’s most powerful country wanting to flex his muscles — it would be fun in the narrowest military strategic sense. But I find it tragic that the American people are buying into the terrorism-Iraq connection and seem to share the presidents glee at the prospect of kicking some Arab ass.

For me it’s straightforward: Invading Iraq is wrong — it will destabilize the Middle East, it goes against the concensus of the United Nations which represents all that nations of the world and 50 years of experience in international diplomacy, it shows Bush’s unwillingness to learn from the experience of his father (who opposes the current push), and for lots of other reasons.

Wrong though it may be, it’s going to happen. Americans are thrilled at the prospect of more pretty pictures of missiles doing down chimneys. It feeds the insatiable “get the bad guy cult” to which Americans seem particularly attracted. So lets get ready for censored war coverage. Get ready for outrage over dozens of American casualties and indifference to thousands of Iraqi deaths. Get ready for American incompetence in nation building once Hussein is in his litte cage in Guantanamo Bay.

And get ready for more anger towards the USA. Hey! Check that out — there is a connection between Iraq and terrorism!

Dan’s right. Anybody who thinks that Saddam has a secret alliance with islamists is a little naive i think. Saddam husayn belongs to the Ba’ath party (http://www.damascus-online.com/se/hist/baath_party.htm) which is at its essence has a secular, socialist agenda, much different than the agenda of most islamists (to create a islamic state governed by shariah). While they share some views (hatred for america being one), I don’t think Saddam’s stupid enough to support islamist extremists that would just as likely use the weapons against him when they’re sick of using them against the US (that’s a special kind of stupidity reserved exclusively for US foreign policy :). For those of you that are familiar with the middle east at all, the late Hafez al-Assad of syria was also one of the major early proponents of the Ba’athist idea. Although the syrian Ba’ath party and the Iraqi Ba’ath party are somewhat different, they share a lot of goals and ideals. And nobody would ever accuse assad of being pro-islamist. In fact, he essentially massacred an entire syrian city (Hama) because the Islamists were getting too strong there and threatening his power.

So if bush wants to convince people that we need to attack iraq, I see these as his options: 1) claim that saddam is going to use WMD against us, 2) claim that islamists are going to steal WMD from saddam and use them against us, or 3) claim that saddam and the islamists have some sort of evil alliance and hope that americans are naive enough to believe it.

Obviously he’s chosen 3, and unfortunately it seems to be working.

Thanks for the info Jonner. I was just thinking about the airdrops of food “aid” almost a year ago. One of the items falling from American planes were crates of Keloggs Pop Tarts, an item which requires both dentists and toasters, neither of which are widely available in Afghanistan.

As I said before, it doesn’t matter if Saddam Hussein is linked to Al Qaeda or not. According to the definitions of terrorism established by Bush and his administration, Hussein clearly fits into the “war against terror” scheme. A proposed attack on Hussein is not some off-the-wall, out-of-nowhere decision.

Saddam Hussein is a logical next step for Bush’s anti-terrorism campaign. Bush has made terrorism the focus of his administration. He has made a promise to the American people that his administration would wage war against terrorism, which means rooting out terrorists wherever they are. Since the administration has not completely annihilated Al Qaeda and has not found Bin Laden yet, the most reasonable way to sustain the war effort is to mark out other targets that pose a threat to the security of this nation. But isn’t this a political move on his part? Of course! If he doesn’t make-do on his promises—if we don’t see some results in the war against terror—Bush will have failed the American people.

It would be especially naive to claim that Bush is merely warming-up the military or trying to make a name for himself. Rather than start with a one-dimensional view of the president, we can indeed begin by understanding the strategies (that are clearly indicated by Bush himself) involved in these decisions.