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.

Well, that’s obviously an over-simplification. There’s obviously significant anti-american sentiment in iraq, but there’s also likely a large percentage of people that are either pro- or indifferent toward america, especially when compared to saddam hussein. I read somewhere about a survey that was taken recently among muslim young people between 15-25 that asked which countries they viewed most favorably. Guess who was first and second? Yep, America and Britain, respectively. Try to explain that one. But obviously nobody would look too favorably on the possibility of his home and family being bombed…

Here’s an interesting story from the guardian about how some intelligence experts are upset that bush seems to be twisting intelligence information to fit his agenda. an interesting read.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,807286,00.html

Ummm. First of all, there is no justification for the 9/11 attacks. The act should not be reduced to a symbolism of a couple of planes taking down a few pretty looking buildings. That’s what the whole “Columbine as Act of Terrorism” argument was about. And for this same reason, I don’t think America should focus on its image—this again reduces all of life to symbolism. I much prefer a president who isn’t led by the image the U.S. might project (the problem is that along with this goes a feeling that we do not depend on other nations of the world).

And the reason I’m intent on fleshing out Bush’s political strategies is because many of the arguments against him so far have been based on gut-feeling assumptions about his character. Many people blame him for making decisions based on politics as if that’s unheard of!

While I agree with you Grant I have no problem with developing a positive image for the U.S. Not that that should be the be all and end all. If I want to be liked I look at things I can do to make people like me (again, not the best motivation, but bare/bear? with me). If I find these things that will earn the respect of people/nations I admire that is a good thing regardless of motivation. To make nations tremble with fear because we have bigger guns than they do, to force their respect is completely different. Let America look at being the nice guy (without being taken advantage of) instead of the bully policeman who demands respect and see what kind of reactions we get from nations. Not that their opinions are the most important but because it is the right thing to do. Why must America see everything we do as perfect and if people disagree with us their problem is affecting our way of life? Are we too pompous to recognize our own shortcomings? and that even if the attacks on the world trade center were terrible, at least the anger of those that did it is understandable?

here’s another interesting guardian piece, which reiterates my concerns about saddam using anything he’s got if we were to attack now (especially before exhausting diplomatic means):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,808970,00.html

Norbert, I agree that there are good reasons to be critical of U.S. foreign policy. But why are you assuming that the terrorist attacks on 9/11 are an expression of criticism against U.S. foreign policy? I truly believe that jealousy (or something like it) is a major motivation for a large portion of animosity against the U.S., political or not, Columbine or 9/11. It is (and many of the rantings against the U.S. on this very discussion stream have displayed this) very common to direct one’s criticism, bitterness about the way things are, and anger toward the Empire. Saddam Hussein is very much motivated, I think, by a will to be the great dominating Muslim military leader of old and the U.S. stands in the way. I think much of Europe’s reaction to what they see as U.S. arrogance is also motivated by the fact that they are no longer dominant players on the world scene.

As the Empire, the U.S. has much more to lose than any of the other countries involved. The U.S. looks bad when it says it’ll go it alone if it has to… but the U.S. might have to, especially since France/Germany etc. don’t have strong militaries and don’t want to disrupt their economic ties to the Mid East etc.

My reasoning, and although I am not a completely informed critic (therefor I offer my disclaimer), is that the U.S. is easily percieved as being a Zionistic nation that is “picking on”, to borrow a playground term, the Arabian nations. We are a consumer of oil. We are an exploiter of countries that is just as quick to turn our backs on them as help them out in a jam. Russia is not the only one to have set up puppet regimes though the motivations may be different. I just think that Middle-Eastern nations are getting fed up with the Almighty Americans dictating the course of world events by their own selfish motivations.
I guess I can see jealousy in this as well, but I cannot see it as the primary motivation. That seems to be something better applied to our cultures than to theirs. Though with that statement I’ll again refer you to my disclaimer.

Grant,
You’re probably right about jealousy being a part of the motivation, but that’s completely speculative. There’s plenty of empirical evidence that many people in the middle east are unhappy with US foreign policy, which would lead one to naturally assume that this is a major contributing factor to their animosity toward the United States. I’ve heard plenty of people assigning all kinds of reasons for the terrorists actions: jealousy, hatred of freedom, etc. Generally it’s what makes us feel good. (“wow, they hate us because we’re so wonderful”). To me, that doesn’t cut it; it comes down to occam’s razor.

here again, there’s probably an element of that there, but to me, the much more likely explanation is a very simple one: War is hell. Europe knows war. They’re much more hesitant to support america’s bellicose unilateralism because they’ve experienced war to a degree that most americans can’t even imagine. They’re also forced to interact with the outside world in a way that America doesn’t have to, since they’re within a short airplane ride of russia, africa, or the middle east. They can’t afford to be belligerent. It’s like communicating over the internet vs. communicating in person. Many times people will say things to other people on email that they’d never say face-to-face. That’s the difference between europe and america — europe has to deal with many of these countries face-to-face (apologies for the mediocre analogy).

The U.S. looks bad when it says it’ll go it alone if it has to… but the U.S. might have to,

the US might have to? Why? To me it seems like the only thing driving foreign policy in the U.S. anymore is the desire to maintain a complete hegemony over the world. I’m not necessarily saying that being the dominant country in the world is somehow wrong or immoral, but it should almost certainly not be our goal. Because whatever reason you attribute to their animosity (either they’re jealous of our dominance or they hate our dominance), either way it’s the dominance that causes the animosity. So it seems clear to me that asserting our dominance to an even greater degree is not the way to solve the problem.

I’m curious why the US has to attack Iraq. Nothing much has changed in Iraq in the last year, but all of a sudden we can’t even wait for the arms inspectors to do their job before dropping the bombs. Before 9-11 nobody was talking about attacking Iraq. Why now?

I was talking to a guy today who said “Are you saying you know more than Bush? —because Bush has all the info from the CIA etc…” I said that I’m pretty sure if Bush had firm info on Saddam’s nuclear program suggesting Iraq may have a nuclear weapon next year, he would have produced the evidence for his skeptical allies by now. And yes, I’m also quite certain I do know a thing or two that Bush seems not to know. One of which is that attacking Iraq will most definitely increase the threat of terrorism to the USA.

I don’t understand why you are determined to be curious about hidden motives when Bush outrightly explains his reasons for thinking it might be necessary to oust Saddam Hussein militarily. Before speculating in this way, why not respond to his own publicly proclaimed motives first. We don’t have to immediately assume the worst just because he talks funny, has a shitty environmental policy and seems to have failed a geography quiz here and there.

Whether or not you know more than Bush, I am comforted that Bush, at least, will not refrain from going into a war because more terrorism might follow from that. Such a refraining is the kind of behavior that encourages more terrorist activity for years to come. Could someone please find a Salon article summing up Dershowitz’ book, “Why Terrorism Works”, because this is what he’s saying. Since the seventies, many nations have encouraged terrorism by giving in to its demands. The U.S. has had a firm policy not to give in to terrorists’ demands and this will likely continue as Bush decides whether or not to oust Hussein.

here’s the article:

http://archive.salon.com/books/int/2002/09/12/dershowitz/