It seems to me the lack of focus has several likely causes:

1. The fires were in fact put out, and people don’t take “might have been” environmental catastrophes seriously. They hear about too many of them.

2. There were other more dramatic and immediate events at the time, for example the dramatic allied victory and the incineration of thousands of retreating Iraqi soldiers.

3. To the extent the Gulf War was fought over the oil fields it’s not out of line with common human conduct, especially in wartime, for the losing side to try to deny the winner the benefit of his victory as much as possible. That line of conduct even has longterm strategic benefits: fight me and you won’t gain by it even if you win.

There is no precedent for a retreating army literally putting an entire country on fire, a fire that, for all the arsonists knew, could never be put out or could not be put out for years. This is a different order of event from any previously known act of barbarism.

I believe the Yankee terrorist Sherman put much of Georgia to the torch.

Whether one approves or not of Sherman’s policy, it was not arbitrary destruction for the sake of destruction; it was destruction toward a rational end: the defeat of the South’s will and ability to continue the war, and the restoration of the Union. To Southerners after they surrendered, Sherman was magninimous.

I fail to understand how William—even if he regards Sherman’s actions as utterly hateful—could see a parallel between Sherman’s swath of destruction through Georgia and South Carolina for the sake of restoring the Union, and Hussein’s global eco-terrorism for the sake of eco-terrorism.

I don’t think Hussein’s destruction of Kuwaiti oil wells was “eco-terrorism for the sake of eco-terrorism” any more than I believe Sherman employed “terrorism for the sake of terrorism”. Like Sherman’s, Hussein’s actions were committed with a rational goal in mind, namely to destroy oil supplies (as Jim Kalb just pointed out), to force the allies to pay enormous costs in cleanup ops and manpower, to make the region uninhabitable, etc.

How was destroying oil supplies—especially AFTER the war was over—a rational goal? How was making the region uninhabitable a rational goal? To me, it sounds as though William is comlng close to calling vandalism rational. Furthermore, since he wanted to suggest a moral equivalency between Hussein and the hated Sherman, and since I said Sherman’s acts were rational, William seems to have accepted my argument that Sherman’s acts were rational and is now arguing that Hussein’s acts were rational as well. I’m not sure the net result is really what William wants: he hasn’t made Sherman look as bad as Hussein; he’s made Hussein look as good as Sherman. That’s what happens with inappropriate moral equivalencies.

I don’t think the destruction of oil supplies was an act of vandalism, if by vandalism you mean a random, meaningless act. I think it could be argued that it was designed, among other things, to deprive the allies of oil supplies in Kuwait, to distract the allies with a potential environmental catastrophe, and to force them to commit more money and manpower to the cleanup effort. I think these are all perfectly reasonable goals. It was, as you remarked of Sherman’s actions, “destruction toward a rational end”. For any act designed to weaken or distract your opponent is certainly rational from a strategic viewpoint. I’m not arguing that it was necessarily the right or moral thing to do. But I think there is an assumption out there that Hussein’s actions were irrational or insane; and I don’t think they were.

My argument is not that Hussein is dangerous because he’s irrational or insane. My argument is that Hussein is dangerous because he is an extreme specimen of the tyrant, defined by Plato (in Book VIII and IX of The Republic) as one who places no limits on his desires, especially the darkest and most destructive desires, and who is also in a position to act on those desires. If such a man is in control of a country and either has aggressive external designs on other countries or is in possession of weapons of mass destruction, he is a danger to the world and must be stopped. This was true in 1991 and is true now. And the same kind of arguments that didn’t want to face that hard reality in 1991 are re-surfacing today.

Well, let’s be honest, the same description could be applied to many politicians today, not just Hussein. I concede that Hussein is certainly an unattractive figure, but I reject the hysterical characterization of him made by the neo-cons to justify their latest imperial adventure.

The attempt to relativize Hussein is typical of what both liberals and paleocons do when they don’t want to admit the existence of an external reality that may require the use of moral judgment or the exercise of military force, and so they try to wish that reality away by saying “Everyone does it,” or “Many political leaders are expansive mass murdering tyrants.”

Here is the reality. Hussein is a man who has shown a willingness to destroy an entire country. Hussein is a man who has motives to harm the U.S. Hussein is a man who is developing weapons of mass destruction. Hussein is in a position to transfer such weapons to terrorist groups who are eager to the destroy the U.S. Now, if the worst William has to say about Hussein is that he’s an “unattractive figure,” and furthermore that the only motive the U.S. might have in waging war on him is to fulfil the imperial designs of neoconservatives, then there’s not much point in continuing the discussion. Sometimes ideology really does win over reality. In this case, the ideology is the paleocon orthodoxy that any proposed U.S. military action abroad is not a response to real dangers existing in the real world, but only an expression of neocon imperialism, and therefore to be opposed as such.

I am not relativizing Hussein. My point was that labeling him a “tyrant,” while probably accurate, does nothing to convince me that we need to sacrifice valuable American lives to depose him.

I will say that if it can be shown conclusively that Hussein has directly and actively supported terrorist ops against the United States (including the events of 9/11) – evidence, by the way, that to my knowledge the warmongering neo-con crowd has not yet introduced (or manufactured?) — then I think a case could be made for a quick “surgical strike” against his rule.

As it stands, the current sabre-rattling by the Bushies and their allies on the neo-liberal left and neo-con right is bound to lead to: innumerable unnecesassry deaths, a strengthening of the American police state at home, an imperiled “war on terrorism,” and an increase in anti-American hatred around the world. It’s just not worth it.

Finally, I have not argued against “any proposed U.S. military action abroad.” I am only arguing against a war on Iraq. (Although it must be said that I am also on record as having acted against the US/NATO war on Christian Serbia in 1999).

At a time when our country is overrun with millions of unassimilable third world immigrants, when our Christian faith is under increasingly vicious attack, when our schools are failing, when moral standards have plummeted, when “our” corporate leaders have stolen billions from American investors, a war on Iraq at this time is not only a blatant distraction from the war in our own country, it is practically a crime.

I agree entirely with William that if the neocons had their way we’d be building a U.S. empire in the Near East while continuing to let our country be flooded by non-European immigrants, and while all the other problems ruining our society would also be continuing unabated. I am in agreement about all of his concerns.

But I also must note that William still persists in ignoring my main argument (which I’ve repeated several times now) and the main argument of those who support a war to overthrown Hussein, which is that overthrowing him is necessary to prevent the likelihood of Iraq unleashing a nuclear or chemical weapon against New York or Washington. I can only conclude that William ignores that argument and that likelihood because it would mean that, regardless of the downsides of a war against Iraq which he is concerned about (and about which I am in agreement with him), such a war would nevertheless be shown to be NECESSARY.

I wish that World War II had not occurred. I wish it had not been necessary for the U.S. to get involved in that war. The war brought many unfortunate consequences to our civilization, including the growth of the mega state and the world-wide triumph of liberalism. But it was necessary, because the alternative was infinitely worse. The approach of many paleocons, when it comes to World War II or to the current situation with Iraq, is simply to ignore threatening foreign realities (or charge that they are being manufactured by liberals and neocons) when those realities would require military actions that go against paleocon preferences. Despite their supposed adherence to a traditionalist understanding of human life, many paleocons refuse to acknowledge the sometimes tragic nature of the choices nations must face.

I have not ignored the argument that says we must invade Iraq to prevent Hussein’s potential use of WMDs against American target. I just don’t think it merits an invasion. Concern, yes. Invasion? No.

Note that there are plenty of other countries that have acquired, or are in the process of acquiring, these weapons. According to the Center for Proliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, the following four countries are among those KNOWN to possess chemical weapons of mass destruction: Libya, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. (Syria and Iraq are also known to possess biological weapons).

These are two countries that PROBABLY possess chemical weapons of mass destruction: China and Egypt.

These are three countries that POSSIBLY possess chemical weapons of mass destruction: Algeria, Sudan, and Cuba. There have been rumors in recent months that Cuba is developing a bio capability. Algeria’s Ain Oussera nuclear reactor — built with China’s help — is a major cause of worry, especially if the government there falls to the fundamentalists.

And I haven’t even mentioned the WMD threat from non-state actors and their sponsors.

If, as you argue, it is necessary to invade Iraq to prevent the Hussein regime unleashing an WMD attack against the US, then what is preventing the US from also invading, or at least carpet bombing from 35,000 feet, Libya, Iran, and Syria as well? If Iraq falls, a major WMD threat will STILL exist.

Or maybe I have spoken too soon? Perhaps the chicken hawks in the neo-con press, delirious with noble visions of using American boys and girls to defend their beloved Israel, are drawing up plans to wipe out once and for all all those countries that pose a threat to their plans for world dominance-through-globalization?

Just a thought.

CORRECTION: Center for NON-Proliferation Studies.

I’m glad that William has finally responded on the main point of this discussion. Do Libya, Iran, Iraq, and Syria have weapons programs anywhere approaching those of Iraq? I’ve seen nothing to indicate that, but will check out the site he mentions. Perhaps they have some kind of capability. But in any case, the indications are the Iraq’s capabilities are much more advanced than those of any other of those countries and that Iraq has also a record of aggression and the desire to hurt the U.S. The fact that similar threats may come from other quarters in the future does not obviate the threat we face from Iraq.

There is a distinct possibility that Hussein in the near future may develop small nuclear bombs. There is also a distinct possibility that if he acquired such weapons he would pass them on to terrorist groups for use against us. Yet William proposes that in the face of these evident dangers, America should do precisely … nothing.

Either the threat from Iraq objectively exists, or it doesn’t exist. And if it does exist, what do we do about it? These are serious matters, which one is not dealing with seriously by engaging in emotional tirades against Israel and the neocons.

You admit your unfamiliarity with current information on weapons proliferation vis-a-vis Libya, Iran, and Syria (not to mention the several other countries I listed previously). I think you would do well to look into this issue a lot further before you recommend the Bush administration risk thousands of American lives in a stupid Middle Eastern war. In other words, in events of this scope, it’s important to gather the facts and think things through before acting. Just a suggestion.

I have seen no indication that Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs are significantly more advanced than those of Libya, Syria, and Iran. That’s not the issue. Because even if such Iraqi programs were neutralized, major threats from other actors would still exist. In other words, if Iraq is eliminated, other America-hating fanatics will take its place.

For example, China, Syria, Russia, and Iran are known to have passed along weapons technology to rogue states and terrorist groups. China has helped build Algeria’s nuclear reactor. [Hell, America’s own greedy corporate fatcats — the same criminals who have bilked US investors out of billions — have passed along sensitive technology to the Chinese; where do you think it ends up?]. Yet I don’t hear the warmongering neo-cons demanding that we invade these countries. But no doubt the chicken hawks will be out in force demanding that we bomb and invade Libya, Syria, and Iran next. Because that is how the War Party behaves, isn’t it? Perpetual war for perpetual peace. It’s madness.

I have not stated anywhere that I say the US should do “nothing” in the face of threats from WMDs. That is not the issue here. Again, you’ve put words in my mouth. What I do recommend is that the US refrain from invading Iraq. Although I’ve explained in a previous entry why I take this position, I will repeat myself here for your benefit. I believe an invasion of Iraq would result in, among other things:

1) innumerable unnecesassry deaths
2) a strengthening of the American police state at home and more big government
3) an imperiled “war on terrorism”
4) an increase in global anti-American sentiment

Furthermore, should the US win such a war, it would likely result in a more or less permanent allied peace-keeping presence in the region; strife-torn “nation-building” initiatives, particularly those dealing with Kurdish demands and Turkish reaction; efforts to prevent Iranian incursions into a defeated Iraq; involvement in a possible war in Israel, etc. In short, it is a messy can of worms the US should obviously stay clear of. Let’s not get bogged down in an overseas war when our own nation is in such peril.

The only argument the pro-war crowd can muster is that Iraq poses a “threat”. Big deal. So does China, Iran, Libya, Syria, Cuba, North Korea, etc. What is more, to a large extent these are threats the arrogant, reckless behavior of the American imperialists on the neo-liberal left and neo-con right helped provoke in the first place. Talk about blow-back!

At the same time, more serious domestic challenges to our national security — unrestricted third world immigration, foreign students, unguarded ports and borders, etc. — are ignored by a weak and incompetent administration held hostage by the insane global agenda of the neo-con imperialists.

And finally, we have to ask ourselves, exactly who is threatened most by Iraq at the moment: the US? Or Israel?

It is my hope that the saber rattling and troop movements are attempts to achieve the goals of a war with Iraq without actually waging one. For example, if I was an Iraqi general right now, I’d be setting up a coup attempt.

To answer William’s question. Israel is most threatened by Iraq. If Israel is attacked with WMD then they will respond with deadly force on several Middle Eastern states, as Israel was founded so that Jews would never be gassed again. One may not like Israel but a war of that scale in the region should be avoided, if possible. Israel and the region may be doomed to such a war, of course. I don’t know what we should do but helping out Afghanistan and then pulling out of the area is an attractive idea right now.

William is righteously indignant with me because I dared discuss the war issue while lacking expert knowledge on the precise state of weapons production in every third-world dictatorship. First of all, contrary to William’s suggestion, I have not presented myself as an expert or as one giving advice to the Bush administration; I began this post not with a comprehensive case for war on Iraq, but with a single discreet argument concerning the record and nature of Saddam Hussein that seems particularly persuasive to me. However, in my repeatedly saying that we need to know the facts, I think it’s clear that I am not dogmatic on the issue of whether we should invade Iraq. For example, in my last comment, I wrote:

“Either the threat from Iraq objectively exists, or it doesn’t exist. And if it does exist, what do we do about it? These are serious matters, which one is not dealing with seriously by engaging in emotional tirades against Israel and the neocons.”

That is not the statement of one who has reached a final conclusion or who is presenting himself as an expert, but of one who is open to evidence and argument, one who has not decisively made up his mind on the issue. Over and over in the thread I stated my arguments in the form of “IF such and such is true, THEN such and such would follow.” Also, William should note that on two or three recent occasions I have posted columns that were opposed to an invasion. I specifically noted that it was surprising that Chris Ruddy, who is very much pro-Israel and very much pro-military, was leaning away from a direct war on Iraq, and was approvingly quoting Admiral Moorer who favors an embargo not an invasion. However, I have still found myself leaning for invasion because I find the best arguments on that side, while, with a few exceptions like Ruddy, I hear little but reactive anti-Israel, anti-neocon paranoia on the other.

Calling the pro-invasion position “madness,” as William has done, is a reversion to the anti-war mentality of the left. It denies that there is any rational position on the other side. It’s like the anti-nuclear movement during the Cold War that believed that our national security leaders were simply “insane,” a bunch of Dr. Strangeloves. There was a moment in the early ’80s (it was one of many moments, that, added together, turned me into a conservative) when I realized that, in contradiction to what leftist groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists were saying, the U.S. military and security complex was not simply “mad” for having lots of atomic bombs (“enough to destroy the earth X times over” was the phrase), but had rational reasons for what they were doing. One could disagree with their policies. One could deplore the horrible situation that made all these nuclear armaments necessary. But simply to call the national security establishment “mad” was wrong.

And that is the way the left deals with everything that is not of the left. Read any New York Times editorial written during the last ten years. On every issue the Times addresses, the position on the other, non-liberal side is “mean,” “hateful,” “cynical,” “fearful,” “bigoted,” “ungenerous,” etc. etc. There’s never any acknowledgement that the other side may have rational, good-faith reasons for its beliefs. This has sometimes reached the point of indicting most of the American people if their views didn’t square with those of the Times’ editors. For example, the Times said in 1992 that President Bush the Elder was returning illegal refugees to Haiti in order to appease “the farthest far right”—at a time when 67 percent of the American people agreed with the Bush administration’s Haiti policy! In the Times’ view of the world, two-thirds of the American people were on the “farthest far right.” Yet William falls into a similar error coming from the other side of the political spectrum. He calls Bush the Younger’s Iraq policy “mad,” when a solid 60 to 70 percent of the American people support it. Viewing a majority of your countrymen as mad or in the grip of madness can only lead one into paranoid theories about what has made them so, which leads in turn in the inevitable direction of placing the blame on those Svengalian manipulators of people’s minds, the neocons and the Israelis.

So, let us pull back from that kind of dead-end paranoia and acknowledge that there are plenty of rational people making rational arguments in favor of an invasion, and lots of other rational people who agree with them.

One of the most interesting and cogent arguments I’ve heard is from Bernard Lewis, the Near East scholar, though it is a radical proposal that will doubtless strike William as mad. There is, Lewis says, a great hunger in the Muslim world for an alternative to the despots on one side and the fundamentalists on the other, and that therefore the way to bring stability in that region is to overthrow some of the regimes particularly Hussein’s and to assist genuinely moderate and more representative leaders to take power.

Now, since William is concerned that simply toppling Hussein won’t get rid of all these other unfriendly governments that may threaten us, is there not something to be said for the idea that, if the U.S. acted as Lewis suggests, there would be, not the vast anti-U.S. uprising that William expects, but the opposite, a discrediting of despotism and a move away from Islamic extremism toward more moderate governments that would seek to lead their societies out of the downward spiral of hate and paranoia and cultural isolation that the Muslim world is currently trapped in. Look at how the impressive U.S. victory in Afghanistan silenced the “Muslim street” and improved the whole atmosphere in the region.

Is Lewis right? I don’t know. But it’s a rational, highly intelligent argument from someone who speaks with impressive authority about the region and culture, and may offer the best approach to what otherwise will remain a festering problem and a threat to the whole world. It is worth discussing.

Now to William’s substantive case against war. He believes “an invasion of Iraq would result in, among other things: 1) innumerable unnecessary deaths; 2) a strengthening of the American police state at home and more big government; 3) an imperiled ‘war on terrorism’; 4) an increase in global anti-American sentiment.”

As to argument 1, if the deaths caused by such a war prevent a nuclear device from being set off in the U.S. capital, I’d say they are not unnecessary. Argument 2 could be make about ANY war, no matter how justified or necessary the war might be, so it proves nothing about the advisability of THIS war. I don’t know what William means by argument 3. And as for 4, maybe, but there are reasons for believing just the opposite. And as it is, they already hate us, or hasn’t William noticed?

William’s best argument concerns the danger of the U.S. getting bogged down in the region, with gulf of horrors that could represent. These are things that need to be seriously considered. That’s what the war debate is about.

My own preference is for a complete separation between the West and Islam. What I mean by that is: virtually all Muslims out of Western countries, where large Muslim populations simply do not belong; and a great reduction of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world. But because of the immediate risks we face, that may not be possible, at least in the short run.

I am also totally in agreement that the worst thing—the absolutely unforgivable thing—about Bush’s policy is his exclusive focus on the threat abroad, while he continues to admit and welcome Muslim and other third-world immigrants into this country, protecting the Muslims from “racial profiling” while subjecting the whole American people to an intrusive security regime in airports and elsewhere. American Muslims, who sympathize with our enemies and in many cases ARE our enemies, become a protected class, while the rest of us become suspect and lose more and more of our freedoms. Like William, I am tempted to say that Bush’s failure or refusal to defend America where it is most immediately threatened, in its own homeland, discredits anything he may do of a military nature abroad, and therefore Bush should be opposed across the board. But I cannot say that, because, unlike William, I think the WMD threat is real; at the very least, we cannot afford to assume it’s not real. A nuclear bomb set off in the United States might even change William’s views about the advisability of a U.S. war on Hussein.

That’s enough for now. This thread is very long, and I don’t have time for more, at least for the next few days.

“Righteously indignant”? Come on, Mr. Auster, enough with the hyperbole. I’m just surprised that someone so sound on other issues is so mistaken (in my opinion) on the issue of war in Iraq.

Contrary to your accusation, I did not call the national security establishment “mad”. In fact I have great respect for it. I work with members of the military. What I do think is mad, not to mention foolhardy and suspect, is the latest plan to invade Iraq.

To date, there is no evidence – NO EVIDENCE – of Iraqi involvement in 9/11 or continued Iraqi support for terrorist actions against the United States. If there is, please let me know so I may consider changing my stance; I’m always open to revising my position in light of new evidence or opinion. But I am not going to support a war against Iraq merely because some neo-con chicken hawks deem it a potential threat to their beloved Israel. America First – NOT Israel First. Let’s keep things in perspective.

As for the issue of polls indicating that the vast majority of Americans support a war on Iraq, I can only say that majority opinion is not necessarily right. If the overwhelming majority of Americans supported the killing of all blond, blue-eyed people, it would still be wrong.

[I should note too that polls show vast majorities of Americans support immigration reform, yet the neocon Bush administration (as well as its predecessors) has refused to listen. The Washington power elite picks and chooses which opinion polls to listen to, depending on which ones support their chosen policy. No surprises there.]

Is a war on Iraq “mad”? Well, choosing to proceed with a disastrous war when so much of respected opinion opposes it, when so much evidence points to potentially troubling even disastrous consequences, IS “mad”. And I’m not the only one who thinks so. Some at the Pentagon seem to agree. According to a recent article in the Washington Post (Some Top Military Brass Favor Status Quo in Iraq: Containment Seen Less Risky Than Attack July 28, 2002):

“Despite President Bush’s repeated bellicose statements about Iraq, many senior U.S. military officers contend that President Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat and that the United States should continue its policy of containment rather than invade Iraq to force a change of leadership in Baghdad.”

Fortunately, I think the Bushies are starting to understand it. According to The Times (8 August, London):

“President Bush backed off his hardline rhetoric against Iraq yesterday, promising to consult allies and explore options for removing President Saddam Hussein without war.”

Of course, this is likely to piss off the neo-con Israel Firsters such as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. But defying the globalization agenda of the neocon empire-builders would be a good first step in regaining control of our foreign policy.

Mr. Auster, I’ve greatly admired (and still do) your published opinions on other matters, which I have distributed to friends and colleagues. They deserve a much wider audience and I have no doubt that in time they will get it. However, with all due respect, I think you would do yourself and your readers a favor by re-examining your position on war in Iraq.

Interesting twist from the neocon ivory tower:

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/2002_08_04_corner-archive.asp#85330115

Maybe posting a link as the last item in a comment screws up the formatting?

It displays OK under Opera 6.

Serves me right using a communist web browser, I suppose.

More imperialism from Fortress Neocon:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-bandow081202.asp