Three Arguments Against a War

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

good arguments. all of them.

it`s funny to see fox news `where the spin stops` go all out to show how this is `a necessary evil`, `a just war`, `a moral war` by having some unknown priests come on and justify going to war as an uprighteous and Christian thing to do.

though i don`t see why a `kurdish` state is a must- regardless of where salahudin ayubi was from. that`s sort of like asking for more trouble. a TNT like trouble.

Umair,

Excellent article! Now, before t does this, I`ll ask the question since you have a military background. You must have heard of Depleted Uranium shells, which were used to destroy tanks in Southern Iraq during Gulf War the First. Following the war, there was an increase in the frequency of congenital birth defects etc. etc., which, although partially caused by the lack of nutrients (due to the sanctions), did not provide the whole story. A certain person theorised that the steep increase in the frequency of sufferers was due to the usage of radioactive depleted Uranium as a weapon. I was just wondering if you know whether there have been any actual studies which link the two things together?

Anyone?

Thank you
Umer M

Pragmatically speaking Pakistan should back the US war against Iraq if they could muster some economic benefits out of their support to the forthcoming resolution at the UNSC.

Moral high grounds won`t earn anything. Pakis’ pangs on the plight of the Ummah have never been reciprocated on the issuing concerning Pakistan.

Interesting article. Just one point of clarification.

Offensive wars are not, as you stated, Clausewitian but rather Jominian in their intent. Clausewitz never advocated an offensive war, but suggested that wars serve a political purpose and to win a war, the political rationale for its execution has to be crystal clear. Baron Antoine d` Jomini, on the other hand, favored offensive wars. Offensive war according to Jomini establishes a reason and clears all doubts as to what is the purpose of fighting a war - victory. While Clausewitz linked the role of politics in war, Jomini never linked the two, but merely advocated how wars should be fought - offensive instead of defensive.

The cult of the offensive based on the teachings of Jomini would institute the ideals of élan, and l`cran in the French army and would influence French generals such as Foch and Joffre in the First World War.

Clausewitz strongly suggested that wars are fought for political reasons and should be stopped immediately once that political reason is attained. He did not suggest either a defensive or an offensive war, but simply that wars should not be fought to justify a lack of a political policy.

What the Bush administration is attempting to do is justify a lack of political policy by continually seeking to fight a war. The question is not what are the political aims of Bush attacking Iraq, but how is a war on Iraq going to secure American interests? The concern is that American interests are not only linked to Iraq, but to the international consensus of its role in the world and the primary strenght of the American influence does not stem from its military power, that justifies it, but from the world`s acceptance of a beneign pax Americana. The United States may be able to secure its political interests by winning a war with Iraq in the short term, but will American interests remain secure in the long term, when its international position will be undermined by its unilateral acts?

Personally speaking, the United States does not have a coherent policy on how to deal with the events after 911 and is having problems selling the idea of its war on terror to the American people. The problem is terror is an abstract noun and no military power in the world can defeat a noun!!!! The war on terror is a war on an abtract noun. Hence, it needs a crediable and a tanigble victory to show its resolve and as a post to measure its success in the so called war on terrorism.

Best wishes, as always

Ciao

Your solution is excellent and in line with the philosophy of the founding fathers of the constitution of the great nation that the USA is today.

However, you also wrote:
``Arabs treat Pakistanis much worse than Americans treat Pakistanis. At the same time, I have also written against American foreign policy escapades. Balancing out the above and given a choice, I would prefer to live in the USA over most Arab countries.``

I agree with you on this point. Having lived in dozen countries and having a permanent residence in Costa del Sol, Andalucia, Spain that I live in every summer, I believe that Europeans, Americans and Canadians treat Pakistanis much better than the Arabs. But the reason could be economic competition with Arabs from other countries in the host country. For example, while working in Oman, Omanese might treat Pakistanis well, but Arabs from Palestine, Egypt, Sudan may not.

I have a weird feeling that it we arrange for two ships - one headed for Jihad for Iraq and the other for providing Green Card to the USA, a majority of our MMA followers (supporters of OBL and Saddam) will rush for the latter.

The author`s skeptcism against US intentions is fine. I am skeptical of Bush`s rhetoric myself. But opponents of US war have failed to articulate alternate visions. Of course they share nothing in common other than the fact they oppose Bush`s war in Iraq.

Kurds have been betrayed by USA in 1975 and 1991. Their position must be desperate under Saddam if they choose to co-operate with USA in 2003.

The main lesson of Iraq war for all third world elites is that you treat own people and your neighbors fairly. Don`t provide fifth columns like the Kurds/Shites and bases like Kuwait for USA. Of course make sure you don`t have too much oil.

It is too late to discuss the genesis of US policies leading to this inevitable war. The bookies are not taking bets against the war. It is time to think and write beyond the looming war that might start within days. I respect those genuinely peace loving people who participated in peace marches and not those who have been overtly or covertly anti-American for other reasons.

The WMD, Al-Qaeda links, Oil, support for Isarel, liberation of Iraqis or democratization of middle-east has very little to do with this war. President Bush would have lost the next election because of poor economy and nothing much at home front to brag about in the next election. The war rpovides a real opportunity for re-election provided it goes well. The poor handling of Iran Hostage crisis brought down Jimmy Carter and President Bush is betting on good handling of foreign policy to score points in the next election.

That is why, this war is unavoidable no matter what peace marchers or UN says. It is all about winning at home on the cottail of a cheap victory abroad. It is similar to BJP planning in Indian politics. Near the national elections, they will stir up issues that can win them vote, like Ram Temple with few communal riots etc.

umer # 2:

...depleted uranium has half a shelf life of 4,500,000,000 years...am glad you brought this up...and you must know the ratio...one US life is rougly equaly to 200,000 arab lives...give or take 100,000....


feroz:

....have yet to see an analysis comparing maulana bush as a mirror image of obl or am or mo...sans beard...

...bush and company are the US fundos and extremists no less than obl and company who have hijacked the US for their own (almost nefarious) beliefs...

rgds,

t

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Romair,
Even though I actively agree with ``no war`` group, your arguments are flawed.
1. Where did you see Bush claiming that he is going to war exclusively ``to solve the problems of the country being attacked``. I always heard him saying that he thinks Saddam Hussain is dangerous for US and world security and peace. US is also publicly saying the decision of not to attack Korea is based on the interest of US and its allies.

Your first argument also appears to be biased when you write
``c) Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait and Egypt are America allies. The first eight on this list are hereditary dictatorships, while Egypt has an, ``elected`` dictatorship. ``

While using this line of argument, you ignored most prominent ally of US - Pakistan, and ignored to mention its ``democratic`` government. Also note that Saudi economy is based on Oil. Saudi will not get devastated overnight if they part ways with USA. Joined at hip argument does not hold here as US economy is joined at hip also with China, Mexico, Japan and many other countries.

2. what was your argument here? Is it that US`s declared aim of democratic government in Iraq will lead to real representative anti-US governments which will further lead to reduction in access to oil resources to USA? How do you know that US will not install a puppet government, like Afghanistan and than control all the resources? Or may be, use a stick like it uses with Pakistan and get all it wants.

3.Your third ``argument`` is not an argument. It looks like you suggestion for an alternative approach for USA. Even this suggestion appears to have flaws.


Your premise is based on a perceived ``clash of civilizations``. It might be a clash of civilizations, but it is not between Islamic and Christian civilizations. It is between a civilizations of terrorists and rest of the world.
You write that ``Saudi Arabia is the financial and religious capital of the Middle East, while Egypt is the intellectual capital of the area. ``.

Your suggestion would make sense if you also include ``theological capital of terrorists - Pakistan``. Of course Osama along with 14 out of 19 9/11 terrorists is Saudi and Al-Zawari is an Egyptian. But they all got their training in Pakistan. Their training camps are in Pakistan. Pakistan is no more a democracy than Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Defence forces of many of the states listed by you are manned by Pakistanis. Even if USA disinfects middle east states, source of infection will still remain active and keep spreading germs. For any meaningful democratization, USA has to first treat the source of infection. In this case - Pakistan.

I do believe that this can be done peacefully. To summarize, there are dozens of valid argument against Bush`s war. But your three arguments are in fact flawed.

Here is my take on these arguments:
First argument: you write ``In a realpolitik sense, the USA is going to war to serve its own interests.``
The issue is not whether or not this is in the self-interest of the US. After all, it is only an irrational person who would work against his own self-interest. The issue rather is two-fold: (a) Are the reasons presented by the US for going to war (and the accompanying casualties) justified. And (b) what is the expected outcome of this war as you perceive it, and how does that match with the interest of people living in Iraq and in the US.
Second argument: You see a conflict between Israeli goals and the goal of a democratic Iraq. I think this depends on whether Israel`s goal is to live in peace with its neighbors or it is to expand territory. What would be your goal if you were an average person who happened to be Israeli?
Third argument: You say the US, if it really seeks to introduce democracy in the middle east, should start with Saudi Arabia and Egypt because these are ``core countries``. You are clearly being arbitrary in naming these as ``core countries``, since Iraq is not exactly the size of a postage stamp either and Baghdad is a major city of 5 million people. And this concept of a ``core country`` is irrelevant anyway.

So, maybe you need to sharpen your arguments a bit, dont you think??

ahmedzai #9 you write ``I have a weird feeling that it we arrange for two ships - one headed for Jihad for Iraq and the other for providing Green Card to the USA, a majority of our MMA followers (supporters of OBL and Saddam) will rush for the latter``
I think your weird feeling is on target.