NYTimes on Bush Interview

[East Street Trader]

I don't knock the issues being discussed. Plainly they are issues which concern US citizens.

But there is one issue which is simple. Uncluttered by questions of who did what when or who said what to whom and why.

The simple issue is this. Do we wish to live in a world where when one nation state is unhappy about what another nation state is doing it goes to war?

That is the arrangement which has been in place since nation states evolved.

Now when the US and the UK decided to invade Iraq it may well be that the risks were no greater than when such decisions were taken in the past. Even if Iraq had possessed WMD it does not seem very likely that armagdon would have ensued once they were used.

But that is a case where one of the antagonists is quite a small and disunited nation state.

If this is to continue to be the way disputes between nation states are resolved it is worth asking whether we want to carry on with it when both sides are made up of sizeable, united and powerful nation states.

It is no coincidence that in the history of wars between nation states the numbers involved and the destruction wrought increases as time has rolled on. It is because of the greater cohesiveness that modern societies can achieve and, ironically in view of the genesis of the US/UK Iraq conflict, because weapons have steadily become more long range and more destructive.

Already we are in a situation where existing arsenals are known to be sufficient to destroy all life on the planet. Indeed to do so several times over. And our ingenuity as regards creating WMD is not exhausted. Far from it. Expenditure on weaponry and upon personnel to use it in the US alone is many billions of dollars each and every year. Weapons just get bigger and better from day to day.

Can it seriously be doubted that the next major war will be a threat to each and every one of us?

So let us imagine that the answer to the question whether we wish to continue to resolve disputes between nations by war is that we do not. Well what is the alternative, if any?

Clearly something new is needed. War has been the method up to now.

But resolving disputes without recource to violence is a commonplace in other fields. Indeed it has been the norm in all developed countries for a long time. Resorting to duels held stubbornly on among the most touchy of us but by and large putting a dispute before an independant and fair minded arbiter and then abiding by his or her decision has been the way civilised people have behaved.

Can that method be used for disputes between nation states?

Not right now seems to be the answer. Because there is no tradition of doing so, no established arbiter and no particular reason to expect the states to respect the arbiter's decisions.

But nation states have nevertheless found ways to reach agreements and to resolve conflicts in some things. Which is why we have a whole bunch of treaties signed up to by nations states and some international courts - the one which arbitrates on international tarriffs and trade for example.

If the option of resolving conflicts between nation states by an arbitral process is to become a real option what we really need, as an intermediate step, is an institution which can facillitate the further development of arbitral processes. And it needs to command the respect of most, if not all, and be actively promoted by all leading players, that is by all the most powerful nation states.

Some sort of start down these lines has been made. In the creation of the UN and its continuance for long enough for people to get used to its existence and to start to come to terms with the role which it is developing.

Some are coming to terms with that role faster than others.

If, like me, you would answer the question, do we wish nation states to continue to resolve conflict by war, in the negative you will hope that more nation states support the UN and fewer ignore or undermine it.

[Ned]

East Street Trader, I disagree with your premise that war is bloodier than ever. The Iraq war clearly was the least bloody war in history.Actually, given the examples of Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, war seems to be a quite effective way to solve international problems, far more effective than, for example, sanctions.

[East Street Trader]

Ned, have a look at, say, the Napoleonic wars, the US civil war, the Great War and WWII.

The weapons used were employed at progressively longer range and with progressively greater power.

With correspondingly greater death and destruction.

After the firestorm raid on Dresden there was little left of an entire city from less than two days of bombing and we have all seen the pictures of the one building left standing in Hiroshima - that devastation was caused by a single bomb. We have bigger and better ones now.

Your illustrations involve a powerful nation state or group of powerful nation states cowing a markedly weak opponent. In the case of Kosovo there was not even an actual nation state to cow.

Anyway I take it that your own preference is for nation states to continue to resolve differences by war. You have tradition on your side in that.

I will just have to try to persuade myself that the fallout from the wars you engage in is not inevitably going to engulf me and mine.

[rev]

Originally posted by Ned
rev, the point I was trying to make was that it was not the UN that had contained Saddam Hussein. Without Bush and without the U.S. Congress threatening war, absolutely nothing would have been done by the UN.

I know, and I'm agreeing with you.

My point is this: Iraq was asked to prove a double-negative and Bush/Blair gave them an unreasonable deadline. They should have beefed up their rhetoric and placed an invasion-ready force into the area around Iraq, thereby forcing Saddam to continue to allow the inspectors to search. We should have turned over much of our evidence of WMD to the inspectors so they could independently examine and evaluate whether what we believed was true. (We did do this to some extent, and the inspectors returned with their advice: our intelligence was "garbage" -- Tenet or someone else in the White House should have immediately begun re-evaluation ALL of our evidence when the inspectors returned with that advice; the fact that our intelligence was bunk was known quite awhile before the war).

If the inspections continued and still came up with nothing, we should have re-examined our own goals and acted from there. If they had found something, Bush and Blair's invasion would have been clearly justified on the pretense that Hussein and friends weren't following the rules and in all likelihood would never follow the rules. Invasion at that point would have been justified, UN commitment (or lack thereof) be damned.

France began to make the argument that there should be no dire consequences because Saddam was not a threat.

France was right (if that's indeed what they were saying, though I don't believe it was): Hussein was not a threat to the United States or Britain. He was a regional and local threat, for sure, but one worth sacrificing thousands of lives over?

[Ned]

Well, East Street, I agree that Hitler didn't solve anything by invading Poland. Neither did the Japanese by attacking Pearl Harbor.

All this shows that major powers should never go to war. To the extent that that is your point, I agree.

But, if you have situations like we had with Milosevic, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, use of overwhelming power by the world's great and superpowers is highly effective - much more effective than sanctions.

[Ned]

rev, what you are asking for is to put a large American and British army in the field for an indefinite amount of time.

Nonsense.

Saddam could have complied with our demands or he could have surrendered. Open-ended inspections with an invasion force just sitting there was not an option, except if you were not Americans and it was costing you nothing.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I cant believe Dan still believes that Saddam was a threat to the US and had weapons of mass destruction. Admit that yous was wrong. That takes a lot more then to close your mind and deny.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
East Street Trader, I disagree with your premise that war is bloodier than ever. The Iraq war clearly was the least bloody war in history.Actually, given the examples of Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, war seems to be a quite effective way to solve international problems, far more effective than, for example, sanctions.

The true Ned troll is showing through...

Iraq certainly is not the least bloody war in history.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

and in the long run, a lot easier.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePaP, I am sure you are wrong about the desire of getting the inspectors back in between 1998 and 2002. The US desired it. The UN did nothing. The ONLY reason the UN acted was the US said it meant war if they did not act.

The UN does nothing-the UN is a committee- is this too hard for you to understand!!??

Damn you are a thick troll.

The US and UK wanted inspectors- the Russians and French saw no point. Then in 2002 the US comes saying either we send back inspectors, or we will invade,,so yes, once the US made it clear getting inspectors back in was top priority and that political capital would be spent making it true, the Russians and french said OK. Which is the point I made earlier..if one permanent member makes it their business to push something through the UNSC then it moves- if no power is interested enough in spending the political capital, they wont get something through past even minor resistance by veto powers.

But of course this explination is probably beyond your cognative abilities.

[Ned]

GePap, you shift the blame, then, to Clinton.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, you shift the blame, then, to Clinton.

You trully are hopeless.

Guilty of what? Not thinking it was worht the time to spend the political capital to get them back in? Yes. But then of course, the only reaosn Bush pushed them in was becuase he was convinced by Tony they had to undertake that step before they invaded. Once the inspectors were in bush denigrated their work and did not let them do much before he wanted them out again so he could invade.

[Ned]

GePap, Ugh!

We are going in circles.

The original point, I beleive, was that war was unnecessary because of the inspectors had Saddam contained.

I was pointing out that that was hardly true until Bush and Congress did their thing.

And, the inspectors would have continued to be welcome only so long as an American army stood by, ready to act, in Kuwait.

Containment would have been a endless and very expensive proposition. What we did at least had some finality.

[rev]

Originally posted by Ned
rev, what you are asking for is to put a large American and British army in the field for an indefinite amount of time.

Which is different than what we are currently doing, how? I mean, aside from the loss of over 500 American lives.

Saddam could have complied with our demands or he could have surrendered.

The former is what we wanted all along. The latter was more or less impossible -- there's no way Hussein would willingly give up his throne.

Open-ended inspections with an invasion force just sitting there was not an option,

The invasion force doesn't have to stay there, just long enough for the inspectors to examine and review our intelligence, other nations' intelligence, UN intelligence, etc., and compare it with Iraq's facilities, documentation, and stories. If our intelligence didn't add up, inspections could have told (and DID tell) us that. If Iraq's stories didn't add up, invasion would have been justified.

except if you were not Americans and it was costing you nothing.

If our belief that Iraq had banned weapons held up, I'm sure the UN and other nations would have hopped on board. Instead, we raised a big middle finger to the international community and rushed into a war of choice -- a war that is costing us money and lives by the day. It's not costing the UN money -- it's costing *US* money because Bush felt the urgency was too great to wait.

And we were wrong.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, Ugh!

We are going in circles.

The original point, I beleive, was that war was unnecessary because of the inspectors had Saddam contained.

I was pointing out that that was hardly true until Bush and Congress did their thing.

And, the inspectors would have continued to be welcome only so long as an American army stood by, ready to act, in Kuwait.

Containment would have been a endless and very expensive proposition. What we did at least had some finality.

The inspectors contained Saddam prior to 1998 (evidence shows they had effecitvely disarmed him) and the military ring around him was more than secure. As for containment being endless and more expensive:
how much did it cost to keep US forces in the Gulf on a yearly basis? The war cost 120 billion plus about another 50 billion (lets say 45 just for Iraq) to keep the troops there (115,000 vs the about 20,000-30,000 max we had stationed all over the ME) for one year. I will go out on a simple limb and state that a single year of war-time occupation has cost us more than at least 2 years of containment, probably much more, and that is without counting in the 120 for the actual set up and going to war: so that the war in one year cost the US treasury more than 12 years of containment did, plus each year of occupation is FAR more costly than one year of containment.

NO, if money were the issue, Bush picked the far more expensive action.