licentious radio

Friday, February 21, 2003
[1:35:30 PM]

The last question about Iraq is "what would you do?"

That's a reasonable question, although part of the point of asking it is propaganda -- as if there is a certain need to do something. Some people, after all, have said Saddam should be disarmed, that he's a danger to the US and the mideast, and/or that he should be regime-changed. But you have to start a little further back than that.

We agree Saddam is naughty. We're willing to hear a case that urgent action is required, but the case hasn't been made. He was a military threat, once upon a time, but not lately. He's a brutal dictator, but brutal dictators are dime-a-dozen in this world -- most of them supported at one time or another by Republican administrations.

You get down to the bogeyman arguments: "wants nukes", and "might give bio/chemical weapons to Al Qaeda".

"Wants nukes" is no reason to invade today. He's had a nuclear program before. We've dismantled it before. We can dismantle it again. And of course the argument is positively *comical* in the face of North Korea's recent behavior. To make sense of the Bushies you would have to believe that *wanting* nukes is less dangerous than *making* nukes.

Giving bio/chemical weapons to Al Qaeda as a bogeyman argument relies on pretending that Saddam and Al Qaeda aren't fundamentally enemies, and it relies on "deterrence" not working. Again it's *comical*, except for being so dangerous, that invading Iraq is exactly the condition that would push Iraq and Al Qaeda together, and make deterrence irrelevant. In fact, Bush's desire for conquest is the only urgent danger we face from Saddam.

The fact that Saddam is more dangerous when faced with invasion is why it's so reasonable to suggest avoiding war.

What would I suggest?

We have the forces in the area, already. This is a dangerous situation. Let's use inspections -- potentially lasting years -- to destroy the bio/chemical weapons and prevent any ability to create nukes.

In the short run, focus on North Korea.

In the long run, prepare a clean transition in Iraq and the Middle East. That means force Israel to accept a clean deal on Palestine. We know what the boundaries are. We also have to insist on right distribution of water resources. It goes beyond Israel/Palestine. Demand that Saudi Arabia clean house of their terrormongering religious cult. Set up universities across the Arab world. Lean on the Persian Gulf states to fund education and democracy. Make prosperity.

Bush has done so much damage in Afghanistan that it's hard to know what to do. The warlords are back to the drug business, and we've played so dirty with them that there isn't much hope of appealing to their sense of justice. Probably the only hope is to dump so much nation-building on them that even the warlords have a stake in peace and prosperity. At least we could make sure people have food throughout the country. At least we could keep Kabul vaguely peaceful for a few years. The Bush people, in contrast, are going to try to build and then protect a gas pipeline. Maybe if all the warlords get a piece of the action, that will help. Seems unlikely, though.

And Iraq? Saddam won't last forever, and he's adaptable. Kaddafy (how do we spell that these days, anyway?) went from arch-enemy to nobody pretty quick. Saddam when from buddy to arch-enemy pretty quick. Let's try to get him back in the buddy category. And even if that takes a while, let's make sure the Iraqi people have clean water to drink. I mean, even if the UN has to run the water treatment plants, and the warehouses of spare parts and chemcials. What we've done there is beyond a war crime.

There's an old saying... when a doctor sees a patient with a knife in the gut, the first thing the doctor does is *not* pull the knife out. The various ethnic/tribal/religious/political factions in Iraq are a powder keg that Saddam's removal could set off. Far better to make a peaceful transition -- more like South Africa than Bosnia. If you can get beyond mutual revenge, there is enough wealth in Iraq's oil to give all parties a stake in peace and prosperity.

There's another old saying... "cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war." That is exactly what we mustn't do. Chaos kills. Turkey and Iran could both seize parts of Iraq. Tribal warlords could seize power. If there are bio/chemical weapons, they could be sold to terrorists for a few quick bucks in a Swiss bank account. Refugees could suffer by the hundreds of thousands. Violence could spread across the region. If the US has to act like the enforcer in post-war Iraq, that is the ultimate fodder for terrorism. What happens when US soldiers patrol the streets of Iraq, and suicide terrorists make a habit of shooting our people?

What I wouldn't do.... I wouldn't copy-paste some guy's term paper into a report about the need to invade. I wouldn't send Powell to the UN with laughably bad "evidence". I wouldn't pretend that Saddam's previous wars have anything to do with today's invasion. I wouldn't invade. I wouldn't ignore North Korea. I wouldn't let Bin Laden get away. I wouldn't block terrorist investigations that involve Saudis (like Bush did before the 9-11 attacks). I wouldn't alienate our allies. I wouldn't cancel the Bill of Rights. I wouldn't let the anthrax terrorist get away. I wouldn't reward Marian Skip Bowman for his role in preventing the prevention of the 9-11 attacks.

[10:39:22 AM]
Gallup poll question: "If the government DOES send troops to Iraq, would you be -- very upset, somewhat upset, not too upset, or not at all upset?"

"Send troops to Iraq"??? Make it sound like sending a birthday present to your mother, and you get a slightly different answer than if you ask: If the government DOES invade Iraq, directly killing thousands of innocent women and children, causing hundreds of thousands to flee their homes, terrorizing Baghdad with a continuous bombing campaign, potentially causing the use of anthrax and poison gases against American soldiers and Israeli civilians, and costing hundreds of billions of dollars over the next five years to administer the country, would you be -- very upset, somewhat upset, not too upset, or not at all upset?