Theophrastus Blog
A blog of comment, ideas, and links.













Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.
 

 

Wednesday, October 16, 2002
 

[Colin Glassey 1:30 PM]
Thanks to Andrew Sullivan's site I found this great essay by Jonathan Chait on Why Liberals Should Support the War. Chait writes for the The New Republic. I fully agree with the essay. Three arguements against the war are demolished: humanitarian reasons; lack of support from the U.N.; and Saddam Hussein's supposed rationality. Read it and see.
1:50:48 PM    

[Colin Glassey 12 noon]
The reason why we should not be paying much attention to the "do nothing/anti-war" crowd in Germany and France is simple: these two countries no longer have the military capacity to inflict serious harm on other nations through military force. This isn't quite true, France still has some nuclear weapons which they could launch, but short of nukes, France is in roughly the same position as Germany.

What has changed? During the cold war (1947 - 1989) Germany (West Germany) had a significant military force, on the ground, right on the front line of the conflict between "the west" and the Russian Communist empire (for a time known as the Warsaw Pact). France also had a significant army which was close to the front line and together, their armies mattered a great deal if war ever broke out.

Since the Cold War ended, more than 12 years ago, the German army has declined in strength, in capability, and in strategic importance. The West German army did not need any ability to fight outside its borders. The French army needed only a small degree of strategic mobility (i.e. the ability to re-deploy and fight in West Germany). For the purpose of attacking a country a long ways away from Europe, both countries are fundementally lacking in capacity. So, just as the Iraqi army is no threat to European nations, the armies of Germany and France are no threat to Iraq.

Given their weakness, their lack of ability to actually DO anything if military force is required, is it at all surprising that they are advocates of inaction and non-military solutions? It is important to understand this is a clear political choice the people of both countries have made: Since 1989 they have reduced their expenditures on their military in favor of other things (largely on very generous social subsidies). As a result, militarily, these are now two very weak countries.

In fact, there is only one country in the world right now which is capable of exerting real, serious military power throughout the world. Only one. In other words, if the United States doesn't do something about "rouge states" which defy the U.N., then no one else can or will.
12:24:56 PM    


[Colin Glassey 11 AM]
Eugene Volk (The Volokh Conspiracy) has a great post about how Mandatory Multilateralism is logically at odds with Robert Wright's proposed anti-terror strategy of Avoiding Provoking Discontent and Hatred. BTW: I found Wright's long essay on the subject facinating. I like Wright's thinking a great deal. That said, I disagree with him in this area.

The problem, as Volokh points out is that all nations threatened by current and future terrorists, if they persue the "avoid provocation" strategy will work to prevent any of their fellow nations from engaging in actions (like war) which will cause discontent. The result? Volokh writes: the more this pragmatic-seeming, peace-loving, eminently reasonable desire to prevent hatred and discontent pervades our potential allies' thinking, the more willing we must abandon mandatory multilateralism, and be willing to act unilaterally.
12:13:22 PM    



Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website. © Copyright 2002 cglassey.
Last update: 11/5/2002; 10:38:10 AM.
This theme is based on the SoundWaves (blue) Manila theme.
October 2002
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Sep   Nov