Friday, February 21, 2003
5:40 pm
Does It Matter? 21st February 2003.
Never seem to write, indeed!
But although not writing, I have been thinking about the war - impossible to avoid, as a Radio 4 listener. Unfortunately, my deliberations have resulted in no more interesting conclusion than this, that I am not sure the whole thing matters. This may in part be Radio 4 fatigue, it may be the result of a Marvellous retreat from public affairs ("Fair quiet, have I found thee here, / And Innocence thy Sister dear! / Mistaken long, I sought you then / In busie Companies of Men. / Your sacred plants, if here below, / Only among the Plants will grow. / Society is all but rude, / To this delicious Solitude."), but, whatever the motives, there do seem to be justifications for it too.
Take those who think there is a moral case against war. They argue that innocent Iraqi civilians may die - but many more may die if Saddam is not removed. They say that the U.S. has ulterior motives - but doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is still doing the right thing. They say that there are other evil regimes - but better one fewer evil regime than no fewer. They say that the West once backed Saddam - so the West now has a responsibility to remove him. They say that the U.N. may not support war - yet France & Russia are motivated by their wish to protect their commercial interests, which should not be allowed to prevent others from doing the right thing. They say that the U.N.'s authority must be upheld, &, if the U.N. is by-passed, its authority will suffer - yet if horse-trading prevents the U.N. from enforcing its own resolutions, its authority will suffer too. So the moral case against war is a dead loss; yet the moral case for war is little better. However appalling Saddam's regime, it seems unlikely that war is the least life-costly way of removing or restraining him; & in any case, his massacring days seem to be over; but, on the other hand, the world would be a better place without him however he was removed. So there is no compelling moral reason to support or oppose war.
From the point of view of the national interest, there is no evidence that Saddam is a threat to Britain. Even if he weren't Without Means of Delivery, he would never attack a Western European country, because he knows that if he did so, he, his regime, & his country would be utterly annihilated. Even if he attacked one of his neighbours, even if his depleted army overcame the enemy, he knows he would be booted out in short order, as he was in 1991. He would want to do either only if his regime were put in mortal peril by a U.S.-led attack; & even then, he couldn't. Given these obvious disincentives to attack a pacific Britain, clear evidence needs to be provided of his intention to do so - e.g., evidence of his supplying al-Qa'eda with chemical weapons, an inherently unlikely thing for him to do, since a) he would not build an arsenal at enormous risk & expense only to give it away, and b) he is an enemy of Islamic fundamentalists. No such evidence has been provided. So, from the point of view of British national interest, we have no reason to attack Iraq, unless you count staying pally with the Americans, who have a treaty obligation to defend us in the unlikely event we are ever attacked, whose sentiments therefore are immaterial.
But, on the other hand, while there may be no reason for us to attack Iraq, I cannot see it would be all that disastrous if we did. Yes, some soldiers may die; this is certainly not to be taken lightly, but, to put it in perspective, I should be surprised if half as many Britons were killed in Iraq as are killed yearly on our roads. Yes, it would cost a lot of money, but an end to the uncertainty would do wonders for the stock market, & it's not as though any money saved by peace would be well spent on anything else, at least not by this government. Yes, a few more terrorists would be recruited, but at least there would be fewer asylum-seekers from Iraq. These are not trivial matters, but neither are they earth-shatteringly important. So I don't think this is something worth going to the barricades for.
Never seem to write, indeed!
But although not writing, I have been thinking about the war - impossible to avoid, as a Radio 4 listener. Unfortunately, my deliberations have resulted in no more interesting conclusion than this, that I am not sure the whole thing matters. This may in part be Radio 4 fatigue, it may be the result of a Marvellous retreat from public affairs ("Fair quiet, have I found thee here, / And Innocence thy Sister dear! / Mistaken long, I sought you then / In busie Companies of Men. / Your sacred plants, if here below, / Only among the Plants will grow. / Society is all but rude, / To this delicious Solitude."), but, whatever the motives, there do seem to be justifications for it too.
Take those who think there is a moral case against war. They argue that innocent Iraqi civilians may die - but many more may die if Saddam is not removed. They say that the U.S. has ulterior motives - but doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is still doing the right thing. They say that there are other evil regimes - but better one fewer evil regime than no fewer. They say that the West once backed Saddam - so the West now has a responsibility to remove him. They say that the U.N. may not support war - yet France & Russia are motivated by their wish to protect their commercial interests, which should not be allowed to prevent others from doing the right thing. They say that the U.N.'s authority must be upheld, &, if the U.N. is by-passed, its authority will suffer - yet if horse-trading prevents the U.N. from enforcing its own resolutions, its authority will suffer too. So the moral case against war is a dead loss; yet the moral case for war is little better. However appalling Saddam's regime, it seems unlikely that war is the least life-costly way of removing or restraining him; & in any case, his massacring days seem to be over; but, on the other hand, the world would be a better place without him however he was removed. So there is no compelling moral reason to support or oppose war.
From the point of view of the national interest, there is no evidence that Saddam is a threat to Britain. Even if he weren't Without Means of Delivery, he would never attack a Western European country, because he knows that if he did so, he, his regime, & his country would be utterly annihilated. Even if he attacked one of his neighbours, even if his depleted army overcame the enemy, he knows he would be booted out in short order, as he was in 1991. He would want to do either only if his regime were put in mortal peril by a U.S.-led attack; & even then, he couldn't. Given these obvious disincentives to attack a pacific Britain, clear evidence needs to be provided of his intention to do so - e.g., evidence of his supplying al-Qa'eda with chemical weapons, an inherently unlikely thing for him to do, since a) he would not build an arsenal at enormous risk & expense only to give it away, and b) he is an enemy of Islamic fundamentalists. No such evidence has been provided. So, from the point of view of British national interest, we have no reason to attack Iraq, unless you count staying pally with the Americans, who have a treaty obligation to defend us in the unlikely event we are ever attacked, whose sentiments therefore are immaterial.
But, on the other hand, while there may be no reason for us to attack Iraq, I cannot see it would be all that disastrous if we did. Yes, some soldiers may die; this is certainly not to be taken lightly, but, to put it in perspective, I should be surprised if half as many Britons were killed in Iraq as are killed yearly on our roads. Yes, it would cost a lot of money, but an end to the uncertainty would do wonders for the stock market, & it's not as though any money saved by peace would be well spent on anything else, at least not by this government. Yes, a few more terrorists would be recruited, but at least there would be fewer asylum-seekers from Iraq. These are not trivial matters, but neither are they earth-shatteringly important. So I don't think this is something worth going to the barricades for.
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2003
(696)
-
▼
February
(95)
- One sided kind of special So the Americans are po...
- Eurosocialism - 26th February 2003, 20.44 Interes...
- Unlucky Luckhurst - 27th February 2003, 20.23 Tim...
- A Dawning Realisation - 27th February 2003, 20.12 ...
- Another bill arrives for Last Year's War I don't ...
- Pax Americana? 26th February 2003. One thing ta...
- 10% ... or thereabouts of the Parliamentary Conse...
- Labour are revolting - 26th February 2003, 23.20 ...
- Something Understood - 26th February 2003, 22.48 ...
- Trust The People? - 26th February 2003, 22.33 If ...
- Delaying Tactics - 26th February 2003, 22.25 Gisc...
- Everyone argues Chirac is an Arab. He isn't, he's ...
- The Foreign Affairs Committee and Iran - 25th Febr...
- Bolstering Sierra Leone - 25th February 2003, 20.0...
- Another Ruritania gives up its sovereignty - 25th ...
- Meanwhile, in last year's war I don't think this ...
- Expect to see this in the Guardian - 24th February...
- Franco-British Defence - 24th February 2003, 19.57...
- Dealing with the EU - 24th February 2003, 19.42 D...
- Frittering away our interests As well as worrying...
- Sleepwalking into Empire Yet another reason not t...
- Germany: Stagnant and Unsettled - 23rd February 20...
- Now they'll use Iraq to get the Euro Just to show...
- Zimwatch: American diplomat was detained - 23rd Fe...
- Where Blair and Bush differ - 23rd February 2003, ...
- Who holds the Champagne? - 23rd February 2003, 12....
- Prices for Crises We're often accused of being Gu...
- Raimondo but Rong Justin Raimondo gives a hearty ...
- The Federal Union - 22nd February 2003, 16.10 Man...
- Enarquey - 21st February 2003, 20.57 Another arti...
- Entrails Watch - 21st February 2003, 20.42 Croati...
- The Grand Old Man of Terror - 21st February 2003, ...
- Does It Matter? 21st February 2003. Never seem t...
- Listed One of the amusing things about writing on...
- Why did they march? - 20th February 2003, 21.45 T...
- Entrails Watch - 20th February 2003, 21.25 Attemp...
- Amendments to the Second Draft - 20th February 200...
- But do they want to win? Robert Fisk is probably ...
- Operation: Overstretch - 19th February 2003, 23.13...
- Zimwatch: Developments - 19th February 2003, 19.34...
- Backfiring - 18th February 2003, 20.22 If anybody...
- Biscuit thief Blair Tony Blair seems to have real...
- United in words, not deeds - 17th February 2003, 2...
- Appeasement, first time round There was a time wh...
- A Definition of Solidarity - 16th February 2003, 2...
- An Omanist - 16th February 2003, 20.35 Here is an...
- The Sovereignty Con - 16th February 2003, 19.46 R...
- Not quite the History we had in mind Andrew Dodge...
- Where did they all come from? 750 000, almost twi...
- The United Nations is the new Princess Diana - 15t...
- One Percent - 15th February 2003, 18.17 The Daily...
- How will the March go? With this massive anti-war...
- Minority Reports An interesting post in the afore...
- Countering Pan-Arabism - 12th January 2003, 19.45 ...
- Anti-Europeanism - 12th January 2003, 19.27 Readi...
- NATO no go A curiously prescient article on the w...
- Now that Blair has put tanks on our streets, a few...
- Not just in and out U.S. Plans for Two-Year Occup...
- Still not proven Another day, another loon. This...
- Pinning down the Federasts Too daunted to trudge ...
- A Confident Response - 11th January 2003, 20.23 J...
- No obligations The Turkish Prime Minister says th...
- NATO is no longer a military alliance - 10th Janua...
- 12 Years too late With this vote against helping ...
- Beelzebub has a devil for a son - 10th January 200...
- Would we do this to an American? When wittering o...
- The UN Trap Chatshow Charlie Kennedy has promised...
- Official - They have no shame I really do not wan...
- On hating America, and Belgium I hate to break th...
- The Second Draft (Part 6) Article 13: The coordin...
- The Second Draft (Part 5) Article 11: Exclusive C...
- The Second Draft (Part 4) Article 9: Application ...
- The Second Draft (part 3) Title III: The Union's...
- The Second Draft (Part 2) - 7th February 2003 Art...
- The Second Draft - 7th February 2003 Giscard D'Es...
- Spectator - 6th February 2003, 22.20 Boris Johnso...
- Read the Small Print It seems that Blair's intern...
- Blowback The problem about all these foreign adve...
- Collective Security - 5th February 2003, 21.45 Mo...
- Nice Europe - 5th February 2003, 21.14 This may b...
- A Statement of Values - 5th February 2003, 21.07 ...
- Bridging the Channel - 4th February 2003, 20.37 O...
- Iraqi Overstretch - 4th January 2003, 20.17 Docum...
- Meanwhile in the Hindu Kush It's probably an idea...
- Oh Dear It appears that the links between Al Qaed...
- A Possible Opportunity - 3rd February 2003, 23.42 ...
- Op-Ed Diplomacy - 3rd February 2003, 23.25 With t...
- Zimwatch: Good and Bad Omens - 3rd February 2003, ...
- Red Card - 2nd February 2003, 22.23 The latest at...
- Malta Referendum - 2nd February 2003, 18.28 Malta...
- That Learning Curve - 2nd February 2003, 15.53 La...
- Al-Qaida targets British Admiral - 2nd February 20...
- In Churchill's Shadow - 1st February 2003, 22.37 ...
- Reliable - 1st February 2003, 10.14 A Gallup poll...
- Nasa Shuttle lost on re-entry - 1st February 2003,...
-
▼
February
(95)
0 comments:
Post a Comment