The Court of World Opinion

John Kerry was a terrible presidential candidate in many ways, and I think Democrats lost all confidence in him shortly after nominating him. One of the things that bothered me the greatest about his campaign was his denunciation of the Iraq War because we invaded in spite of disapproving frowns by friendly nations. The way John Kerry would have it, we should submit the sovereignty of the United States to a vote of the international community, whose members have nothing similar to the interests of the United States at heart.

I want to ask everyone what they think of this! Do we have an obligation to arrange our foreign policy in line with the preponderance of world opinion? It might help to frame the question in terms of something close to your heart, like such as the Iraq: If the majority of the world denounced a sudden and complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, should President Barack Obama fulfill his campaign pledge to "end the war"*? What about Iraq's neighbors? Should we care what they think, or do we do what is in our interest?

[*Note: I don't believe in an immediate "end" to this war, at least not one that we can effect. There will be conflict with or without the United States' involvement. A precipitous withdrawal is, in my opinion, likely to result in a failed state in Iraq with far worse violence and repression than at present. On that judgment, I consider such a withdrawal to be every bit as selfish as going into Iraq was misguided. So could the cut-and-run crowd please stop acting like they have some sort of moral superiority on Iraq? And for sure stop saying things like "end the war" and replace it with something accurate like "end the U.S. role in Iraq." Thanks.]

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow, Kevin, your hypothetical example is so hypothetical, that I can't even imagine it....Lets see. My answer is, yes. I think that our Foreign Policiy is one of the most important thing for a president to look out for and foster. I know, I'm nuts, but I think that the UN is one of the most potentially divinely appointed organizations ever estblished,and I also feel that it is currently an absolute joke. The reason isn't the fault of the UN as a whole, but it's the fault of it's member countries who are too prideful and to willing to do whatever they feel like, regardless of what is best for the whole. And when I say whole, I mean whole world. So, yes, We should be very concerend and responsive to foreing public opinion.

Regarding your 'note,' Maybe I'm just cynical because of my study of middle eastern history, but as far as I can see it, that country and that region will never ever ever be politically stable, so how much time, money, resources, etc. should we invest to try to make that pipedream a reality? It's not going to happen - regardless of the amount of troops, or money or resources we put into it. It's a volitile place and will continue to be so indefinately. :)

Unknown said...

I still have a big red mark on my forehead from the gigantic facepalm I performed after the Kerry nomination. Bring back Howard Dean!

I certainly don't think we should submit our sovereignty, but I disagree with you when you say members of the international community don't share interests with the United States. We all have an interest in peace in Iraq, regardless of what Ron Paul might say. We all have an interest in stopping climate change. We all have an interest in limiting nuclear proliferation, etc.

It's a case-by-case basis thing, I guess, where a competent executive has to weigh ALL the interests of the United States, including our interest in maintaining relationships with other nations.

Are you accusing the "cut-and-run" crowd of using inflammatory language when they say "end the war" instead of "end the U.S. occupation in Iraq"? It's not us that decided it was a war! It's not us that uses terminology like "USA PATRIOT ACT" that makes opponents sound like America-haters!

The Wizzle said...

Well, that's a hard question. Just like "socialism" aka the "law of consecration" could be a really excellent system under the right leadership, the UN I think is a wonderful idea, and we should absolutely be looking out for the good of the world as a whole and taking that into account as we make our decisions. I don't think we would have to submit and sacrifice "our" good for the good of the rest of the world, because I really do think that it's all linked and that what benefits all of us, benefits all of us.

However.

There's a lot of nutty nutjobs out there, and some of them have managed to get themselves elected/appointed leaders of nations (see Ahmedinejad, Kim Jong Il, etc) so that's not a lot to work with. I don't know what you do in cases like those, where the leadership is so grossly corrupt or misguided that you can't take them at their word.

And yeah, dude, also - I don't know exactly how we should pursue withdrawal from Iraq (although I do think we should be heading in that direction as quickly as seems prudent) so I don't really consider myself a "cut and run" kinda gal, but I am not the one who was desperate to be a "wartime President" etc. That ain't my terminology. This President has been all about "war" since 9/11 and I *hate* it but there's not a war because I'm choosing to refer to it as such.

Amy said...

my opinion is that world leaders should be 'consulted' and organizations like the UN should be consulted, but they should not be the deciding factor. Like a President should consult with his cabinet and VP, but ultimately all decisions are on his own shoulders. Therefore, I say, let the world nations know what you're thinking, as them what they think, and make your decision based on facts not opinion.
(which incidentally, is why we're in Iraq, right? They made the decision to go in based on fact and were supported by many nations to do so. Years later the facts were made public to be unproved, so opinion has changed. Yet, if we did things according to opinion to begin with we still would have gone in...EVERYONE, even Hillary and liberal Spain, was supportive of the idea. Only now public opinion is that a mistake was made)

KWS said...

I maybe wasn't clear on what I said about "ending" the war. I am not saying we shouldn't call it a war. It is a war. My problem is with the slogan-induced delusion that the war will end when U.S. troops leave. That is false. The war will go on. That is why we shouldn't say "end the war." The United States can't do that by leaving, and maybe we can't do it by staying. It seems like, reading through so far, we agree that it's a war and that pulling out comes down to looking after ourselves.

I didn't say anything about inflammatory language, and I take your point that conservatives are much worse at this than anyone. But saying the war's end will coincide with withdrawal is inaccurate. It is disingenuous. I take issue with disingenuity wherever it appears on the political spectrum, and I consider this case to be one of the most flagrant. "End the War" is a useful slogan for manipulation of the masses, but I don't think that justifies its use. If leaving in a hurry doesn't mean ending the war, don't put immediate withdrawal in those terms.

Regarding Mike's statement about interests we "all" share: no sir. I present Exhibit A, Iran, which has a demonstrated non-interest in both nuclear proliferation control and peace in Iraq. There are many nations pursuing interests dissimilar to our own.

Thank you for saying that we should keep in mind our interest in maintaining relations with other nations. I think this is forgotten in Bush's calculations.

Socialism = Law of Consecration? I disagree. Socialism is imposed from the top onto a populace who may or may not want to live communally. The law of consecration is a group of people who, of their own volition, choose to share the means of production and output equally with others in the group. It is bottom-up. If you show me a socialist nation where every last person has volunteered to live that way and can leave at any time, then I might say that is close to a consecration situation. (There would still be corrupt leaders to worry about and also the problem of limited human wisdom to allocate resources in ways that make sense...)

There seems to be a lot people want to say about the UN and international law. I think I know what I will post on next!

The Wizzle said...

Oh, I totally take your point about using "whee, let's end the war!" as a quick-fix mass appeal rallying cry. You don't have any argument from me there, I didn't catch your meaning quite right the first time. Thast is definitely right up there with "it's time for change!" on my list of Annoying Meaningless Slogans. I like "Yes We Can!" much better. :)

And I agree that the Law of Consecration would be voluntary, and that socialism when it has been implemented has been coercion at best and well, much worse at worst, but the basic gist is the same, no? Everyone contributes what they have to the General People in Charge, roughly, and it's distributed according to need (at least, that's how socialism/communism is "supposed" to work). Just using it as ann example of something that sounds good, in theory, among people who are all honest and with the same genuine good intentions, but doesn't always work out well in practice because of human greed. Like the UN, although socialism has a worse track record so far for sure.

Lincoln said...

Sorry to burst your bubble, Amy, but "everyone" was NOT in favor of the US invading Iraq. I certainly wasn't. I distinctly remember listening to Bush's address to the Iraqi people on the eve of the invasion and thinking "this is going to be such a mistake." And about 10 MILLION people worldwide agreed with me. Remember the protest in March 2003, just before the invasion? The largest protest in history? France, Russia, China, and the UN as a whole opposed the invasion, which is why the US could not count on UN forces as part of the coalition. There were plenty of people calling for restraint.

What's ironic is that those who argue the US is a sovereign nation and should never be subject to the will of the UN or pressure by the international community are the same people who cheered when we attacked a sovereign nation without provocation (Iraq), overthrew its government, and occupied it for several years. Of course, Saddam was a despotic tyrant who ruthlessly oppressed his people. But there were far smarter, less costly ways to deal with him than the one we chose.

big.bald.dave said...

The United States should always, always, *always* do what is in its own best interest with respect to foreign policy. However, the questions arise when one considers whether maintaining harmony with the rest of the world fits into the definition of "America's best interest".

I, for one, think it does. America has historically been looked upon favorably, at least by other Western countries, because of its high moral standing and good human rights record. When we do things like invade countries based on false pretenses and torture prisoners, we lose that respect and it comes back to haunt us in other ways.

If I were to travel abroad right now, I would be ashamed to have to admit I'm part of this mess. I'm proud to be an American (cue Lee Greenwood), but I am sick over what the Bush administration has done to my country. Hopefully Barack Obama can win the election and help to turn to a new page in our history.

Anonymous said...

I second Dave.....as a whole, I second him. When we were in Europe this summer (June) just about everyone that we talked to, when we told them we were from the US, gave us an earful, getting all up in arms, so to speak, about the Bush administration's latest fiasco. Part of it is popularity -world wide, it is popular to be against Bush - but, part of it is a fear in them, that when the undisputed world power starts acting in a way that is contrary to the best intrest of the world, it is cause for the world to worry. Not a very good way to win friends and influence people.

Anonymous said...

Call me a warmonger but, some things can only be done by force. Lincoln, you said there were smarter less costly ways to deal with Sadaam, but when we have been trying to resolve that issue for years and nothing had worked, no one from your side had any ideas except more talking and sanctions which DO NOT work with people like him. Give me some examples of things, option, that would have worked.

Also he was sponsoring and aiding terrorism, which is tied to 9/11. And on the subject of 9/11, it seems that those with the post 9/11 mentality have been demonized as warmongering tyrants. So do we go back to pre 9/11 defensive mentality? Wait to be attacked again? We're on offense because defense wasn't working, evidenced by the many many attackes we suffered and lives we lost. Iraq is a terrorist hub, I don't see why it is so hard to see it like this. Tell me why?

Also I would like to propose that not finding w.m.d.'s, doesn't mean that they were never there.

I would furthur propose that "public opinion" is whatever the loudest voice (media) wants it to be. If the majority of Americans think the war was a mistake, it is only because they have been told that it was, and told that it is what they "should" think to join the majority, thus trying to create a majority opinion that was not there before. Again I will point out that there has been no new news on Iraq, and that is because it is all good news. I don't think the war was or is a mistake, and all facts on the table, unadultered, I don't think that most Americans would consider it a mistake either.

By the way, everything that I have been talking about is a result of politification. It has nothing to do with right or wrong or good or bad. Leading "thinkers" drive sided opinions, right or wrong, to make political opponents or parties look bad, so as to increase chances of those "thinkers" getting elected so they can have power. Power corrupts remember.

Example: leading democrats hate Bush for getting elected so they blindly oppose anything he does and make up reasons why those things are bad after they already took up opposition. Implication: Bush goes to war to oppose terrorism and leading dem's start trying to figure out how it is bad besides the obvious, so they invest in defeat, and say it is never going to work, like the surge, and when it does work, everything they have said goes away, no one seems to remember. Then they crucify Petraeus hoping he'll screw up. They even contort his role and accuse him of being a Bush puppet hoping he'll be discredited. And all of this is a result of their disdain for Bush being elected instead of them. Whether or not the surge is working doesn't REALLY matter to them, cause it is more important that Bush be seen as a fool.

You all seem to have agreed with me about media bias and have written a blog about it, but I don't think you understand how really deep it goes. And I may be labeled as a right wing kook, cause that is what we do best is label, but I really think we should focus more on fact than speculation.

As far as foreign opinion goes, if I didn't feel like they were disingenuous about our interests, maybe I would care, but I don't. I think they are more pissed off that we won't conform, especially to the myth/cult of "climate change" (not "global warming" anymore? why not? was that not true?)

Anonymous said...

Bottom line on foreign policy is other nations will never approve of what we do cause they don't want us to DO anything. They want us to sit around and talk about it into obscurity. China doesn't want to do anything about Darfur. Maybe cause they don't want any enemies. After all we have got all kinds of enemies now. Is that what we are afraid of, is making enemies? I guess it then comes down to whether we are doing the right thing or not. I think our worst enemy is our own Democratic leaders voices. I mean you guys have some real kooks over there. The whole declaring the war over thing was ridiculous and undermining and inspiring to enemy forces, and Pelosi meeting with Assad was near disastrous, Kerry telling foreign countries that the U.S. is a pariah, and Clinton parroting moveon.org. It seems to me that that there is more harm done to our foreign image by these "leaders" then by Bush trying to do what he feels is right.

I almost feel like I want to find evidence that I am wrong about all the misconceptions about the war. If I can find irrefutable evidence that what you all are saying is true then I can admit my misplaced confidence and have a little more hope that those on the far left aren't so stupid and insane, and maybe under their leadership there may be a glimmer of hope. Cause then I wouldn't be so afraid for our futures.

The Wizzle said...

Well, I'll have to get back to you with sources for the subject of the war in Iraq (many, many places are hotbeds for terrorist activity - why Iraq? You really don't think there is any connection at all between Bush 41 and Bush 43 and Saddam? The Gulf War? Finishing what he started? Of course, we'll probably never know the real truth, or the truth about whether there ever were WMDs, etc, because it's very true we only know what we're told - and we're never, ever told everything).

But as far as global warming/climate change goes, I'm pretty sure they started calling it "climate change" because that more accurately summed up the total predicted problems - it's not just a question of everything getting hotter. IN some places the climate will/has been/is predicted to change in different ways - I'll have to look up more specifics on that too.

And don't go stealing my idea for my next post! Climate change is MINE, man, all mine. :)

Anonymous said...

I'm excited, Rachel - I might do what Jaron Just did and write a novel when you post it...:)Now I'll have to think of a new next post, though...

Lincoln said...

Jaronius, you asked about some options that would have worked in dealing with Saddam. In dealing with an intransigent foreign leader or country, I think we can agree that the US really only has 4 basic options, no matter what situation: (1) direct talks, (2) multilateral talks/sanctions involving several nations, (3)use of military force, and (4) do nothing. You're right, options 1 and 2 had been used for years with little success in getting him to allow UN inspectors unrestricted access to alleged WMD sites and, by extension, destroying the WMDs. The biggest question is: when those options didn't work, why didn't we go to option 4 and do nothing? We did that with North Korea, Iran and Syria, the other "Axis of Evil" nations. In 2003 all of them were considered threats to US interests. We strongly suspected that North Korea actually had nuclear weapons, which was confirmed a few years later. North Korea also had the missiles to actually reach the US, whereas there was not even a suggestion that Iraq was able to do that. Why didn't we attack North Korea and depose Kim Jong Il? What was so urgent about getting rid of Saddam? It's obvious that the Bush Administration inflated the threat of WMDs and the need to invade Iraq immediately. Many European nations, with their proximity to Iraq, had more reason to worry about WMDs than the US. But they wanted to exhaust all diplomatic options before even considering military action, because it costs so much money and blood. Ultimately, of course, we continued negotating with North Korea and Iran, and those threats have cooled, at least for now, thanks to the success of diplomacy. Problems with Syria haven't been resolved, but at least their ire is focused on Lebanon, not the US. I'm not saying I oppose military intervention in all cases; I just think it should be the last resort, and we need to think through all the consequences and have contingency plans ready if and when things go wrong.

KWS said...

I thank you all for your comments. Lincoln, though, I've got to call you on your many inaccuracies and misinterpretations of world events. In order of presentation:

1. 10 million people is... not that many in the grand scheme of things. It's a decent number, but you gave it more emphasis than it deserves.

2. Russia and China are going to oppose everything, all day long. They are not looking after you or anyone else in America. Or anyone in the world, really. They loved Saddam -- another joker on the international scene to distract the United States from what they are doing! And things never change; China and Russia are the ones blocking real action in Darfur right now using not a few very stale arguments. And don't get me started on the filthy lucre behind P5 opposition to the invasion...

3. Oops, I have to for this next point. The government of France had all kinds of financial interest in continuing with sanctions (see Oil For Food programme). Since the French media largely follow the public line, the government can shape public opinion in whatever way continues to enable the corrupt practices of its bureaucrats. So while I agree that French people in general are very much against what's been going on in Iraq, I think they've been taken in by propaganda.

4."...attacked a sovereign nation without provocation (Iraq)." The US could not have been any clearer what would be the consequences of continued feet-dragging on WMD inspections. Pretend you are Saddam, and that you don't have WMD. When the United Nations tells you to cooperate with inspections (see multiple UN resolutions to this effect), you know that nothing happens when you refuse, and you get to look like a tough guy. If the United States says to cooperate, you have a choice. Either you believe the threat of armed intervention, cooperate fully and let the world know there are no WMD in your country, OR you gamble that the US won't really invade, and you continue to be a tough guy. Continuing in your stubborn ways when you've been told it would be interpreted as an act of war IS a provocation. Too bad you bet wrong. For everyone.

5. You forgot about option 5 in dealing with intransigence. The US could 5) aid Saddam in his intransigence, deal in corruption with him, and make some bucks by selling weapons to him to be used against whoever he feels like fighting. This was the France option.

6. Saying that the United States did "nothing" about North Korea and Iran is a gross misrepresentation. Have you ever heard of the Six Party Talks? They embody multilateralism in all its glory. (And how well are they doing, by the way?) In 2003, a progressive regime in Iran was likely halting its nuclear weapons program. But ever since Ahmedinejad came to office in 2005, he has been pretty clear that he has no intentions of playing by NPT rules. And we didn't sit idly by. Have you ever heard of UNSC 1737? What about 1747? They embody the best efforts of the United Nations to make Iran stop being secretive about uranium enrichment. (And how well are they doing, by the way?)

7. The Axis of Evil nations were, in their entirety: Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Syria, while a state sponsor of terror, does not have the distinction of being so designated, and neither do the "other countries." (Syria, Libya, and Cuba were mentioned as part of a May 2002 speech by Ambassador John Bolton, lovingly dubbed "Beyond the Axis of Evil.")

8. You claim that North Korea had, in 2003, "the missiles to actually reach the US." This was not true in 2003 and is not true in 2008. North Korea's current effective missile range does include several of its neighbors, but their prototype of an ICBM that could hit California failed terrifically in July of 2006.

9. There are so many reasons to not change the North Korean regime that you are apparently unaware of. The only one I'll take the time to mention here is that North Korea has tons (and I mean like the actual unit of measurement, tonnes if you will) of artillery rounds loaded with who-knows-what types of payloads aimed at Seoul, a city of 12 million. The mayhem resulting from a shooting war on the Korean peninsula is beyond anything going on in the Middle East.

10. I hate the word "obvious." It smacks of condescension and ignorance.

11. I refer to my above statements in answer to your claim that "those threats have cooled...thanks to the success of diplomacy." Those threats are as hot as ever, except that they are right now bubbling under the surface. Diplomacy is, as in Chamberlain's "time," a fickle lover. Mark my words, you haven't heard the last from Iran and North Korea!

You are in general too ready to pass uninformed judgments, and without considering what alternatives you are (or are not) proposing. Your "far smarter, less costly ways" to deal with Saddam are not apparent to me. In any event, I'd be willing to bet you didn't have it all figured out in 2003. You're sticking to your agenda, though, good on ya for that!

Anonymous said...

wow...Kevin, remind me to not counter you when it comes to military matters...

KWS said...

Yeah... I got a little fired up, sorry about that everyone. Shoulda slept on it and made myself less INTENSE. Anyway Rick you shouldn't have problems if you avoid making things up that I think are harmful to educated discussion.

The Wizzle said...

Rock on, Kevin! I can handle an intense response if it's coherent, logical, and footnoted for goodness sake. :) I love those because I'm a gal who likes to get all the information, but sometimes it's really hard to know where to start getting it.

Off to read all your linkies...

Lincoln said...

Kevin, let me respond:
1) "10 million people is not that many"? Really? It was the largest number of people who ever opposed anything in a series of rallies. The world has never seen such protests before or since. Of course it's a small percentage of the world population. But I was refuting Amy's assertion that "everyone" was in favor of the US invasion. US polls in Jan thru March 2003 showed people generally favored military intervention IF we had UN backing. 50% opposed military intervention without it. Gallup polls across Europe (not just corrupt France) showed vigorous opposition to the invasion, as high as 90% in Spain and Italy.

2) Not only France, China and Russia opposed the invasion, but several traditional US allies: Canada, Germany, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Others who had little to gain from keeping Saddam in power, such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Finland, India, New Zealand, Norway, and South Africa, still opposed the invasion. Most of these nations WOULD have supported the invasion IF it was sanctioned by the UN.

4) I understand your argument about defining "provocation". My point was that Iraq had never attacked us nor was it in a viable position to do so. Many legal and international scholars (not just Bush-haters) considered the invasion illegal and immoral.

5) this is off point, but unfortunately, the US did use option 5 in the 1980's - we sold arms to Saddam.

6 and 11) You are correct; I didn't articulate this well. Of course I'm aware that the US engaged in multilateral talks with North Korea and has not "done nothing" regarding NK and Iran. And I note that the NIE report on Iran in December cited international pressure as a major reason it halted its nuclear weapons program. I totally agree about Iran -- we haven't heard the last from them. I just hope we don't send troops to die there.

7) You're right; Syria wasn't one of the Axis of Evil. I lumped it in because it was so often cited by the Bush administration as an enemy to US interests. Sorry about that.

8) Sorry about the missiles as well. I stand corrected. My point, however, is that North Korea has always been more belligerent towards us than Iraq, and was more advanced in its ability to attack us in 2003 than Iraq.

9) Your reasons not to attack North Korea are exactly my point. The Bush Administration in 2002 claimed that Iraq was an immediate, urgent threat to the US, its people, and its allies. If this were true, wouldn't it have been just as disastrous to attack Iraq as if we had attacked North Korea? What if Iraq had bombed Israel? It could've started Wold War III. And I disagree that a shooting war in the Korean peninsula would be more destructive than the bloodbath we've seen in Iraq. Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths resulting from the war range between 100,000 (yes, the low end) and 1.2 million.


10) You're right, "obvious" is a condescending word, and I will avoid using it from now on.

What would've been smarter, less costly ways to deal with Saddam? The way we've dealt with North Korea and Iran: keep talking. Listen to our allies and consider that just maybe they have a point. In the last 5 years, we haven't lost a single US soldier to conflicts with either of those countries. I'm sure it's cost something to negotiate with them, but not anywhere near $1 billion, let alone almost $500 billion. Are we in greater danger now from NK and Iran as a result of our inaction and waiting? If anything, we're in greater danger because we invaded Iraq. We've hampered our ability to defend ourselves with an Army that's stretched so thin, we've angered our allies and lost our credibility with them, and we've been unable to concentrate on defeating the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

You say these conflicts are about to bubble over: the talk out of North Korea is towards dismantling the nuclear weapons program. This may be just talk, but at least it's a marked difference from their saber-rattling in years past. With Iran, we've made progress in that we have better intelligence regarding its nuclear weapons program, and the UN is united in opposition to that program continuing. So if things come to a head and military force is necessary, the UN will hopefully lead the charge.

Regarding whether I "had it figured out in 2003": The dangers of invading Iraq were well known to us and were discussed in depth in the media in 2003. For example, removing Saddam would likely ignite sectarian violence between Shi'ites and Sunnis; it would be difficult to establish a democratic government; it would cost US taxpayers billions to fight the war and rebuild Baghdad (originally estimated at $45 billion; to date, it's $496 billion); Sunnis would start a guerilla war against US forces; the US would be condemned around the world for its pre-emptive war; and the war would likely de-stabilize the entire region. Despite these risks (all of which have come to pass), the Bush administration was hell-bent on bombing Baghdad, ignoring calls from its allies Germany and Canada to wait for the backing of the UN.

Thanks for calling me out on those points. I respect your arguments.

KWS said...

Lincoln, I was so worried that I had spoken quite rashly and scared you and others away from good discussion. Thank you for overcoming my epic comment and continuing. I found your latest comment to be well grounded and thought-provoking.

We will just have to agree to disagree on the Korea versus Middle East thing. I think 12 million likely casualties in a single day is worse than any estimate of under a million in a 5-year period. North Korea literally threatened to turn Seoul into a "sea of fire" back in 1993. By way of curiosity, are there really people saying 1.2 million civilian deaths in Iraq? As of 18 months ago the highest I had heard was a study on NPR that said 100,000.

For the record, I didn't say the Iran and NK situations are about to bubble over. I wouldn't presume to tell if that will happen sooner or later. But I contend that just because it's not on the front page doesn't mean they're not still up to something.

And my final point, on the opposition to the invasion of Iraq. I don't know a lot about it, actually, because I was in Korea for the year leading up to and year following March 2003. This time you brought up more countries than those mentioned before, and that is appreciated. However, I want to say that you are on kind of shaky ground when you say on one hand that people were generally okay with US military action if it was sanctioned by the UN, and on the other hand acknowledge the corruption of three of the five veto-power, permanent members of the UN Security Council, whose vote it is that could have sanctioned US military action! If France, Russia, and China (who had just as much reason to believe that Iraq had WMD as us and the UK) had not been using Saddam as a distraction, a counterpoint to American influence, and a source of income for bureaucrats and arms dealers, you would have had an Iraq War sanctioned by the UN. Regardless of "legality of war" issues (whatever that means), the US has to look out for its interests when others are seeking to block it from doing so for reasons of their own.

Kelly said...

Wow. Congratulations, everyone, on what has turned out to be the most civil discussion of foreign policy I have ever seen.

The whole thing blows my mind. I feel like I have principles based on what I read in scriptures and believe to be right (war as a last resort, self-defense, etc.) and I also see a seemingly unnavigable web of complex back-stories that makes "foreign policy" into a science more than a way of interacting with the world. All the sudden I lose my notion of self-defense in a really complex world, and I don't know what to support. But on the whole, I'd like to see less people die at the hands of other people. I just wish there was a way to make that more than a worthless statement of idealism.

I'll go listen to John Lennon now.