Lunch at the Labs

Side effects of war with Iraq.

Most people think that the United States will be able to defeat Iraq without too many casualties (at least on our side) and I tend to agree. And most of the opponents of war with Iraq say that the real problem is "winning the peace" and that we will be bogged down there at great expense for many years trying to establish a western democracy in a culture and religion that is not ready for it and we will only further Arab hatred and terrorism against us. While I think that is also probably true, I do not think it is the biggest problem.

In recent history the United States has taken several actions which although they seemed sensible to some at the time have proven to have had serious side effects which denigrate any beneficial effects they may have had. For example, arming the Afghan rebels to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan worked, but it led to the rise of the Taliban and its support for al Qaeda and terrorism against the US. Likewise, selling arms and chemicals to Iraq and Saddam Hussein to defeat Iran (our enemy at the time), led to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the current war to get rid of the very "weapons of mass destruction" we helped to create.

Now, with the precedent set by our war against Iraq, any country will be able to justify a war by saying so and so supports terrorism and might attack us, or has murdered its own people, or has failed to obey a UN resolution (which includes lots of countries including the US). The concept of "preventive war" contradicts centuries of diplomatic and legal customs concerning war. There's a reason for following the rules of law although it may seem inconvenient at the time. For example, the recently caught kidnapper of Elizabeth Smart will still have a lawyer and a trial even though everyone "knows" he did it. And even though as in the case of O. J. Simpson, the guilty sometimes do get off, in the long run it's better to have the rule of law because not having it is even worse. It seems clear to everyone except perhaps a certain right wing faction in this country, that we failed to get the needed authority for war with Iraq and I am afraid this will come back to haunt us and the world. For example, why shouldn't Pakistan wage a preventive war against India on the grounds it might be a greater threat in the future?

Serious Consequences.

I keep hearing and reading over and over again that the United States does not need another United Nations resolution to go to war with Iraq because Resolution 1441 says if Iraq does not obey it, there will be "serious consequences" by the UN. But as reported by England's C4 News the original wording was "all necessary means" which is the UN diplomatic term used to mean war. Furthermore, this phrase change was urged by France and Russia and our own ambassador to the UN John Negroponte was against the change because it wasn't enough to sanction war. So how do the President and all those political commentators get away with repeatedly misrepresenting this?

Richard Perle.

On Kudlow & Cramer on CNBC this evening, they interviewed Richard Perle, the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, noted Iraqi war hawk, and presidential advisor. They asked him the usual softball questions and amazingly did not even mention the article by Seymour Hersh in the current issue of The New Yorker about Perle's meeting with some Saudi businessmen and possible conflicts of interest and the fact that Perle plans on suing Hersh.

I don't know whether Perle or Hersh is right, but why was this hot topic not even brought up. My only guess is that Perle agreed to come on the show only on condition they not ask him about it. If so, both Kudlow and Cramer should be ashamed of themselves.

Addendum March 27, 2003. It's beginning to look like Seymour Hersh is right. Today Richard Perle resigned as chairman of the Defense Policy Board because of the reported business dealings that raise ethical questions. Reports in the New York Times and the Washington Post. Also Arianna Huffington's March 26, 2003 column covers Richard Perle's conflicts of interest.

Hitchens Iraqi illogic.

In his online Slate column of March 10, 2003 Pious Nonsense Christopher Hitchens says:

Speaking of casuistry, Carter helpfully added that "American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing." This might be narrowly true, with respect of the planning of the last attacks and given the use of the weak word "unconvincing." But the same day's New York Times carried a report with persuasive evidence of a substantial number of Bin-Ladenists on Iraqi soil

Mr. Hitchens, Carter was playing it safe; there is NO evidence tieing Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and in fact as previously reported here there is evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, there is also "persuasive evidence" of Bin-Ladenists on United States soil (and before 9/11 too). Does that mean we should invade ourselves?

Posted by mjm at 12:36 PM | Comments (1)

bin Laden and Iraq.

The following is an email I sent to Thomas Friedman who writes the Foreign Affairs column on the Op-Ed page in the New York Times.

Dear Mr. Friedman,

Although you support going to war with Iraq (albeit with some reservations) I admire your reasoned approach. Here's something for you to consider. Would you agree that Osama bin Laden is probably very happy to see us invade Iraq? If so, doesn't this in some sense mean that by invading Iraq we are aiding al Qaeda? It seems to me ironic that in the name of fighting terrorism (but of course as we know Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism against the US) that we will actually be helping the real terrorists.

Questions for Donald Rumsfeld.

A couple of days ago on CNBC's Capital Report with Alan Murray and Gloria Borger, they invited viewers to email questions for tonight's interview with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Here are the questions I submitted:

1. Since the CIA found that before 9/11 there were telephone calls from al Qaeda in Germany to Saudia Arabia and Egypt and some other mid-east countries but none to Iraq, why are we going to war with Iraq and not Saudia Arabia, which also was home to 14 of the 19 hijackers?

2. Do you think it was a mistake to anger all of Europe by refusing to go along with the Kyoto global warming treaty and to ignore Russia's concerns by unilaterally ripping up the ABM treaty? Why should other countries help us out when we just do what we want without considering their needs.

3. Do you think past administrations erred in helping Saddam Hussein develop chemical and biological weapons when he was fighting Iran and supporting and giving weapons to the Taliban when they were fighting the Russians? Since you consider Saddam Hussein and the Taliban terrorists, don't these actions prove that the United States sometimes aids terrorists if it serves our immediate purpose.

4. Why do you expect other countries to support United Nations resolutions when the United States sometimes refuses to do so? For example, we do not support UN Resolution 242 from 1967 that requires Israel to withdraw from the Arab territories it occupied that year and we ignored the Security Council when they ordered us to terminate our actions against Nicaragua several years ago.

Of course they did not ask anything along these lines, but instead they asked the same dumb questions that he's answered numerous times before like "what would you say to the American people on the eve of war with Iraq" and "what would you say to the war protesters in this country".

What is the use of a free press when reporters do not ask good questions? Do they ask the questions they do because they cannot think of tough ones or is it because if they asked real questions no one would be willing to appear on the show? Are there other possible reasons? I want to be the one who asks the questions; let me know how :-).

The Long Bomb.

In his op-ed column The Long Bomb in Sunday's New York Times Thomas L. Friedman says he supports war against Iraq but criticizes President Bush for how he has handled matters leading up to it. Although I often disagree with Mr. Friedman and do not agree with him on war with Iraq, I think he makes some interesting points that explain why so many disagree with this war and why it may not turn out so well:

1. This administration refused to go along with the Kyoto global warming treaty and thus angered all of Europe.

2. This administration unilaterally ripped up the ABM treaty without any regards to Russia.

3. This administration has implemented one radical tax cut and now is proposing another one, just when we are going to enter a costly war.

4. This administration has failed to implement any energy conservation, plan for alternative energy sources, or even stockpile oil on the eve of war.

5. This administration has done nothing to stop new or expanded Israeli settlements that cause all Arabs to distrust our motives in the mid-east.