[CLUE-Talk] Going to war, how much to pay people

[Matt Gushee]

On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:36:53PM -0700, Kevin Cullis wrote:
> 
> The fact that Hussein has proven to be brutal is one thing, but times
> have changed so that today we're NOT like 1940's.  Hussein can now
> deploy a dirty bomb anywhere in the US since our borders are so open!! 
> Is this a good enough argument!!

No.

First of all, we don't know that Iraq has any such weapons. And even if
it does, the fact that it *could* deploy them in the US doesn't mean
that it would. Saddam Hussein is not Osama Bin Laden. For one thing, he
has a lot to lose. He's got all that oil, and perhaps more importantly
for him, he has several million people under his thumb. Maybe he's a bit
mad, but I doubt he is so mad as to not realize what would happen to him
and his country if he actually attacked the United States.

I would also point out that your logic could apply to any number of
adversaries, actual and potential, known and unknown. Who might bomb us?
It could be a radical Palestinian faction that decides they've had
enough of our continuing support of Israel. It could be whichever group
of Colombian drug lords we are currently targeting for destruction. It
could be another Tim McVeigh type. And then there's the fugitive Bin
Laden himself.

Should we wage preemptive war on every country that might someday
threaten us? If so, where does it stop? How many millions, or billions,
do we have to kill before all the terrorists are gone? Where do you
draw the line, Kevin?

Or have you bought into Mr. Bush's Manichaean delusion, that the world
is divided into good countries and evil ones (the US being among the
good, of course), and that the good ones have the right and
responsibility to, as he puts it, "rid the world of evil?"

> Is 9/11 a good enough argument to
> prevent another one?  Are you saying we shouldn't go after Hussein UNTIL
> another 9/11?

President Bush hasn't explained what 9/11 has to do with Iraq. Would you
like to do so?

> Matt, the game rules have been changed by the terrorists.  Before 9/11,
> most airline hijackers wanted money or something else so the typical
> response by airline pilots was to go along with their captors.  Just as
> when airline hijacking first began changed the rules for flying, so has
> the new MO for the terrorists after 9/11.

New rules? Do you mean the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz rules for foreign
relations, and the Ashcroft rules for domestic policy? The rules that
amount to "destroying the village in order to save it?" The rules that,
in the case of the USA PATRIOT act, our so-called representatives
approved without having read them?

New MO? Are you referring to the tactic of flying planes into buildings?
How does attacking Iraq address that terrorist tactic? How does anything
the Bush administration has done address that tactic?

I heard an interesting comment by Gary Hart on the radio the other day.
To paraphrase:

  Is America prepared for the inevitable retaliatory attacks if we
  invade an Arab country? I know for a fact that we are not prepared.

Nor can we ever prepare for every possible risk and still have lives
worth living. I believe we can and should take rational measures against
terrorism. If part of the problem is, as you say, open borders, then
maybe we should make the borders a little less open. If part of the
problem is Osama Bin Laden, then let's bloody well catch him and bring
him to justice.

But if we are to remain a country worth fighting for, we need two things
(at least). We need the *informed* consent of the governed for any
anti-terrorist measures. And we need a sense of proportion. It's hard to
calculate our chances of dying in a terrorist attack, but I think most
rational people would estimate them as far less than our chances of
dying in a car accident.

I am not trying to say that terrorism is just another risk, or that the
attack on the World Trade Center was not a terrible tragedy. Of course
it was. America feels shock, horror, anger, and I share those feelings,
as I am sure you do. But nothing we feel gives us license to pick out
enemies and invade their countries at will. We have claimed to be a
civilized nation, and we have aspired to be a democracy. Let's prove it.
A truly civilized nation must insist that its leaders pursue justice,
not vengeance. And a democratic nation must not tolerate leaders who
manipulate the citizens' fears to pursue the hidden agendas of a wealthy
few.

-- 
Matt Gushee                 When a nation follows the Way,
Englewood, Colorado, USA    Horses bear manure through
mgushee at havenrock.com           its fields;
http://www.havenrock.com/   When a nation ignores the Way,
                            Horses bear soldiers through
                                its streets.
                                
                            --Lao Tzu (Peter Merel, trans.)