Faulty Logic

[MC Habber]

There have been a lot of accusations made against the US, France, and several other countries. I don't think many people would claim that any of these countries have a perfect record when it comes to human rights.

I see pro-war people talking about France having alterior motives. This is quite likely the case, but that doesn't mean that
(a) the US has no alterior motives,
(b) the war is justified, or
(c) the lives of Iraqi's or anybody else will be improved as a result of this war.
Before anybody writes any long posts about why any of (a), (b), or (c) are true/false and how I am crazy, let me point out that I am not saying in this post that I think they are true or false. I'm simply trying to stop a form of argument where someone says that so-and-so is dishonest, therefore the war is justified/unjustified. This is not a war between the US and France. The fact that France opposes the war does not mean that the war is wrong, and, likewise, the fact that France may have alterior motives in opposing the war does not mean that the war is right.
Who opposes and who supports the war doesn't determine whether the war ought to happen.

As I see it there are (at least) 4 issues:
1) Is the war justified at this point in time?
2) Are the reasons Bush says he is going to war his real reasons?*
3) Who might this war benefit and who might it hurt?
4) (Speculation) What will happen after Saddam is removed from power? What will be the US and UN roles and how will we make sure that things are actually improved as a result of the war? Also, how will we prevent the region from destabilizing?

*I suppose I could ask what are France's reasons for opposing the war (or Russia's, etc.), but I chose that question because it is the US that is actually going to war here.

[The New Guy]

1) Is the war justified at this point in time?

Yes. Your point (d) is incomplete and needs qualification to explain this one. Will the condition of the Iraqi people improve because of this war? Maybe. You're right - just because the US is going in to remove Saddam does not mean that things will be all hunky dory. But not going in means there's very little chance of anything improving. The risk (low) worth the payoff (high) plus the extended chance that perhaps the new leadership of the country could stablize other problems in the region.

2) Are the reasons Bush says he is going to war his real reasons?*

Qualified yes. I refuse to buy into the though of some massive USA bourne conspiracy to claim control of the worlds oil supply without a shred of proof to back it up. Does this mean that no one involved in the administration has any ulterior motives? No. I have no doubt that there someone, somwhere, twirling his handlebar mustache and laughing manically to himself about all the oil. But not the entire administration.

3) Who might this war benefit and who might it hurt?

Too tough to call. You're asking me to predict the future. Not possible. Though I would suggest that the US and Iraq stand to gain or lose a lot.

4) (Speculation) What will happen after Saddam is removed from power? What will be the US and UN roles and how will we make sure that things are actually improved as a result of the war? Also, how will we prevent the region from destabilizing?

A bunch of questions that are a lot less touchy feely than number (3), so even though they ask me to predict the future, I think I can approach them a bit better. After Saddam is removed, we'll probably see a repeat of Afghanistan. Ex-pat Iraqi leadership that was chased out of Iraq by Saddam will be brought back in to take up leadership roles. The government will be modelled after something close to democracy.

The US will probably take up the military enforcement role, again similar to Afghanistan, to mop up what's left of Saddam's friends. They will also likely be there to prevent the power vaccum that will form from detroying the entire Middle East.

The UN will administer the government, despite their disapproval with the action.

The region is already destabilized. The presence of the US military is likely not helping, but it's not hurting either. And a switchover to a UN force commanded by an Egyptian or Jordainian would likely go a long ways to making people happier. The only possible problem with this scenario is if N. Korea acts up, in which case the US might have to pull out the majority of their troops to prevent Nuclear Holocaust. In which case lookout...

Later

[MC Habber]

I hope your somewhat optimistic view of things is correct.

[PTH]

The_New_Guy said:

The UN will administer the government, despite their disapproval with the action.

Of course they will.... but will the US let them ? That's what I worry about.

[The New Guy]

Of course they will.... but will the US let them ? That's what I worry about.

Spare us the conspiracy theories please. The US proposed the UN control the country. Unless the US has somehow suddenly gained complete control of the UN in the last week or so...

[PTH]

The_New_Guy said:

Spare us the conspiracy theories please. The US proposed the UN control the country. Unless the US has somehow suddenly gained complete control of the UN in the last week or so...

The US also proposed that the intervention in Iraq would be covered by a security council resolution. Saying you want something and having the willingness to work it through are very different things.

If the UN doesn't want to do things quite the same way as the US, what do you think will happen ? Another diplomatic collapse....


The first salvo has already been sent on this front....
www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3462--313899-,00.html