Another Protest part II

Gregg-- Democracy spreading--yay, that sounds warm and fuzzy--I'm all for it. I'mabsolutely certain the local populations are so starved for freedom and libertyour troops will likely be met by the spreading of rose petals, AND oil-revenueswill pay for the reconstruction. At the very least such an invasion will beseen as a helpful action, not intermeddling, and will make recruitment ofterrorists more difficult by diminishing anti-American sentiment worldwide. Huh. Turns out none of these things are true. Anyway, let me tell you aboutthe horrible things the Baathist regime was doing. It will be easiest if youpretend this makes it particularly unique amongst its regional or socioeconomic(geo-politicially speaking) peers.

"President Bush said we should engage our enemies before the threat becomesimminent." Yes he did, and I can't tell you how thrilled I am you've brought upthe doctrine of preemption. Just a few questions: (1)If not imminent threat toUS interest, upon what principled basis should the determination to commit UStroops rest? (2)Having formally announced no restriction upon US militaryintervention abroad what moral authority has our government to avoid similarmoves by others (e.g. When India and Pakistan next stand on the brink of nuclearwar)?

So lets see if I've got this straight: the opening of Eastern bloc markets tocompetition from Western capitalist democracies was neither a necessaryprecondition for perestroika, nor played an integral role in demonstrating thefalsehood of communist propaganda vis-a-vis the relative strength of command v.market-based economies to the peoples of these countries? It would be exactlymy argument that detente, by incorporating competition and concrete examples ofcapitalist economic superiority into communist countries began these nationsupon a course of inevital collapse. One may speculate, in trying to keepastride with US military buildup this time of collapse was sped up--and I'd behard-pressed to disagree with this speculation. On the other hand, that thiswas accomplished by means of military spending is no proof that different routeswould not have led to the same conclusion. Detente is further in no way related to "laying down arms and talking nicely." Its a fundamental truth that in aggregate markets lead to more efficientconclusions that the speculations of the most enlightened central command. Thus, engaging command-based economies into competition with one's market-basedeconomy will inevitably cause the command economy to overtax itself to theextent one can maintain its desire to stay astride. Here, I'll hand you thepro-Reagan argument--its not clear the Soviets could have been counted on toremain engaged to their destruction, except when faced with military-basedeconomic competition. Finally, I've no interest in instituting communism here. It is unassailablytrue that the reliance upon the market is both the most efficient, andsuccessful means of organizing one's economy. But markets are also incrediblypowerful and destructive. Much like a river rushing down the mountainside, itsneither good nor evil--it simply moves in the least inhibited direction withoutconscience. Thus, I support using the strength of government to build bridgesdirecting the on-rush from particularly fundamental damaging interests andtoward those of common benefit.

War is not never a valid option, its merely a last option. The threat posed byGermany--a country actively engaged in a hostile campaign against its neighbors,warranted military response (as I might add, did Iraq's invasion of Kuwait). There is no parallel between Germany circa 1942 and Iraq 2002. The allusion isdemagoguery pure and simple. My thoughts on Iran, Iraq and North Korea: Iran should have been the focal point of our democracy spreading campaign--itspopulace most possesses the preconditions (in terms of infrastructure,education-level, and popular dissatisfaction with theocratic rule) necessary tobring democracy to the middle east. North Korea most deserved immediate military intervention because its locationposes the greatest strategic threat to US interests (unless of course oneconceives ready access to oil reserves a more tantamount federal interest thanthe safety of US citizens stationed within the Pacific Rim, or living in our50th state). Of course this factor cuts both ways--i.e. the strategic necessityof underming Il Jong's goals makes confrontation with him the most difficult. As the situation currently stands, I relatively certain ignoring the growingthreat for 3 years has improved little, but the threat to our allies in theregion posed by invasion hardly argues in its favor. I'm honestly notparticularly sure what the best course regarding N. Korea is...does the CIAstill do assassinations?

As for Iraq, the regime of containment and sanctions clearly was quitesuccessful in limiting any threat the Iraq posed to its neighbors or us. The rampant corruption within the "Oil for Food" program no doubt necessitatedreform. My opposition to war with Iraq has been premised from day one upon a)itposed no imminent threat and b)invasion would make the case for anti-Americanismstronger no weaker, and c)focus upon it would diminish our focus from therelevant targets of the war on terrorism--namely non-state actors. Republicans are like ostrich, they latch onto simple solutions and stick theirhead into the sand to avoid the complexities which might undermine their smugcertitude.

MY RESPONSE:

Clint,
In regards to your first paragraph I would say given that we now live in a post 9/11 world we can't be concerned with whether or not the French, Iranians, or Germans have anti-American sentiment. We have to do what's in our best interest. And, NEWSFLASH, there were terrorists before we invaded Iraq and there will be terrorists after the war is over. Liberals love to claim that our invasion has increased terrorist recruiting. How do they know!? Are they out givng surveys to the terrorist? If so, maybe they should shoot a couple while their at it. I also love the complaint, that Iran and N.Korea are just as bad or worse, as justification for not invading Iraq. Just because they are worse regimes out there means we should do nothing with Saddam?? We've got to start somewhere. And give us time, we'll take care of the rest.
"What principled basis should the determination to commit US troops rest?"
That decision lies with the President and the Congress. If they decide a country poses a threat to the U.S. it is their responsibility to take action. What is our alternative, wait until we are attacked and strike back? Ask the 3000 people who died on 9/11 how well that works.
"What moral authority has our government to avoid similar moves by others..."
We can't stop other countries for warring. All we can do is protect our interests. Obviously it is in our best interest if major actors in the region are not involved in war or nuclear war. But it is not our responsibility to be world police. I hate that the U.S. gets involved in every conflict possible. We should limit our involvement to areas that protect our national security. Aid missions to Somalia are a world problem, not a U.S. problem, and should be handled by the U.N. I'm sure if a conflict were to arise between Pakistan and India the U.S. role would be that of a facilitator of the peace. I seriously doubt that we would intercede militarily.
Communism is a slow death, and I'll agree that if you strand 10 people on an island and give them communism it will eventually fail regarless of what type of economy the people on the neighboring islands have. But we could still be involved in the cold war today if it were not for the arms race of the 60's - 80's. The people didn't revolt because they saw the East Berliners buying levi's and pepsi. They revolted because the government spent billions of dollars on the military and no money on infrastructure, social programs, heat, or food for its people. But, given that the Soviets and the U.S. were locked in a cold war, and a spending war, the Soviets had no room change without appearing weak or inferior. Thus, the catalyst that brought about the end of the cold war was our military buildup and our unwavering resolve to hold firm against communism even in the face of liberal opposition.
"Those of common benefit" seems pretty communist to me. That's just a euphamism for "we'll take from the rich and start more social programs for the people who are unwilling to earn a living for themselves." The thing I don't understand the most about liberals is their desire to take other peoples earnings and redistribute it among the less talented, less skilled, uneducated masses. I'm all for helping people that want to help themselves, but I find it utterly ridulous to continue to fund programs that perpetuate vicious cycles of poverty, fatherless homes, drug abuse, and teenage pregnancy.
You said, "the regime of containment and sanctions clearly was quite successful." Successful in what? Continuing sanctions was a recipe for disaster. Do you think the better option would have been to wait until Iraq made a move, then react? Given that we now know that terrorists and terrorists regimes can act quickly and without warning, we can no longer be reactive. Our military actions have to be proactive to any potential threat. Imagine that you are president in the months following 9/11 and the CIA comes to you and says we have proof that Saddam has WMD’s. Do you attack first, or wait until NYC has been leveled by a nuclear strike. As president, George W. Bush had to make a decision based on the info he had. How would people have reacted if we did nothing and Saddam had attacked, or given weapons to al Qaida to use?
Final Points:
"It [Iraq] posed no imminent threat"
This is blatantly wrong. They posed a continual threat since the end of the 1991 Gulf war. It has been proven that Saddam was just trying to wait out the sanctions so he could rebuild his weapon systems. He gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He allowed al Qaida free roam throughout Iraq. Removing Saddam was the only sure-fire way to ensure he would not be able to hurt America.
"Invasion would make the case for anti-Americanism stronger"
As I stated earlier, many in the middle-east and the world already hated us. Do you really think countries would like us more if we had stayed out? What liberals don’t understand is that America has enemies. And we must defend ourselves no matter what others think. All I know is that prior to 9/11 we did not invade Iraq and we were attacked. Since the U.S. invasion in Iraq there have been no attacks on U.S. soil. Don’t you think that if thousands of new U.S. haters suddenly emerged after our invasion of Iraq that they would want to attack us on U.S. soil. Think of it this way: I already hate the Vikings, just because they won on Sunday does not make me hate them more, and it is doubtful that new Viking-haters emerged because of the game.

"Focus upon it would diminish our focus from the relevant targets of the war on terrorism--namely non-state actors."
How do you know what covert operations the CIA or special forces are involved in. If we announce that we are sending 100,000 troops into Afghanistan then the terrorists would run for the caves and hide. But if we pull out and send in secret, under-cover forces then maybe the terrorists will come out of hiding. Besides, many terrorists have migrated to Iraq to fight U.S. soldiers there. We set up a ‘giant roach motel’ in Iraq, now all we have to do is step on the cockroaches.
You say that Republicans "latch onto simple solutions and stick their head into the sand to avoid the complexities which might undermine their smug certitude." But if anything our simple "You’re either with us or against us," helped Bush win the election. The public wants clear, concise, honest answers especially in the realm of national security. With Bush, they know exactly what they are getting. Liberals "ask the French first" simply does not cut it in todays world.