that's d-squared with a hyphen, dammit.
Like Brad Delong's site, but with more liberal use of the F-word and less about the New York Times.
Wednesday, September 18, 2002
Foreign Policy Update
As mentioned in a previous post, I'm in favour of war with Iraq, simply because I didn't see any other politically possible way of stopping the humanitarian disaster of our current blockade of Iraq. But obviously, war is not something we should go into lightly, and the current offer from Saddam to allow the inspectors back in has to be taken seriously by anyone with the best interests of humanity at heart. If the UN inspectors can go in, and if they can get any way along the way toward certifying compliance with the resolutions, then there might be a political solution to the problem, allowing an end to our horrendously cruel blockade in a manner which saves face, doesn't require a whole load of military casualties and, importantly, doesn't put me at risk of sucking in an anthrax spore put in my breakfast cereal either by Saddam, or by some local nutter wanting to put the blame on him.
So, I propose that we abandon the war debate for the meantime and all throw our support behind the proposal that there should be a short hiatus in our war preparations. For the peace side; hey, jaw-jaw is better than war-war. For the War Party; hey we're only proposing a short break, during which time we can start tightening domestic security. It doesn't have to be a long hiatus; not even two months. I'm proposing that we should continue negotiations on UN inspections for precisely seven weeks, starting today, and if there isn't material progress, we send the troops in on November 6th.
Who could possibly object to that?
(datetime)Wednesday 2002-09-18 15:12:51(/datetime)
ReplyDelete(name)a different chris(/name)
(email /)
(uri /)
I hate the current status quo vis. Iraq as much as anybody, but I feel I should mention that war is generally regarded as a humanitarian nightmare all by itself.
After a year of it in Afghanistan, reports are that we have (outside of Kabul) replaced the Taliban regime in which women's lives were a living hell with the pre-Taliban situation, in which everybody's lives were - and again are- a living hell.
I don't consider that progress from an Afghani point of view, so I'm dubious that GW's war will result in progress from an Iraqi point of view, either.(/text)
==========
- (comment)
(datetime)Wednesday 2002-09-18 15:34:17(/datetime)
(name)dsquared(/name)
(email /)
(uri /)
I would take your point were this a normal situation, but this is disanalogous. The problem for everyone, surely is how to get rid of the embargo. And the only way I can see to achieve that is either through *very* delicate diplomacy, or as a result of war.
I agree that war is unlikely to have any positive effect on Iraq, but if it provides the political excuse we need to walk away from our policy of starving the Iraqis to death, that will be a gain for them.(/text)
==========
- (comment)
(datetime)Wednesday 2002-09-18 20:33:01(/datetime)
(name)Andrew Edwards(/name)
(email /)
(uri)sketch.blogspot.com(/uri)
For what it's worth, I disagree that the embargo is harmful. The Kurds are doing OK under it from what I've hread. The people of Iraq are suffering because Saddam is stealing from them. The only viable way to end this suffering is to oust Saddam.
Thus...(/text)
==========
- (comment)
(datetime)Wednesday 2002-09-18 20:43:47(/datetime)
(name)nick sweeney(/name)
(email)nick[at]nonspace[[.]]org(/email)
(uri /)
But ousting Saddam is likely to bring the Iraqi Kurds' renaissance to an end, one that' has taken place under an odd quasi-autonomy that's similar in character to Taiwan's current situation.
Thus, you won't hear many top-ranking Kurds demanding a quick-smart end to Saddam. They've got too much to lose.(/text)
==========
- (comment)
(datetime)Wednesday 2002-09-18 21:09:10(/datetime)
(name)dsquared(/name)
(email /)
(uri /)
Andrew, you're full-on wrong on this issue. The problem in Iraq is the blockade, not anything else. Under the terms of the blockade, the oil revenues are paid to the UN, not Saddam, and administered by the UN (after the fuckers take a fee for doing so, IIRC!). They spend it on food and medicine, but since there is only $10/month per Iraqi of oil revenue which Iraq is allowed to sell, there is little that can be done. Two chiefs of the program have resigned for this very reason. The idea that peculation or diversion of the oil revenues to the military are or could be the main cause of hardship in Iraq is pure propaganda.(/text)
==========