War! What is it good for?
Apr. 11th, 2003 04:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lydyI was, and am, bitterly against the war in Iraq. I haven't changed my mind on that. It was a bad idea 11 years ago, it was a bad idea this time, and it's going to cost a whole hell of a lot more than we ever guessed. However.
The horrors of Saddam Hussein's reign aren't just war propaganda. True, it makes spectacularly good propaganda, but unfortunately much too much of it is true. The torture of citizens is well documented, as is the habit of the government to disappear people it didn't like. It's said that he and his sons also got off on torture, that they actively enjoyed it. I don't know if there's a reliable source for that, but it's reasonably likely. Torture doesn't really have much use, except a) to terrorize the populace and b) to satisfy the torturers.
Inspections were working. No, Iraq wasn't real pleased about the UN inspectors crawling all over the place, and no, they weren't operating in good faith. Look, if the UN came knocking at our door, insisting on looking at all our secret installations, do you really think we'd play in good faith? Or would we, like Iraq, try to hide anything we thought we could get away with? I know which way I'm betting. The point of inspections wasn't to make Iraq like it, it was to keep it from doing anything. It's much harder to create chemical or biological weapons if the UN can pop in at any time. Not to mention that, but any large investment leaves a paper trail. A weapons program of any useful size leaves logistical and financial arrows which are almost impossible to hide, and give the inspectors very good leads. As for nuclear weapons -- look, a nuclear program is complicated, large, and expensive. It can be hidden from the air -- maybe -- though we've found them that way before. I do not believe that it is possible to hide it from a good and diligent inspection team for any length of time. We could have gone on inspecting Iraq forever, if necessary. Far fewer lives lost, far less disruption, far less destabilization...but
If we hadn't invaded, Saddam Hussein would still be ruling Iraq. The Baathist party would still be torturing and disappearing people. Unspeakable acts would continue to be committed in broad daylight. It is distinctly possible that even if we bungle this nation building thing as badly as I expect us to, there will still be less terror within Iraq than there was. Was there a way to stop that kind of horror without going to war? I find myself wondering. I also wonder if there's any way we can declare war on Sierra Leone, next. Isn't anybody in the administration tempted by the diamonds?
The horrors of Saddam Hussein's reign aren't just war propaganda. True, it makes spectacularly good propaganda, but unfortunately much too much of it is true. The torture of citizens is well documented, as is the habit of the government to disappear people it didn't like. It's said that he and his sons also got off on torture, that they actively enjoyed it. I don't know if there's a reliable source for that, but it's reasonably likely. Torture doesn't really have much use, except a) to terrorize the populace and b) to satisfy the torturers.
Inspections were working. No, Iraq wasn't real pleased about the UN inspectors crawling all over the place, and no, they weren't operating in good faith. Look, if the UN came knocking at our door, insisting on looking at all our secret installations, do you really think we'd play in good faith? Or would we, like Iraq, try to hide anything we thought we could get away with? I know which way I'm betting. The point of inspections wasn't to make Iraq like it, it was to keep it from doing anything. It's much harder to create chemical or biological weapons if the UN can pop in at any time. Not to mention that, but any large investment leaves a paper trail. A weapons program of any useful size leaves logistical and financial arrows which are almost impossible to hide, and give the inspectors very good leads. As for nuclear weapons -- look, a nuclear program is complicated, large, and expensive. It can be hidden from the air -- maybe -- though we've found them that way before. I do not believe that it is possible to hide it from a good and diligent inspection team for any length of time. We could have gone on inspecting Iraq forever, if necessary. Far fewer lives lost, far less disruption, far less destabilization...but
If we hadn't invaded, Saddam Hussein would still be ruling Iraq. The Baathist party would still be torturing and disappearing people. Unspeakable acts would continue to be committed in broad daylight. It is distinctly possible that even if we bungle this nation building thing as badly as I expect us to, there will still be less terror within Iraq than there was. Was there a way to stop that kind of horror without going to war? I find myself wondering. I also wonder if there's any way we can declare war on Sierra Leone, next. Isn't anybody in the administration tempted by the diamonds?
