Irrational Rationales

New at Reason: Jacob Sullum joins the search for those wacky weapons of mass destruction.

Comments

[Warren]

No WMD eh? Well who'd a thunk it. Of course it was just silly of me to suggest that as a sovereign nation Iraq was entitled to WMD in the first place, what with that UN resolution and all. Legitimate nations always defer to the UN ?oh wait

[fyodor]

Justin,

Sorry, but I think it's a copout (albeit an all too common one) to substitute inconsistencies in others' arguments for your own! What do YOU think? Should we be "getting" dictators who rule their own people with deadly force and menace their neighbors in lieu of their ever having attacked US?

I say we need evidence that someone is about to do us harm to justify a "preemptive" conquest. I agree with Warren that that was not present in Iraq, regardless of the presence of WMD or not. However, without WMD, it makes it even harder to justify our conquest. And it sure makes us look like asses to the world, which I suppose doesn't matter if you think like Lazarus Long that we can just keep 'em all under our thumb with enough resolve and firepower. I guess we'll see....

[Justin]

Sm, how would you reduce dependence on mid east oil? It is the cheapest to produce, which means that any succesful effort to lower world demand for oil would eliminate non-mid-eastern oil producers first. If you could magically drop world demand for oil so much that the demand only afforded a single producer of oil the last producer standing would be Saudi Arabia.

That is all independent of the real world situation, and economic reality that trade makes us better off. Oil is still the cheapest form of energy. What would you forgoe in order to switch to a more expensive energy source? We will leave the oil age when oil is relatively more expensive than some other source of energy, not for a lack of oil. We didn't leave the stone age for a lack of stones, we didn't leave the horse and buggy era for a lack of horses. We won't leave the oil age for a lack of oil.

What is needed is a reform of the anti-liberty governments in the major oil producing states, not a reform of our energy consumption patterns.

[Lefty]

With regard to Milosevic, the Clinton administration advanced the case that he was an evil monster that was actively exterminating a good chunk of his citizens. For humanitarian reasons he needed to be removed and they proceeded to do so.

Instead of making this same case with Saddam, though, this administration attacked Iraq for the reason that he was an imminent threat to the US. They had a menu of reasons to go into Iraq but chose the lie instead of the truth. I think that's telling.

[Justin]

fyodor

It all depends ...

I asked "We HAD to get Milosevic for his crimes against humanity, how did Hussein measure up against that standard?"

But I didn't state that *I* thought we had to get either.

Should we? you ask, well In Hussein's case *I* think so. We have been engaged in a real shooting match since the start of Desert storm, the period in between was merely a low grade war that maintained Hussein in power, given that we started engaged in that shooting match we had the obligation to finish the job, obviously the containment and negotiation technique only held him in power and allowed him to kill more of his own people. Our participation in the containment/negotiation/inspection technique made us complicit in the killing. *I* thought the best way to end that was a quick decisive war, and a concerted effort at nation building.

Reasonable people may disagree with my conclusion on how to handle Iraq, but it is obvious (to me) something different needed to be done.

Now *I* think Milosevic was somewhere below Hussein on the scale of really bad guys and I supported his removal. Are there other bad guys I would like to see removed? Yes. Are there other bad guys I would like to see removed where there is the possibility to replace them with someone better? That list is a bit shorter. Now add in to the mix how many places can we be engaged in that sort of activity and the list shrinks even further.

Help where you can and keep (get) our own house in order.

[fyodor]

SM,

You list some problems, but since I don't know what your solutions are, I don't have a response. The reason many libertarians were against attacking Iraq is that Iraq didn't attack us first or show any concrete signs that they were about to.

Justin,

Based on your position on removing Milosevic because he was a bad guy, I would say your stated grounds for attacking Iraq are an irrelevant smokescreen since Hussein's badness would have sufficed.

I lean against such a FP logic, though I understand its rationale and appeal. I only wish such interventionist libertarians (and conservatives) would consider how the fatal conceit of such foreign adventurism parallels the social policy adventurism of statist liberals. I.e., the law of unintended consequences, etc. At least you (Justin) recognize that being able to remove someone doesn't always mean being able to replace him with someone better. We'll just have to see what eventually happens in Iraq!

[Justin]

Smokescreen? What smokescreen? I said Hussein was worse than Milosevic.

I further said we had made the decision to go to war with him and we had a duty to end that war. I thought the best way to end the war was with the removal of Hussein with a quick decisive battle.

Where is the smoke?

[Anonymous]

Justin,

"It is the cheapest to produce," etc.
Well i have always wondered about "externalities" or whatever the technical term is. For example - the cost of maintaining a garrison in Saudi Arabia. Norway is an oil producer and you'll notice we dont have any troops there ? Anyway, my argument was exactly the opposite ie we wont go off ME oil to costlier alternatives for all kinds of reasons including the ones you mentioned & therefore the current intervention was possible the best solution to be expected in the real world. However i disagree with you that all this trade is " independent of the real world situation". It seems to me that without oil the ME would be as inconsequential and uninfluential as ... well several regions in the world today. I mean - where would they get the money to fund all kinds of disruptive activity, it's not like they have any other capital ?

[joe]

Justin,

I supported the Serbian war, but not Gulf War II. What's the distinction? I had confidence that the Clinton administration had the desire and ability to bring about a better result in the aftermath. With the Bush administration, I envisioned nothing but chaos, cash grabs by well connected corporations, internal disorder leading towards civil war, and a long, costly occupation which failed to achieve democracy but succeeded in stirring up more hatred and distrust towards America.

So when I'm accused of opposing the war just because I'm anti-Bush, I say damn straight. One condition for declaring a war to be just is the requirement that the use of force has a reasonable chance of succeeding in fostering good and stopping evil. I had no confidence that administration was capable of doing that with this war, and my fears have only been confirmed by what they've done and failed to do in its aftermath.

[SM]

Fyodor,
"You list some problems, but since I don't know what your solutions are, I don't have a response."

My "solution" is more or less what Tom Freidman outlined in an op-ed a couple of days ago. This is a bit of force projection into the ME ie right into their backyard to inform "them" that fundamentalism and jihad are no longer going to be vicarious, cost free pleasures. They can no longer expect to take identity affirming vacations in Afghanistan & then come back to the security of the Saudi/Yemeni/whereever welfare state. But read Friedman.
Don't you love the internet - it allows nerds like me play at being Donald Rumsfeld. I am going home to fire up Starcraft.

[Justin]

"what they've done and failed to do in its aftermath."

I guess we can agree the war itself went about as well as one can expect, as far as wars go. The aftermath is still a work in progress. Are there troubling occurances? Daily. Has some good come of it? Well Hussein is no longer in control of the nation, but he does have some power. Has there been enough time to judge the results? I think not. How long were we in Japan? Germany? Afghanistan? Aren't we still in Haiti? Yugoslavia?

But we can and should judge the process. We should try to estimate where it is going and voice our displeasure/satisfaction where warranted. ([e-mail]) Shall we modify to the idiom "trust but verify?" Attempt to steer and verify.

[joe]

"I guess we can agree the war itself went about as well as one can expect, as far as wars go." yes, we can. I guess we can also agree that defeating a rusted out Iraqi military with the combined might of the United States and Great Britain is not exactly Hannibal at Cannae.

"Attempt to steer and verify." Have you seen any evidence that the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Perle/Wolfowitz administration is amenable to being steered? Bush, remember, was chosen by God for this mission, and does not like to be bothered with nuance when constructing his bold vision.

[Justin]

Bush caves more often than he takes a bold stance. He thinks he understands electoral calculus and has an eye on next Novemeber. If he won't be bothered by nuance he can be voted out. As with Iraq, what are the prospects of replacement by someone better? (that is a truly scary thought)

I see Bush has signaled he will cave, once again, and accept an expansion of medicare benefits in the form of drug coverage for all seniors without considering need.

[joe]

I agree that Bush caves a lot on things he doesn't really care about - smaller government, local control of schools, free trade come to mind. But on issues that he does care about he's as bullheaded a politician as I've ever seen. Upper income tax cuts is clearly one of those. So is the flexing of American muscle in the Middle East. As is, unfortunately, the determination not to stick around and clean up our messes in countries we invade.

[Matthew Cromer]

The War in Iraq?

Well, no more 5 year old girls and their dolls buried alive in mass graves. No more licensed rapists. No more plastic-shredding machines where enemies are fed in head-first (or feet-first to make the pain last longer).

Time to liberate NoKo.

[Lefty]

I can't say that I was supportive of taking out Milosevic. Invading other countries and rebuilding them without direct provocation is just not something democracies do very well and should be avoided.

Having said that, at least we were halfway honest about the reasons and we didn't totally disrespect world opinion when we went into the Balkans. But we're still there and it's still a mess.

[Warren]

"Well, no more 5 year old girls and their dolls buried alive in mass graves. No more licensed rapists. No more plastic-shredding machines where enemies are fed in head-first (or feet-first to make the pain last longer)."

What makes you think so?

[fyodor]

Justin,

Perhaps smokescreen was a tad harsh, but my point was that if going to war for regime change is legitimate, then Hussein being a bad man was a sufficient reason to invade Iraq, and we should focus on that line of reasoning, which I then proceeded to do.

Haiti? Yugoslavia? Yeah, we're still there, and may be for time immemorial....

[fyodor]

SM (when you get back from the Starcraft),

To me, that's kinda like bombing some inner city to inform "them" that crime doesn't pay. Yeah, I'd say fighting a war to send some sorta generalized message to bad guys would violate libertarian principles, but I'm sure you know your way will bring about the greater good, sigh.... (BTW, my reading of Friedman was that while this was the "real reason," it wasn't the "right reason," which is to spread democracy. But of course, even IF we manage to install some sorta democracy in Iraq, it's still a big IF that that will have the desired results elsewhere in the target region....)

[Lefty]

Where's a Special Prosecutor when you need one?

[SM]

Back from StarCraft - Fyodor - no need to get snippy !!! I dont know that "my way" is better. Just seems more likely to succeed, IMHO, than the UN way of postponing action for ever. Or searching for root causes.

[Croesus]

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. military units assigned to track down Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have run out of places to look and are getting time off or being assigned to other duties, even as pressure mounts on President Bush to explain why no banned arms have been found.

After nearly three months of fruitless searches, weapons hunters say they are now waiting for intelligence experts to take over the effort, relying more on leads from interviews and documents.

"It doesn't appear there are any more targets at this time," said Lt. Col. Keith Harrington, whose team has been cut by more than 30 percent. "We're hanging around with no missions in the foreseeable future."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20030609/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_idled_hunt

[Justin]

fyodor what I have presented is a portion of my line reasoning, it is a bit more complicated than "Is he a bad man?"

1989, Is Hussein a bad man? Yes.
Should we try to get rid of him? yes/no?
If yes How and when?
If no then what? maintain a vigilant watch?
1991 Hussein invaded his neighbor, should we get rid of him or merely push him back into his box in the sand?
The world (most of it) went with push him back into his little box. and enter into a low grade war to force negotiations and containment and disarmament.

1991 to 2003 maintain UN sanctions/containment, which held Hussien in power allowing for the torture and murder of HIS people. I emphasise his since he acted as if he owned them.

2001 - 2003 Bush pushes re-evaluation (with foregone conclusion of war as the end result) of past decade effort at containment, disarmament and negotiations.

My line of reasoning leading to the conclusion that we needed to forcibly remove him parted ways with the world community once the decision to go to war was made. If you are going to make war because the guy is a bad guy then do it, as quickly and decisively as possible. It is not wise to go to war with a despot and then leave him in power to torment and murder his population. (no dispute over if Hussein is/is not a bad guy)

Some oppose the war because they oppose all war (an untenable position if you ask me - some wars are just wars)

Some opposed this war seeing it as unjust, I can understand that position. I don't agree with it, but can see how that conclusion can be drawn by reasonable people.

Some (joe?) opposed the war because he doubted Bush would carry through and clean up after the war, a logical conclusion given shrub's stated opposition to nation building.

I supported latest battle in Iraq as an end to a decade + long war. Nothing that occured, that I knew about, in the interim period caused me to change my conclusion, we decided to go to war therefore we need to finish the job. Had we not gone to war in 1991 would I have come to a different conclusion? I don't know, I don't have a magic crystal ball that woud tell me how that parralel universe would have progressed. I know I would still have an answer to the question "is he a bad man?" "Should we remove him?" would have a nudge towards yes (he invaded neighboring countries, maintained control over Kuwait, had ambitions in Iran)

I made a leap of faith in believing that the Iraqi people would create a better goverment with or without our help after the major shooting stopped. I further assumed we would be there to clean-up and help in nation building in spite of shrubs stated opposition to it, using the ongoing opperations and nation building in Afghanistan (not a trouble free enterprise) as evidence that we would stick around and do a little nation building.

I think my logic is sound, my assumptions are my own, and subject to what I know and believe. We can argue over my assumptions if you want (if you go to war, finish the job being the top assumption I made)

[Rubber glove]

Line up every Iraqi man, woman, and child and do a body cavity search. They're there dammit!!!

[SM]

What is the libertarian position on how we should deal with terrorism and fundementalism ? I'm just asking, so keep the blasters holstered.
I did watch a debate between a Cato guy and an environmental activist on reducing our dependence on mideast oil where cato argued that saudi money did not fund terrorism, only fundementalist islam as if it was a completely different thing. Very disappointing performance from an otherwise capital chap - it caused me to waver in my faith and wonder whether libertarians dont account for the real world in their tidy models. Luckily the environmentalist dude opened his mouth.

[Anonymous]

"We didn't totally disrespect world opinion when we went into the Balkans. But we're still there and it's still a mess."

Not to worry, Lefty. Nothing is permanent anyway. Nothing.

[Anonymous]

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB105483370510779400,00.html

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,973195,00.html

[Anonymous]

"Where's a Special Prosecutor when you need one?"

Who needs Special Prosecutors, Lefty? Nothing is permanent anyway. Nothing.

[fyodor]

SM,

The libertarian position is that you have no right to initiate force (which includes limiting freedom) but every right to counter force with force. But obviously the devil's in the details. For one thing, terrorism, being clandestine, murkies the waters on what constitutes self defense. Another thing is there can always be debate on where you draw the line of culpability regarding people or entities who haven't directly done you harm but who may somehow or indirectly support those who have or who threaten to.

I think the only "libertarian position" on dealing with these details is to do so reasonably, never losing sight of one's principle never to initiate force yet always bearing in mind how cause and effect works in the world as it is, not as we would wish it to be.

Howzat?

[Justin]

What I find interesting is the pro-gun stance, it's not the gun it's the person behind the gun that is evil and it's the WMD over in Iraq we MUST eliminate. Both emanating from the administration, while the opposition maintains it's the guns here that are evil and in need of control, while and over in Iraq it was the man who needed contained and controlled.

It seems to me that the WMD in Iraq was the Hussein regime. Chemicals, explosives and bullets were the tools used to cause mass destruction over the life of Hussein?s rule.

We HAD to get Milosevic for his crime against humanity, how did Hussein measure up against that standard?

[SM]

Fyodor,

OK, sounds reasonable. In which case i dont see why so many libertarians believe that the Bush administration did the wrong thing - given, as you stated, how cause and effect work in the world as it is. We dont seem to want to/be able to reduce our dependence on mideast oil which of course is militant islam's major/only source of fungible money. If Robert Baer is to be believed Saudi money has bought a lot of influence in Washington. And then there is international arena to consider where the US constitution and bill of rights dont obtain. God only knows how corrupt that is. I doubt you can get anything done at the UN by telling the truth. So what is the alternative ? Does'nt the prospect of terrorism limit freedom too ?