A Libertarian's Thoughts on Whatever

Sunday, January 12, 2003

 
Here are more thoughts on Iraq. I would write about North Korea, but I don't know nearly as much, and I think our general idea of how to deal with them is less asinine. But I'm open to other people's ideas on the subject, or just about any subject really.
Even if Iraq is planning to acquire a nuclear weapon to use against the United States, we are not justified in attacking the country and forcibly changing their government. Assume that the US did know in advance that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor (some would say isn't an assumption but a fact, but that I don't know, and it's not relevant at the moment). If we did know for sure what their plans were and had attacked the ships and planes just before they had attacked us, we would have been justified. If we had attacked them a few days beforehand while they were en route, we would have been justified as well, assuming diplomacy was no longer possible. If we had attacked the fleet while they were still in harbor or stationed in their normal manner while the plans were discussed, we would not have been justified. If we had attacked after the plans had been finalized but no action had yet occured, then that is something of a gray area, but at that point diplomacy would seem to still be a viable option. Similarly, "you don't have to wait until I actually punch you in the nose to take violent action against me. You don't even have to wait until my fist is within a yard of you, moving in your direction. However, if you haul off and punch me in the nose in a preemptive strike, on the ground that I might punch you in the future, then you are an aggressor."
Even if we were justified in attacking Iraq under the circumstances the administration states exist, that does not mean we are going about this whole process correctly. As one British official put it, "'If Blix finds anything, then that will be a breach of the resolution; if Blix's work is frustrated, then that will also be a breach." If we in fact do know that Iraq has or is in the process of acquiring WMDs, this makes a certain kind of sense, though there does seem to be a problem with it. However, is it not possible that Iraq is not guilty as charged? Doesn't that possibility have to be considered, even if it is considered unlikely? Anyway, if we are absolutely certain of their guilt, as many administration officials have asserted, then why are we going through this whole long inspection process? Doesn't the CIA or NSA or whoever have the information to lead the inspectors directly to the evidence?
Moreover, anyone who thinks that we will be freeing Iraq should think again. While almost any change would probably be a big improvement over the current government, the US is likely to do what we did with Kosovo, and set up a UN-run dictatorship. One man has final say over everything, from laws, to the execution of these laws, to who else is allowed a nominal role in government, to what the constitution says today. What a wonderful setup.
Maestro 11:57 PM