opinions-political-warOnIraq

(note: this was written before the war)

i'm against it in the present circumstances. Risk of harm to the stability of the middle east. Potential gain of stability/democritization will most likely not be realized due to America's bad track record w/r/t expensive rebuildings of defeated enemies. War is terrible, so you should be pretty certain of large gain to justify one, and we're not (also, if the UN doesn't eventually agree, you should never start a pre-emptive war w/o a U.N. mandate). Also, should attempt to compensate for our bias: the public everywhere else in the world is against, indicating that we are not thinking straight.

---

> I have been having increased > anticipation/anxiety for another terrorist attack.

hmm, on the one hand i think another attack is quite probable, but i don't know when. on the other hand, i think getting worried about it is illogical:

1) you are in more danger from traffic accidents. 2) in my opinion, this kind of thing is inextricable from the presence of individual-empowering technology. so we'd better get used to it because it will never end. 3) too much paranoia and fear is very bad for the human mind

....

as to whether we're the jerks, though; has there ever been a case in history where the most powerful country has not been a total jerk to everyone else, while somehow convincing itself that it is justified? whenever there is real doubt about whether we're right in my mind, i remember that i'm probably getting biased pro-America information from the media and so after compensating, we're probably wrong.

....

There are logical reasons not to attack even if Iraq is a huge threat:

1) Long term, we are not making Iraq any safer unless we can install a nice, stable yet democratic government. No one is willing to commit the resources to do this -- Afghanistan has shown that no one is willing.

2) The X-factor; the middle east is flammable. Who knows what might happen.

3) Iraq is a threat but so are lots of things. Just because they are a threat does not imply that we should attack.

4) War sucks. The presumption is very strongly not to go to war.

.... Personally, I am pretty anti-war in general, so a really strong case has to be made for any war for me. Saddam is a really bad guy, so it might actually be morally justified, but the problem is whether we will bother to put anything better in his place -- in the past the US hasn't made enough of an effort there. Also, I don't think a pre-emptive strike is a good idea without explicit UN backing -- the value of the rule of international law is greater even than the value of removing an evil dictator.

....

in the long-term, Iraq is no less dangerous without Saddam than with unless we manage to instill a nice, stable yet democratic government afterwards. Unfortunately, it will probably be really hard to rebuild Iraq since it's people have been under an information-distorting despotism for so long.

However, all the evidence points to the guess that we won't bother rebuilding Iraq. We didn't rebuild Afghanistan, did we? The Afghanistan government has been constantly asking for more peacekeepers, and it's pretty obvious that they need them, but we don't send them. .....

you know that a preemptive strike on Iraq is a bad idea when even Kuwait > and Iran are telling you not to do it .... As to going to war:

2) War is terrible and so no one should start a war unless they are pretty certain that great gains will come of it. I don't think there is enough certainty that great gains will come of a war with Iraq, even if there is some possibility.

3) Even disregarding the cost of human lives and suffering, it seems to me that war is the worst possible tool to use if our goal is to assimilate the Middle East into the Western world. ....

As to the point that some in the Middle East understand only force, well that may be true, yet it may still be optimal not to apply force if force does more harm than good.

Counterintuitive results are possible so war may be a good idea even given (3). But I'm not convinced (and it seems no one else outside America is either; some Americans are convinced, but I discount the opinion of Americans a little for bias), and I'm definitely not convinced to the level of certainty that might justify a war.

So I think we should continue to try to peacefully assimilate Arab society. Yeah, that doesn't work very well, but there is a good chance that a war will be much, much worse.

(and even if I was convinced, I don't think we should ever start a pre-emptive war without a U.N. mandate)

....

Against (in the present situation).

First, the presumption is always strongly against war because war involves the murder of mostly innocent people. War can be justified only if it is fairly certain that great gains will result, gains great enough to justify the murder of lots of innocent people.

PROS

Let's look at the gains that might come out of conquering Iraq:

REGIONAL STABILITY/DECREASE IN TERRORISM

Iraq is no less dangerous without Saddam than with him unless we manage to instill a nice, stable yet democratic government afterwards. Unfortunately, it will probably be really hard to rebuild Iraq since it's people have been under an information-distorting despotism for so long. The U.S. has a poor track record in rebuilding countries that we fight; we have usually not been willing to commit the necessary resources (Japan is a big exception) (the most recent demonstration of our lack of committment here is Afghanistan).

IN THE MID-TERM, RESCUING THE IRAQI PEOPLE FROM A BASTARD

This will certainly be a gain. In the long-term, though, their lot may not improve; see the last point.

LONG-TERM STABILITY THROUGH DEMOCRATIZATION/DEVELOPMENT OF THE MIDDLE EAST, STARTING WITH IRAQ

Again, see above; I just don't think we will do this even if we get the chance.

Also, if the goal is to assimilate the Middle East into the West, war seems like one of the worse possible tools to do this:

Counterintuitive results are possible so it is possible that war is the way to democratize/develop the Middle East, but I'm certainly not convinced.

CONS

THE X FACTOR

The Middle East is flammable. Who knows what might happen.

GREATER AMERICAN MILITARY PRESENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

American military presence over there seems to be a major factor in anti-Americanism and radicalization. This is bad for our domestic security, very bad for the stability of the region, and bad for our relationship with the Arab regimes.

EROSION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

If the U.S. pre-emptively attacks without a U.N. mandate, the force of international law will be lessened. In my opinion, this immediately outweighs even the great gain from saving the Iraqi people from Saddam.

BIASED THINKING CHECK

The fact that so much of public opinion in practically everywhere outside of the U.S. thinks this is a bad idea should tell us something. There is a large probability that we, as a nation, are deluding ourselves in some way(s) and that this is actually a much worse idea than it seems to us.

CONCLUSION

It is possible that a war against Iraq could do good, but this is not certain enough to justify war. Indeed, especially because it seems unlikely that anyone would invest enough to rebuild the country sufficiently, there seems to be little hope of a net gain large enough to justify war.

Furthermore, even if a war was otherwise justified, we should never initiate a pre-emptive war without a U.N. mandate.