[Peace-discuss] Fwd: NYTimes - The Right War for the Right Reasons

[Margaret E. Kosal]

Peace-discuss folk -

Found this to be a great opinion piece ... *NOT* because of what Senator 
McCain writes but as a demonstration piece of
(1) compartmentalization to avoid/marginalize critical connections ... 
e.g., selectively ignores/minimizes use of nuclear weapons -- what some 
argue is the only *real* WMD -- against Japanese civilians by US military.

(2) invoking 'proof by assertion'.

(3) the deep beliefs of the denuo anglo imperium.  i believe/speculate that 
Rumsfeld & Cheney are motivated  by ruthless greed & assumption of 
privilege; Wolfowitz & Perle are more complex and troubling with a 
'sticky-sweet' coating (non-technical start: 
http://query.nytimes.com/search/article-page.html?res=9C07E2DF1730F931A1575AC0A9649C8B63)

i've interspersed some deconstructive comments below.

Namaste,
marg

>The Right War for the Right Reasons
>
>March 12, 2003
>By JOHN MCCAIN
>
>WASHINGTON - American and British armed forces will likely
>soon begin to disarm Iraq by destroying the regime of
>Saddam Hussein. We do not know whether they will have the
>explicit authorization of veto-wielding members of the
>United Nations Security Council. But either way, the men
>and women ordered to undertake this mission can take pride
>in the justice of their cause.
>
>Critics argue that the military destruction of Saddam
>Hussein's regime would be, in a word, unjust. This
>opposition has coalesced around a set of principles of
>"just war" - principles that they feel would be violated if
>the United States used force against Iraq.
>
>The main contention is that we have not exhausted all
>nonviolent means to encourage Iraq's disarmament. They have
>a point, if to not exhaust means that America will not
>tolerate the failure of nonviolent means indefinitely.
>After 12 years of economic sanctions, two different
>arms-inspection forces, several Security Council
>resolutions and, now, with more than 200,000 American and
>British troops at his doorstep, Saddam Hussein still
>refuses to give up his weapons of mass destruction. Only an
>obdurate refusal to face unpleasant facts - in this case,
>that a tyrant who survives only by the constant use of
>violence is not going to be coerced into good behavior by
>nonviolent means - could allow one to believe that we have
>rushed to war.
>
>These critics also object because our weapons do not
>discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Did the
>much less discriminating bombs dropped on Berlin and Tokyo
>in World War II make that conflict unjust?

(i assume that McCain would argue that Hiroshima & Nagasaki were 
"justified".  If that use was "justified" for the end result {which i don't 
believe it was!}, how does that reconcile with Hussein's use CW agents, a 
lesser "WMD", against Iran as different?  McCain & chickenhawk brigade 
would differentiate. ... mek)

>Despite advances
>in our weaponry intended to minimize the loss of innocent
>life, some civilian casualties are inevitable.

(As clearly evidenced recently in Afghanistan ... mek)

>But far
>fewer will perish than in past wars. Far fewer will perish
>than are killed every year by an Iraqi regime that keeps
>power through the constant use of lethal violence.

(Might far fewer perish if economic sanctions were lifted? ... mek)

>Far
>fewer will perish than might otherwise because American
>combatants will accept greater risk to their own lives to
>prevent civilian deaths.
>
>The critics also have it wrong when they say that the
>strategy by the United States for the opening hours of the
>conflict - likely to involve more than 3,000
>precision-guided bombs and missiles in the first 48 hours -
>is intended to damage and demoralize the Iraqi people. It
>is intended to damage and demoralize the Iraqi military and
>to dissuade Iraqi leaders from using weapons of mass
>destruction against our forces or against neighboring
>countries, and from committing further atrocities against
>the Iraqi people.

(Bait-n-switch.  Here's where it gets tricky.  No argument from me that 
ending human rights violation against Iraqi civilians is a 'good 
thing'.  McCain selectively  ignores who will benefit from war?  Who IS 
benefiting from pre-war?  The private military contractors, aka "The 
Pentagon's Private Army" 
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/articles/0,15114,427948,00.html.
It's easy to dismiss Cheney with Halliburton -- who acquiesced to use of 
slave labor in Myanmar, nee Burma, while Cheney was CEO.  Wolfowitz, in 
particular, is harder to dismiss.  ... mek)

>The force our military uses will be less than proportional
>to the threat of injury we can expect to face should Saddam
>Hussein continue to build an arsenal of the world's most
>destructive weapons.

(Again, proof by assertion ... mek)

>Many also mistake where our government's primary allegiance
>lies, and should lie.

(Some question those priorities. mek)

>  The American people, not the United
>Nations, is the only body that President Bush has sworn to
>represent.

(See comment below ... "American people", eh?  mek)

>  Clearly, the administration cares more about the
>credibility of the Security Council than do other council
>members who demand the complete disarmament of the Iraqi
>regime yet shrink from the measures needed to enforce that
>demand.

(A friend of mine at the "State Department" {the *other* side of the river} 
speculated that Blair underlying motivation is to maintain the viability of 
the UN.  i think there may be some truth.  If a unilateralist US 
administration perverts a UN Security Council vote or veto, the future of 
the UN is in jeopardy - a result which would engender bliss in John Bolton, 
US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International 
Security.  For him to have that title is an oxymoron, imo! ... mek)

>But their lack of resolve does not free an American
>president from his responsibility to protect the security
>of this country. Both houses of Congress, by substantial
>margins, granted the president authority to use force to
>disarm Saddam Hussein. That is all the authority he
>requires.

(Technically McCain is correct.  Nonetheless, he ignores the 146 cities 
plus two State legislatures that have passed anti-war resolutions, in 
addition to on-going public protests.  Ignoring/refusing to acknowledge 
phenomena does NOT make them go away... mek)

>Many critics suggest that disarming Iraq through regime
>change would not result in an improved peace. There are
>risks in this endeavor, to be sure. But no one can
>plausibly argue that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein
>will not significantly improve the stability of the region
>and the security of American interests and values. Saddam
>Hussein is a risk-taking aggressor

(Proof by assertion ... no argument that he is a 'bad man'; behavior 
disputes 'risk-taking' characterization. mek)

>who has attacked four
>countries, used chemical weapons against his own people,
>professed a desire to harm the United States and its allies
>and, even faced with the prospect of his regime's imminent
>destruction, has still refused to abide by the Security
>Council demands that he disarm.

(As opposed to the US record?  One web source for Blum's list of countries 
US military has 'attacked' -- manipulative rhetoric depending on the 
perspective and to whose advantage is the imperative: 
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/03/05_quiz.html

US use of CW agents & simulants against own civilians, include Project SHAD 
(http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/current_issues/shad/shad_chart/shad_chart_3.shtml) 
and distributing aerosolized (all that means, really, is micrometer 
diameter particles, ZnCdS (zinc cadmium sulfide) over Minneapolis among 
other cities 
(http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1994/nd94/nd94bulletins.html).  It's 
highly fluorescent therefore easily detectable to model wind patterns but 
also toxic.

>Isn't it more likely that antipathy toward the United
>States in the Islamic world might diminish amid the
>demonstrations of jubilant Iraqis celebrating the end of a
>regime that has few equals in its ruthlessness? Wouldn't
>people subjected to brutal governments be encouraged to see
>the human rights of Muslims valiantly secured by Americans
>- rights that are assigned rather cheap value by the
>critics' definition of justice?
>
>Our armed forces will fight for peace in Iraq - a peace
>built on more secure foundations than are found today in
>the Middle East. Even more important, they will fight for
>the two human conditions of even greater value than peace:
>liberty and justice. Some of them will perish in this just
>cause. May God bless them and may humanity honor their
>sacrifice.

(i have no doubt that many do believe and think, to their core, that is the 
case.  To quote Ali Mazri "... cultural reform requires persuasion, 
education and example. Cheap rhetoric and denunciations are not very 
helpful." from _Black Orientalism?_  There is a real tension between 
anti-war idealism and pragmatism .. mek)

>John McCain, a Republican, is a senator from
>Arizona.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/12/opinion/12MCCA.html?ex=1048571982&ei=1&en=4155def6c93c735d