Anti-Climacus

ELABORATION: this is a mix of things pertaining to her last post, but also to some private communications, so I'll try and strike a reasonable balance and make this comprehensible.

Every rational person should have reservations about going to war with Iraq, just as they should have reservations about ever engaging in any war. In a world of rational actors and cost-benefit analyses, no one would ever go to war. No one that I've read (with the possible exception of some of the National Review/ Weekly Standard set) has failed to see this point, and the best people writing nowadays (Hitch, Michael Walzer and Ron Rosenbaum, particularly) see it the most clearly.

Here are a few things to keep in mind when arguing with those who steadfastly oppose war with Iraq:

1. Much will be made over how the U.S. is coercing the members of the Security Council into backing whatever resolutions it likes. Much less will be made over the failure of Iraq to comply with any of the relevant U.N. resolutions regarding his regime. So if you feel like Bush might be abivalent about the importance of the U.N., Saddam has made his feelings abundantly clear.

2. "Containment" may be offered as an alternative. Actually, the formulation that was referenced included things like continued inspections, economic sanctions, and targeted air strikes. The last is really the interesting one: Hitch has made much of the fact that the current no-fly zones put the U.S. and Britain at war in a de facto sense against Iraq. Containment, to me, amounts to an attempt to avoid taking the problems seriously.

3. Nowhere is this more evident than in the attitudes of the "anti-war" set regarding Iraqi dissidents and already-instituted semi-automonous governments (think the Kurds in N. Iraq): I can go weeks reading The Nation (or your pick of any other anti-war publications or writers) without ever hearing a mention of what the Iraqi people want. There is a reason for that.

4. Finally, a little quoting:

"I think the thing about allies is important: The second group would
naturally ally with an aggressive, interventionist, hawkish United States. The
former would be more oriented to a internationalist, humanitarian, idealistic
United States. In other words, I and I susspect you would be much more
comfortable with the first group."

Do a little compare and contrast, which seems to be the implication of the phrasing of the thought: aggressive/ internationalist, interventionist/ humanitarian, hawkish/ idealistic. There doesn't seem to be an evident contradiction in any of those instances, or even taking the terms in aggregate. What about being hawkish prevents you from being idealistic? And if there's something wrong with being aggressive and interventionist (Haiti, Rwanda, Kosovo...), I fail to see that.

But the part that wrankles the most is the allegation that we're not being internationalist. As a counter-example: Australia's one of the most fervent allies we have right now, and there's one reason for that: the Bali bombing. When you're forced to contemplate the notion that there are lots of people quite willing to bring the war to you, whether you invited it or not, the idea of championing freedom and democracy (whatever the costs associated) begins to seem like the smart bet.

As far as getting informed versus having an opinion, that's perfectly legitimate. I believe that Humphrey's words mean a lot in this context. We can differ about strength of support and other action we'd like to see and how we'd like the war to be conducted, but all of us who participate in the international democratic project in good faith with agree what the ideal end should be.