Why the world would be better off if Saddam were still in power (huh?)

What would you have done? Would you have left Saddam Hussein in power? The inquiry, familiar to all of us who opposed the war, is put in a finger-stabbing sort of way — as though that clinched it; as though the answer is so obvious that the peaceniks can only stammer. Just ask them what they would have done and watch them squirm!

Elsewhere, the tactic is more typical of left-wing polemicists than of the Right. ‘How could you stand by and see...?’ is a favourite way of arguing for state intervention (and taxpayers’ money) for any amount of expensive interference with nature. Any Tory with guts learns to summon them when reminded of dying patients, hungry jobseekers, sinking industries, failing railways or freezing pensioners, and asked, ‘What would you do?’ We answer ‘nothing’ and duck the flying eggs. But when it comes to what should be done about Saddam, we who answer ‘nothing’ face the missiles from the Right, newly converted to the Something Ought To Be Done brigade. On Iraq, neoconservatives deploy the gambit much as a warrior confronts a pacifist by demanding to know what he would do if somebody tried to rape his sister.

I cannot answer the rape question for pacifists, not being one. But as someone certain that the invasion of Iraq was a blunder, perhaps I should say what I would I have done.

Now let me oblige my interrogators by squirming. I should count it a mark of humanity to squirm. In some disputes I do not find the answers easy or (a different thing) easy to proclaim. If I were not troubled by the existence in the world of tyrants, troubled to know how far it is our duty to remove such men, and embarrassed to put into words the conclusion that it may not always be my duty, I would not be human.

Yet the bare question — What would I have done? — presents no difficulty at all. The ‘I’ in question being M. Parris, Times columnist and Another Voice in The Spectator, what I would have done is to write articles inveighing against the invasion of Iraq. I did. Question answered. ‘What would you have done?’ is an inchoate inquiry unless the ‘you’ is tied down. What I would have done if I were me is what I did do. What I would have done if I were Tony Blair is what Tony Blair did do. What my interrogator is probably after, however, is an answer to a question like, ‘If the decision were up to you, what would you have done?’

But still that is not enough. Which decision? Iain Duncan Smith’s? Jack Straw’s? Tony Blair’s? The United States’ President’s? Mark Steyn’s? God’s? Taking those cases one by one, let me tell you what I would have done if I had been able to dictate the decision each took. It would be different in each case. A tug may pull hard to starboard in order fractionally to moderate a liner’s course.

I am not sure that the leader of the Conservative party — any leader of the Conservative party — should get himself into the position of pitting the Opposition against a war which his country is plainly set to fight. Had I been Iain Duncan Smith, but inhabited by the conviction which inhabits Matthew Parris — that war was the wrong policy for Britain — I should have fired at the government a stream of questions about the reasons and the evidence for their decision. My aim would have been to leave the country with the impression that HM Opposition was deeply sceptical: unconvinced rather than actively opposed. Every Tory statement would have ended with a question-mark, and when asked whether my party in government would have joined the war, my reply would have been that it was impossible to say without knowing what the PM claimed to know.

Had I been the Foreign Secretary — but inhabited, etc. — I would probably have resigned when Robin Cook did. This might have toppled the Prime Minister, but the threat beforehand might, equally, have headed him off.

Had I been Prime Minister of the United Kingdom — but inhabited, etc. — I should nevertheless not have gone so far as to side with France and Germany, even though I privately agreed with them. I would have positioned Britain delicately but firmly on the fence, agreed to honour existing understandings about the US use of British facilities, ‘understood’ the American position, ‘understood’ the French position, undertaken to keep open lines of communication with friends on all sides, and found that present demands on British armed forces made it impossible that we should send troops ourselves. This would have been an awkward and unsatisfactory business, was probably the Foreign Office’s preferred policy, and would best have served British interests.

Had I been President of the United States I would not have invaded. This means Saddam Hussein would still be in power, but given what we now know about the state of his armed forces, his grip might not have held for much longer. Hans Blix and his inspectors would have been sent back; and months, perhaps years, of blowing hot and cold on both sides would have resumed.

International law would not have been violated, swollen-headed neocons would not have gained sway, the yee-hah tendency in US foreign policy would have been restrained, precedents for future unilateral regime-changes would not have been set, Nato would be intact, the UN Security Council would not have been damaged, America’s relationship with Europe would have remained good, and Britain would still be on speaking terms with our EU partners. The multitudes killed by Saddam would still be dead, but this war has not resurrected them. If he had resumed his massacres, the world could have debated the wisdom of threatening force on honest humanitarian grounds rather than trumped-up charges about WMDs.

If I had been Mark Steyn — but inhabited, etc. — I would have reflected that rude neoconservatism was what I did and I had better carry on doing it. But it would have struck me that, being Britain’s window into that uncouth world, the occasional wink as I explained it to them would not go amiss with readers who would like me all the more for being a witty guide with an eye and ear not only for the vanities of my opponents, but for folly on my own side too.

And if I had been God, I would not have created Saddam.

Matthew Parris is a political columnist of the Times.

"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.

Bush cites a massacre from the 80's, not a current massacre.

"Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape."

Ongoing torture, but of how many? Bush doesn't say. Many, many countries use torture, including our allies in the region, I'll bet. But Bush did not allege mass murder here.

As to preventing ongoing massacres, Bush would have a better case invading the Congo.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

Agree, but greater evil operates in the Congo.

But for stopping an enemy with the proven will and ability to acquire WMD, hence threatening the US, invading Iraq seems reasonable to me.

"International law would not have been violated,"

And he expected Saddam to honor the Geneva convention in fighting for his life? </sarcasm>

" swollen-headed neocons would not have gained sway, the yee-hah tendency in US foreign policy would have been restrained,"

Ad hominem attack. This says nothing about the merits of the policy.

" precedents for future unilateral regime-changes would not have been set,"

This precedent argument is so silly and full of logical holes. Countries are not children. They don't do things just because their 'friends' did something.

" Nato would be intact,"

When did it disband?

" the UN Security Council would not have been damaged,"

It wasn't damaged enough.

" America’s relationship with Europe would have remained good, and Britain would still be on speaking terms with our EU partners. "

Who wants a good relationship with the likes of them? In this instance the ad hominem attack is warranted.

" The multitudes killed by Saddam would still be dead, but this war has not resurrected them."

I guess if he expected Saddam to follow international law, he would probably expect him to stop killing, torturing innocents. Saddam's sons probably would've been worse consider their 'training'.

"If he had resumed his massacres, the world could have debated the wisdom of threatening force on honest humanitarian grounds rather than trumped-up charges about WMDs."

The world would've kept on debating. They didn't care when Saddam was slaughtering those hundreds of thousands in the first place, why would've they cared the second time around?

No one cares about the Congo. No one cared about Cambodia. No one cared about the Great Terror in Russia. What makes this writer think that people would care about Saddam enough to threaten force?

They wouldn't have. This writer knows that, but he is not intellectually honest enough to admit it. George Bush was, however. Saddam's contempt for the rights of his people was one of the stated reasons for going to war. Nobody was listening that part of the speech, I guess.

They did listen to that part, and contrasted Iraq with other countries' human rights records. On human rights abuse alone, Iraq didn't rate #1.

On WMD alone, Iraq didn't rate #1.

But as to doable, in America's security interest, and probably yielding an improvement in human rights for the Iraqis over the next 5 years, yes it made some sense.

No, secretagent. They knew about Saddam and Saddam's murders and his weapons.

They didn't care. They didn't care in the Thirties and they don't care now. The left has neither morals nor principles.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

Matthew Parris is a political columnist of the Times.

Hah! Just like the NYTs. Giving lie to wannabe "paperboys".

M. Parris, failed expressor of readable ramblings.
M. Parris, failed moralist.
M. Parris, failed rational human being.

I can't see in their hearts, but virtually all on the left say that Saddam committed many murders, and at least had WMD at one time.

It wouldn't have surprised me if, post 9/11/, a Democratic president would have felt the same urgency to finish up the sanctions and get boots on the ground in the MidEast, the better to make the next move.

But they didn't end up with the Presidency, and Bush seems fairly alive to security needs, and so carping seems harmless enough, even for those who should know better.

" Agree, but greater evil operates in the Congo."

I would not characterize what is going on in the Congo as a greater evil than Iraq,just evil. There was a thread here about 2 weeks ago,that was just horrific in it's detail of children having their arms macheted off and then roasted and eaten,while their mothers were forced to watch.The other details of cannibalism were equally as gruesome. What I asked,was- where is the African American community on this ? Why isn't Jesse Jackson et al leading the world to intervene? The Congressional Black Caucus? Where's the UN ? Not a peep out of any of them.We've got our hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan,it's time for someone else to step in and deal with this humanitarian disaster.A few French peacekeepers is not going to cut it.

Where's the UN ? Not a peep out of any of them.

I read at least one of Kofi Annan's peeps here on FR. He urged intervention. Don't know if he's mentioned it again.

I can't see beneficial intervention as plausibly as doable in the Congo, and they don't present a WMD threat like Iraq did, so it looks like the genocide will just continue.

What an awful thought, but we can't afford to to try to improve human rights everywhere.

Oh, sure. They knew Saddam committed many murders and they knew he had WMD. I'm not saying they didn't. I'm saying that they don't care.

It's a Republican President. I believe that therein lies the rub.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.