Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

JANET DALEY: Moral case against war is at best naive, at worst idiotic
The Daily Telegraph ^ | September 25, 2002 | Janet Daley

Posted on 09/25/2002 1:21:32 AM PDT by MadIvan

Let's leave the military aspects to one side for the moment - the tactical questions of Iraqi weapons and their possible uses are a matter for the defence experts. Let me deal here just with the moral arguments, which have filled columns of newspaper print and hours of broadcast airtime.

I have spent a good portion of the past 48 hours locked in televised confrontations with critics of the United States. The shrillness of their accusations seems to rise in direct proportion to their incoherence. Even by the usual standards of political doublethink, there is something very desperate and unscrupulous about this case which so ostentatiously claims the moral high ground. It is as if the anti-American reflex came first and the need to substantiate it followed as an afterthought.

The propositions that have been put forward purporting to damn American intervention against Saddam (and British support of it) fall roughly into two categories: the wilfully obtuse and the crassly opportunistic. The first type includes the naive but sincerely conscientious objections of churchmen and undeviating pacifists who feel that there can never be any good enough reason for going to war. I will leave them out of this because their position is not specific to this situation and they are, at least, consistent with their own past views.

The rest of the obtuse lobby puts forward a cocktail of confused assertions which do not stand up to even cursory examination. The first, and most strenuously repeated yesterday, is: we don't have any incontrovertible evidence that Saddam has (or is developing) weapons of mass destruction, and/or even if we have, we have no proof that he intends to use them.

The two parts, or two forms, of this proposition are absolutely essential to its plausibility because they are used interchangeably. The mantra, "We have no evidence", can conveniently slip from being a question of the physical existence of weapons (which can be established by the sort of photographs published yesterday in the Prime Minister's dossier) to a demand for the utterly unprovable: that Saddam intends to use them for nefarious purposes.

What would count as proving the existence of such an intention? Presumably, an affidavit that read, "I plan to attack Israel, Cyprus, or wherever else I can reach with my armoury of ballistic missiles during the next 12 months. Failing that, I will at least equip as many freelance terrorists as I can find with the necessary hardware to do as much damage as possible," signed S. Hussein, in the presence of witnesses (see signatures below), dated September 10, 2001.

When common sense tells us that there can be no evidence of a legally watertight kind, we usually look to past events for indications about likely behaviour in the future. Saddam has, in the recent past, invaded a neighbouring country in the interests of territorial aggrandisement. (Somebody ought to tell Charles Kennedy that this is what "imperialism" actually means.) He has also used the most hideous chemical weaponry against racial minorities within his own population in a blatant attempt at genocide.

When the obtuse camp pleads for concern about the innocent Iraqis who may suffer in an American attack, I wonder about the innocent Kurds who have suffered under Saddam's homicidal persecution. When the obtuse-niks plead for more time for hapless United Nations weapons inspectors to be fobbed off and obstructed, I wonder if they would be so blithely passive about racist mass murder in other countries? Would George Galloway have spoken so assiduously against military intervention if the old white regime in South Africa had gassed Soweto?

This brings me to the other fork of the anti-intervention case: the slippier, opportunist one. A contention that was put to me on air at the weekend was that America cannot be justified in taking action to displace Saddam now because it failed to do so after the Gulf war. So why now and not then?

Because "then" was a mistake. The United States made a serious blunder at the time - due largely to its reluctance to appear "imperialistic" - and it now intends to rectify it. This is because September 11 has made it clear that the support of terrorism by rogue states presents more of a threat to world security than was thought and so the risk of being labelled "imperialistic" by idiots such as Charles Kennedy is worth taking.

Tacked on to this charge of inconsistency, there is usually a taunt that America once supported Saddam and helped to arm him against Iran. True enough. At that time, the danger from a militant Islamic fundamentalist state seemed greater than from Saddam's secular one - especially after Iran took Americans hostage at the American embassy. Everyone knew that Saddam was a bad guy but he seemed the lesser of the two evils. But how does that undermine the ethics of the present policy?

Do the people who argue this way also claim that Stalin's contribution to the Allied war effort and the sacrifices of the Russians at Stalingrad were morally illegitimate because Russia had earlier signed a pact with Hitler?

In the eyes of many of its critics, the Americans can do no right. If they intervene, even to overthrow a criminal who kills his own people, they are "imperialistic". If they fail to intervene - using the obfuscations of endless United Nations debate (in which one tinpot dictator after another stands up to pillory them) as an excuse for delay - then they are selfish isolationists.

The obtuse and the opportunistic tribes concur on the demand that Saddam must start a war before we can attack him. Don't they see that he already has? This is a new world and a new kind of war which has no rules and no formulaic patterns, in which terrorists routinely target civilians. It is a greater threat to free and democratic societies than a set-piece invasion by massed armies.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: blair; bush; iraq; peaceniks; saddam; uk; usa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: Beenliedto
So do a number of other nations... Let's take 'em all out. Why just Iraq?

Iraq invaded two of its neighbours already, and Saddam is trying to gain nukes. You can't deny it. At best, he will acquire WMD as a deterrent to either strongarm his neighbours (i.e., make the Saudis agree to say, cuts in petroleum production) or to provide cover for other operations, such as reinvading Kuwait. Getting the picture? His WMD fit into an overall strategy of giving Iraq a stranglehold in the region. Given the amount of energy we get out of there, not a good idea.

Both time with at least the tacit (Kuwait) approval of the US.

Cite and prove. The only people who have ever said this were decidedly on the red side of the political spectrum and laughed out serious discourse.

Once again, so do others. So let's go get India, North Korea, the Pakkis, et. al.

Read above. India and Pakistan keep the nuclear weapons as a deterrent to prevent attack, not as a cover for aggression. North Korea was on the axis of evil for a reason.

And let us not forget where the vast majority of the 9/11 perps came from... that's right... Iraq's neighbor to the south.

Of course not. But you deal with different problems in different ways. A free and democratic Iraq, pumping out oil with abandon will provide a powerful example to Iran and the Saudis, as well as undercut the regimes by causing petrol prices to fall through the floor. Checkmate.

Ivan

21 posted on 09/25/2002 11:28:12 AM PDT by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Happygal
Brilliant...level headed, reasoned argument, Ivan.

As ever, gracious and lovely lady, I am flattered by your words and kindness...even at times when you intend to be a pain in the backside. ;)

Best Regards, Ivan

22 posted on 09/25/2002 11:31:46 AM PDT by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
you intend to be a pain in the backside.

Lookey here, Blair bot hehehehehehe You ain't seen nuthin' yet ;-)

23 posted on 09/25/2002 11:47:13 AM PDT by Happygal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Happygal
Lookey here, Blair bot hehehehehehe You ain't seen nuthin' yet ;-)

Ah, but if you weren't being in a pain in my backside, I'd take it that I'd decreased in your affections. That's how you lot express warmth on your side of the Irish Sea I believe. That and purchasing each other packets of crisps down the pub. ;)

Best Regards, Ivan

Who just rejoined the Conservative Party today ;)

24 posted on 09/25/2002 11:51:10 AM PDT by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Ah, but if you weren't being in a pain in my backside, I'd take it that I'd decreased in your affections.

Decreased in my affections? Why, I have an eternal soft spot for limey gits ;-)

25 posted on 09/25/2002 11:57:24 AM PDT by Happygal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Happygal
Decreased in my affections? Why, I have an eternal soft spot for limey gits ;-)

Ah, and there is something quite magical about having those Irish eyes a'smiling. ;)

Best Regards, Ivan

26 posted on 09/25/2002 11:58:29 AM PDT by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Irish eyes a'smiling.

In between the occasional bouts of Celtic murder ;-)

27 posted on 09/25/2002 12:02:41 PM PDT by Happygal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Happygal
In between the occasional bouts of Celtic murder ;-)

Considering the enjoyment of some of your countrymen for boxing, among other things, the two likely can happily co-exist. ;)

Best Regards, Ivan

28 posted on 09/25/2002 12:05:12 PM PDT by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Considering the enjoyment of some of your countrymen for boxing

Not to mention hurling. oooh-err! ;-)

29 posted on 09/25/2002 12:08:03 PM PDT by Happygal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Happygal
Not to mention hurling. oooh-err! ;-)

I will be kind and not turn this into a joke involving American slang terms. ;)

Curses, must be getting soft in my old age. ;)

Best Regards, Ivan

30 posted on 09/25/2002 12:10:14 PM PDT by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Ivan, you are 'the man!' Keep on getting under their skin...
31 posted on 09/25/2002 12:15:38 PM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mhking
Ivan, you are 'the man!' Keep on getting under their skin...

I do my best. My thanks.

Regards, Ivan

32 posted on 09/25/2002 12:21:26 PM PDT by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
I concur, excellent piece.
33 posted on 09/25/2002 5:56:20 PM PDT by Robert DeLong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Amazing. An entire post of assertions, devoid of substantive reply. Why, that's not been seen apart from ... oh, about three-fourths of what's posted on FreeRepublic.

You're clearly under the impression that asserting cowardice substitutes for argument. And are fond of making false analogies -- upholding individual self-defense, with the weapons that you Brits have blithely given up, does not scale effortlessly into justifying continent-wide movements of armies.

I won't give you any more of the benefit of the doubt. You want intimidation, not discussion. Sounds like one of those football-yob pug-dog thugs, to me. "With you to the last"? Between your type and Blairian poodles, I doubt you're worth the rhetorical Purina Dog Chow.

34 posted on 09/25/2002 6:48:06 PM PDT by Greybird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
I can't think of a more harmful way to handle the issue than to wait or avoid the painful necessity of defending liberty.

My God, thing of the senseless rhetoric your spouting here while on the brink of war! "Defending liberty"...do you honestly think Saddam thinks about or cares about your "liberty"? Do you think that 9/11 was an "attack on freedom"?

Gimme a break!

I'm a hard nosed conservative. But this is about "Haliburten" having oil to pump, plain and simple. Saddam's one tenth the threat of Fidel Castro, and you don't see us forcing a "regime change" in Cuba.

Conservatives are starting to sound like Democrats, if not lemmings!

35 posted on 09/25/2002 8:59:55 PM PDT by The Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Greybird
Amazing. An entire post of assertions, devoid of substantive reply. Why, that's not been seen apart from ... oh, about three-fourths of what's posted on FreeRepublic

Ah yes, the traditional leftist slander of any argument besides their own lacking "substance". The traditional leftist snobbery that everyone besides themselves is "uninformed" or "stupid". You sure you're not a refugee from DU?

You're clearly under the impression that asserting cowardice substitutes for argument. And are fond of making false analogies -- upholding individual self-defense, with the weapons that you Brits have blithely given up, does not scale effortlessly into justifying continent-wide movements of armies.

Oh do get over yourself. I raised the points that you cannot deny about Iraq's capabilities and what it has done in the past. You simply not wanting to acknowledge them does not constitute an argument. I merely accused you of cowardice at the end of the argument, not at the beginning.

I won't give you any more of the benefit of the doubt. You want intimidation, not discussion. Sounds like one of those football-yob pug-dog thugs, to me. "With you to the last"? Between your type and Blairian poodles, I doubt you're worth the rhetorical Purina Dog Chow.

A very poor attempt at an insult. I'm sure your friends Sunflower and Moonbeam will be disappointed when you tell them this at the next organic brown rice buffet you attend.

Ivan

36 posted on 09/25/2002 9:57:40 PM PDT by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
I'm a hard nosed conservative. But this is about "Haliburten" having oil to pump, plain and simple. Saddam's one tenth the threat of Fidel Castro, and you don't see us forcing a "regime change" in Cuba.

Fidel doesn't have WMD. The last time he came close there was an argy bargy that nearly did cause a regime change. It was called the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Conservatives are starting to sound like Democrats, if not lemmings!

Since when is mindless pacifism part of conservatism?

Ivan

37 posted on 09/25/2002 9:59:30 PM PDT by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Greybird
I doubt you're worth the rhetorical Purina Dog Chow.

I find it amazing how quickly you went from being a advocate for reasonable debate to one of personal invective. Do you consider debate to be an unanswered op-ed piece that you put forward as truth? You accuse others of doing exactly what you are doing. You give, on the surface, cogent thoughts but little in the way of factual or historical meat to your opinion.

You put up the straw man that we can't take care of Iraq until we take care of (fill in the blank). I have a very strong suspicion that should we be on the verge of war with (fill in the blank) there would be many asserting that we must take care of either Iraq or anyone other than (fill in the blank). I question your intellectual honesty.

38 posted on 09/25/2002 10:27:10 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
I'm a hard nosed conservative. But this is about "Haliburten" having oil to pump

You show your lack of credibility or you abundance of ignorance with that statement alone. Halliburton is not an oil company. So your own lack of knowledge damns your entire argument.

39 posted on 09/25/2002 10:30:23 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
WOW! Great article! And I'm going to steal her "obtuse-niks" term.
40 posted on 09/25/2002 10:46:06 PM PDT by justshe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson