Replies

Professor Higgs, a wise and erudite man and author of Crisis And Leviathan, arguably the best book ever written on the subject of Federal expansion, is unfortunately off base here.

In his other indictments, he is largely correct. However, no reasonable doubt remains about the Iraqi nuclear and bioweapons programs, nor about the significant chance that Iraq would use them in a war of aggression against a neighboring state, nor about the unacceptable risk that terrorist groups would get access to weapons of mass destruction by way of Saddam Hussein.

The entire warlike enterprise is about Black Tuesday: September 11, 2001, and all that has flowed from it.

Black Tuesday was not the sinking of the Maine; this is not the Spanish-American War.

Black Tuesday was not the Zimmerman Telegram; this is not World War I.

Black Tuesday was not the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution; this is not Vietnam.

Black Tuesday was a belated awakening to the identity and ferocity of those who hate America and her ideals most fervently.

This case really is different. The pity of it is that, to those of us with a grasp of history and a knowledge of the political bases of previous wars, it should be so difficult to set aside those earlier, shameful episodes, so that we can proceed without crippling doubts. Of course, there are numerous voices raised at this time in the attempt to intensify those doubts. I trust that, in Professor Higgs's case, it's a matter of sincere misunderstanding rather than an attempt to deflect war through obfuscation and deceit.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

no reasonable doubt remains about the Iraqi nuclear and bioweapons programs

Granting your assumption, there are effective and practical ways to deal with those programs. One easy one is use carrots instead of sticks: drop economic sanctions in exchange for complete inspections. Think about all the possible states with similar programs, are we going to invade them all? How many resources would that divert from the war on terror?

Iraq would use them in a war of aggression against a neighboring state

Boxing Saddam in has dealt with that threat

nor about the unacceptable risk that terrorist groups would get access to weapons of mass destruction by way of Saddam Hussein.

There's a pandora's box of possibilities after we invade. Here's just one: Iran takes advantage of the situation by increasing its support of terrorists while blackmailing our occupation forces in Iraq which are now in range of their missiles.

The fact of the matter is once Iraq has been invaded, no more countries will be invaded no matter how much they support terrorists, no matter how many of their own people they kill because we will be bogged down in the mother of all nation building and quickly lose all political support for new adventures. Terrorists will then quickly gain new footholds in new countries.

I trust that, in Professor Higgs's case, it's a matter of sincere misunderstanding rather than an attempt to deflect war through obfuscation and deceit.

Thank you. I hope so. He sounds like an intelligent man. Intelligence is not the only precursor to being correct, sadly. This one is common sense, and a lot of professors -and even more shocking, FReepers - don't seem to have that.

Sigh. Been guilty of that myself a time or twice.

You are overlooking what has been consistent criticism from the Right that the folks who created Saddam-- from Rumsfeld and Co. on through Senators who covered for BCCI, or in Hillary's case, sat on the board of a company actively and illegally doing business with Iraq-- are now telling us that he is the next Hitler.

Do you see a problem with this kind of politics and the absurdity of going to war over WMD (or was it 9/11)? What did these idiots think was going to happen when they gave a blood thirsty dicator a bankroll and load of weapons?