[Paleo Conservative]

The American Prospect ^ | Issue Date: 6.1.03 | John B. Judis

Why should we believe Judis?

[Consort]

Prior to the war, the United States failed to produce compelling evidence of Iraqi WMD or ties to al-Qaeda.

The a priori existence of WMD is what pre-emption is based on. That's the absolute reality and ontological premise of the Bush Doctrine.

[lib-r-teri-ann]

oh puh-lease. Saying they had WMD was simple political cover. A completely legit tactic. The real issue is that they might have developed nukes in the future - hence Iraq had to be taken down. And hence Iran will have to follow. It's too late for N Korea - that genie is already out of the bottle.

[kesg]

When a leftie says that our foreign policy is not Kantian enough, we must be doing something right.

[pfflier]

Can the morality of our actions -- whether as individuals or nations -- be judged simply by the eventual results?

The answer is a resounding YES!!

20th century history is full of genocide resulting from the lack of action from "moral" nations. The UN created Israel as a direct result of the post war guilt over inaction against German persecution and genocide. Who can forget the horrors of communism, the Stalin purges which may have exceeded the Holocost in actual victims, the killing field of Pol Pot's Cambodia and China's "agricultural reform"?

In fact the question isn't whether we were right, it is "Why isn't the UN or some other country doing more to stop immorality like what is happening in the Congo right now"?

[secretagent]

The article fails to mention another justification for invasion: Iraq stood in violation the its agreement to provide full disclosure of its WMD programs.

The Desert Storm coalition ceased fire based on that agreement, and the US and Britain resumed fire based on Iraq's violation of that agreement.

[nicollo]

Forget philosophy, for the logic here is inverted and back again with this one:

...the absence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), in particular nuclear weapons, combined with the ease with which the United States rolled over the Iraqi army, strengthens the claims of administration critics that Hussein's regime could have been contained without going to war.

The premise follows the argument. Not good. Oh well, that's to be expected from a writer who looks to Hans Blix for authority.

You're having way too much fun with this.

[forewarning]

A Kantian might justify pacifism as universalizable even when his country was threatened with extinction.

Kant's categorical imperative may be a necessary condition, but it surely isn't sufficient. A stronger, better condition requires that a principle work not just as a universal law (this admits too many unworkable utopian principles), but also when only some adhere to it.

[cornelis]

They argue that the United States is an inherently moral nation that will not commit the injustices perpetrated by past imperial aspirants

This is why I have always kept a reserve on "you should think for yourself." We can reason for ourselves, and we are the agents of our choices, but our first principles are often are a matter of respect--as they are in this argument.

[miloklancy]

Heard about this thread a few days late, but nonetheless, I wanted to hopefully put this WMD obsession to rest. It is not debatable whether Saddam Hussein had WMD, unless you want to argue with several dead Kurds who were gassed by Saddam in the late 80's in Northern Iraq. And furthermore WMD alone was NOT and I repeat NOT the reason we went into Iraq. The fact was we knew Saddam had used WMD before and that he was harboring and supporting terrorists. Detractors of the Bush administration seized on the WMD issue as the central issue. The administration never said this was the central issue, but that the potential of WMD in the hands of terrorists was justification for a pre-emptive strike. Hussein was clearly funding terrorists in Israel and harboring them in his country. The reason the U.S. had to act was because there was a threat of terrorist organizations such Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and others, could obtain these weapons and use them. There is no political underhandedness here. Yes liberals will claim there is, but liberals also think that being dishonest is simply part of the political process.