Am I a chickenblogger?
by Kevin
Counterspin Central {A Web Log dedicated to the proposition that no dishonest right-wing, propaganda will go unpunished, or unrefuted} accuses me of being a chicken blogger in the comments section of the post below and refers me to his post on the subject by way of reference.
I was intrigued by this and so checked it out. I think perhaps Hesiod is lumping me into the wrong group. I do not argue that Saddam should be taken out because of his connection to 9/11 or simply because he might use WMD against us or supply those who do. Rather, I argued that Iraq has been and will likely continue to plot ways to strike at our national interest and that an all out war would eliminate our biggest enemy in the region and strengthen our position.
I also clearly noted in the post that if you believed that the risk of action was greater than the risk of inaction than your position would change. Hesiod obviously thinks the risks of action are greater than simple deterrence and containment. I do not. I am not an arms inspector nor an expert on the capabilities of Iraq but I think it is safe to say that moving from a position of strength is better than waiting if their are signs that your position is slipping. This is what Hesiod fails to address, the fact that the international coalition that contained Iraq is ebbing. His argument about nuclear deterrence our likely sound but it is not about just WMD or nukes it is about regional power. We are losing power and if Saddam slips out of the “box” he will gain power. What we need to do is reassert our power now before he can respond with threats of WMD, etc. Then from a position of strength and power we can interact with Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc.
Hesiod is right in the sense that the war against Iraq is not a logical step in the war on terrorism but I didn’t make that argument. My argument is about the balance of power and the risk reward of acting now rather than later. I fail to see how that makes me a chicken.
See my response:
http://counterspin.blogspot.com/2002_08_04_counterspin_archive.html#79947251
–Hesiod
1: Could Saddam accept the Counterspin Treaty and be politically viable?
2: Would he live up to it if he signed it?
The answer to the first is “not likely” and the answer to the second is “probably not.”
Thus, why bother with the treaty.
you gotta work on that ht = th thing;)
“[W]hy bother with the treaty?”
1) It’s not a “treaty.” It’s an ultimatum.
2) It forces Saddam into a box. Either he accepts our terms [which cannot be legitimately objected to by anyone in the international community, even other Arab states, or he’s toast.
If he accepts the terms, and lives up to them, we win.
If he accpets the ternms, and renigs, we have a justification for military action, and we “win.”
If he rejects the terms, we have a justification for military action, and we “win.”
Simple really.
Of corse the klutzes running the Bush Iraq policy will never grasp this concept.
–Hesiod
I just read Hesiod’s original comments…what a TROLL!
I can’t believe you’re giving this guy the time of day, Kevin.
Hesiod, that’s how the “klutzes” in the Bush administration are going to start the war in Iraq. Except they’re just going to use the first step. Saddam won’t accept the first step, much less all of your 5. Your plan wouldn’t prevent an invasion, it would cause it.
Please go here to see my point-by-point reply to Hesiod’s original arguments.
I see he now has changed his prescription to an ultimatum. The unlikely-to-be-fuffilled ultimatum is a traditional way to begin a war. So I am somewhat OK with that, if the President decides to go that way, though it would be better millitarily to go with a suprise attack.. The only caveat I would have for an ultimatum is that it have a firm deadline. We should count on Saddam refusing by trying to delay things. We would stick to the deadline – and soon after it passes, let him have it.
But he he burbles on about “getting Saddam to play ball” – nonsense. Never happen. At best (or worse, take your pick) he will just stall us and try to make inadequate counteroffers. He also will try (in fact is already trying) to drag in third parties, like the other Arab states or maybe the Europeans.