Posted this reply at Unpurereason to the discussion of 2003 and 1939: 

Saddam may have been unable to project conventional power, but rather than a reason to leave Saddam in power, that is a reason to remove him.

Saddam had sponsored terrorism (RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty, assassination attempt of former Pres Bush), subsidized terrorism (financial assistance to PIJ, HAMAS, PLO), provided a base of operations for terrorist groups (ANO, twice), and provided safe haven for terrorists (Abbas, Yasin, Zarqawi).

By attempting to farm out terrorism in 1998 (RFE/RL), Saddam had demonstrated the propensity to use terrorism as a means of Statecraft (to say nothing of his State terrorism, used to exercise control over his citizens/victims).

Sanctions were failing to box in Saddam--the only people harmed by the sanctions were those already harmed by the regime. The sanctions regime was in imminent danger of collapse. France, Russia, and Germany, as well as neighboring Arab states, were all avoiding the sanctions.

The time and treasure spent to protect 2/3 of Iraq from Saddam were rather non-sensical if one thinks about it. If Saddam is a responsible actor, why should his people need to be protected from him? Further, Saddam was almost daily committing acts of war against the U.S. and U.K. by firing anti-aircraft missiles at planes patrolling the no-fly zones.

The cease-fire of 1991 required Saddam to affirmatively demonstrate the destruction of his WMD stocks. This, he did not do. Even ignoring the fact that he maintained the capability to restart his WMD programs, rapidly, after the fall of the sanctions regime, Saddam did not show the destruction or prove the destruction of his WMD. I realize that a negative cannot be proven, but Saddam acted in such a way as to guarantee that the destruction of the WMD program could not be affirmatively demonstrated.

I remember sitting in law school in January 2003 arguing that the best case to be made for war in Iraq was Iraq's connections to terrorism (Abbas, Yasin, RFE/RL, PIJ, etc). I later remember being mobilized and the company being aware that this war would involve troops in Iraq for over a decade (disclosure: bumped 24 hrs from wheels up; spent a period NTE 365 days stateside). I've been trying to make the same arguments for the last 3.5 years. It is rapidly becoming frustrating.

I know that you are not attempting to argue that Iraq would be better off with Saddam still in power. I understand the arguments that Iran is better off for the invasion (Pre-emption and Iran).

UN weapons inspectors were not disarming any weapons until a quarter million troops stood on Saddam's doorstep. That was an untenable situation. If we had left the troops there to guarantee Saddam's co-operation, eventually the troops would have lost their value as a threat and Saddam would have started obstructing again (he wasn't exactly forthcoming as it was, anyway). We would have come to the same pass that we entered anyway. We were able to do so on our terms this way. We were able to dictate the conditions under which the war would be fought. That is a good portion of the battle. Look to the example of Fallujah. We permitted the terrorists to dictate the terms of the battle and ended up losing far more troops than we would have otherwise.

Further discussion of why the invasion of Iraq was a necessary part of the War on Terror:  Iraq 2 and Iraq.  Not entirely creative titling, I know.  Sue me.  (Not really, I can't afford an attorney).

Diplomacy is only a possibility if the strong party is capable (and willing to) of increasing the cost to the weak party of maintaining the status quo.

The left appears to believe that "diplomacy" merely means talking/communicating. Diplomacy is attempting to assert one's will over another (politics by other means). One doesn't (or rather, shouldn't) engage in diplomacy in order to weaken oneself. Therefore, the left's version of "diplomacy" is not even appeasement; it is surrender, conditional or otherwise.

Granting concessions to a weaker party in the hopes of changing that party's behavior is not diplomacy; it is bribery. Iran and NKorea (and the USSR before them) have demonstrated that when one enters diplomacy with the intention of changing one's opponent's behavior, through bribes and concessions, one does not get what one seeks. Instead, one strengthens one's opponent, while weakening oneself.

This occurs by granting legitimacy to the demands of the opponent. By being willing to barter, one effectively demonstrates that one’s opponent has a legitimate need, want, or desire, and they must be bribed to follow a different course. If one’s opponent has an illegitimate need, want, or desire, they shouldn’t be permitted to discuss keeping it, or continuing the pursuit of it.

If something is unacceptable, i.e. ballistic missile tests over an allied state (NKorea and Japan), or pursuing a nuclear program in secret, while calling for the annihilation of another State (Iran and Israel), then it cannot be permitted. If it cannot be permitted, then there is no real basis for negotiations. One isn’t trying to talk someone else out of an acceptable course of action; one is trying to stop an unacceptable course of action.

(I apologize for the copious use of the third-person singular “one”. Once I got started, I just couldn’t stop.)

I failed to properly credit clearcommentary for the post that prompted the basis for this post.  I apologize.  The post is Hard vs Soft Diplomacy.

When assumption trumps objectivity

Here’s an example of comparing apples and oranges. The author compares Iran and Syria’s arming of a sub-national terrorist state with the U.S. supplying arms to a responsible state actor. The author attempts to equate the munitions used to target Israeli civilians with the munitions used to target Lebanese infrastructure and Hezb’Allah targets.

Sure Israel is a U.S.-backed state. The author defeats his own argument by comparing a state to a sub-national group (for the sake of argument, let us say the Hezb’Allah is not a terrorist organization: they are a well-armed social services organization). There is nothing illegitimate in supporting an allied state. There is, however, something illegitimate in supporting a sub-national group/militia, that is not the government or government forces of a foreign government. Even the UN has called, multiple times, for the disbanding of Hezb’Allah. That means either that Hezb’Allah is a responsible, Western government, or that Hezb’Allah has managed to offend even the dictators of the UN.

The author also bellyaches about Israel’s disregarding UN warnings about the UN site that was bombed. I’m sorry, it was located right next to the illegitimate, supposed to be disbanded, Hezb’Allah building. Do these people think before they speak? The logic is unfathomable. (I’m sure there’s something here about closed systems (reinforcing) and socially constructed realities…but I’ll leave that alone).

I’m not going to go into the whole thing. If you care to read it, go for it. It’s just like reading the NYTimes.

Update: attempted to submit the following feedback a dozen times on the Al Jazeera website:

Calderon wins

Hopefully, Calderon does a better job a building Mexico's economy (or rather, permitting the market to do so) than Fox did.  He cannot do a worse job a reigning in corruption.

Let the chaos begin.

Obrador, your move.

Axis of Evil update:

Iran still insists on its right to enrich uranium, which under the terms of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, of which Iran is a signatory, it does.  Iran doesn't have the right to enrich uranium in secret, which, when taken together with Iran's irresponsible behavior makes it easy to believe that Iran is enriching uranium for nuclear weapons (I've taken it as a foregone conclusion).  Human rights violations continue apace.  Iran suffers no repercussions for its logistical, materiel, and personnel support of terrorists in Iraq.

Russia and China continue to assist Iran.

The EU-3 continue to appease.

The U.S. continues to prevaricate and dither and demonstrate the inability to produce a coherent position (it varies from member of the adminstration to the next: where is that vaunted message discipline I've been hearing about for the last 5 years?).

NKorea continues to advance its ballistic missile testing and do who knows what with its nuclear program.  Human rights violations continue apace.

The 6 Party talks are still "stalled" (interesting choice of word for something that hasn't moved positively since it started).

China and Russia continue to assist.

The U.S. continues to dither.

Associate Members of the Axis of Evil, Syria and Venezuela:
Syria faces no repercussions for its interference in the internal affairs of Lebanon, or its support of terrorist organizations, or its use of murder as a political tactic, or its logistical and materiel support for terrorists in Iraq.

Chavez continues to cuddle up to other Axis members.  Chavez continues to direct his economic failings to the U.S.

I'd come up with an update every day, but I cannot imagine it'll change from day to day until there is a mushroom cloud somewhere in the West.

Obrador vows to set up parallel government

And on our southern border we have a developing situation. It has been developing for some time now, but this sounds, to me, to be a new development.

Obrador will declare victory regardless of the outcome of the court’s decision. It seems to me that he wouldn’t need to do this if he thought he was going to win. Ergo, Obrador is pre-emptively declaring victory.

Obrador wants to set up, not only a parallel government, but establish a new country (thank you Chavez): "We will not only decide on our form of government ... but something very important will also be defined: the basic plan for the transformation of Mexico."

This is rather disconcerting. It is bad enough that nations of the Western Hemisphere are going to try the failed statist policies of the USSR, but our immediate neighbor? Granted, I don’t know that that is the direction Obrador would want to go, but it seems a reasonable assumption that a new Mexico, under Obrador, would be a statist, income redistributionist basket case. Mexico already faces problems with its indigenous southern population. Mexico has an economy incapable of providing for its citizens, despite large natural resource advantages. Mexico’s currency has failed once before. Mexico faces endemic corruption and a police and military that cannot be trusted.

Revolution on our southern border is not something we need (neither do the people of Mexico). We already have hundred of thousands of illegal immigrants entering our country every year. How many more would flee in the face of a revolution?

And the UN was concerned about a humanitarian crisis in Iraq.

September 3, 2006--Thomas Joscelyn

This is obviously false (t.i.c.). A secular regime would never co-operate with Islamic terrorists (except the Chavez-Iran deal, the Assad-Iran deal, the Saddam-PIJ deal, the … oh bollocks, it never stops).

That was enough inanity. I’ll quote the final paragraph of the post:

“It is exceedingly difficult to discuss al Qaeda in Iraq without mentioning the role that Saddam's regime played in its rise and continuing effectiveness.”

Read the whole thing.

For anyone questioning, the evidence is in (and has been in for years): Islamic terrorists will co-operate with secular regimes. They may hate each other, but they hate us more.

We must confront the world as it is, not as we’d like it to be.

Haven’t discussed the threat posed by NKorea in a while. It is rather easy to get drawn into the drama of the Mid-East: divinely-inspired Ahmadinejad and the mullahs; armed social services agencies Hezb’Allah and HAMAS; an Israeli political elite that seems ever more French (Olmert and the future indict-ees); and the outside forces: Putin, seeking the greater Russia (or at least greater pocketbook); China dealing with its fellow dictators; the appeasing EU; and the incoherent US.

Anyway, I get caught up in all the bit players in the Mid-East—they’re just so darn disgusting.

NKorea is still advancing its ballistic missile capability. The July 4^th tests merely provide NKorean scientists with data with which to work out problems and kinks. NKorea is said to be preparing new ballistic missile tests. This is another situation in which diplomacy has run its course. There is no hope for a diplomatic solution in NKorea either. NKorea took the best deal available in 1994 (thank you Jimma) and immediately proceeded to break it. NKorea has no motive for ceasing its pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles—the U.S. has given them no reason to cease. (Incidentally, Iran has the example of NKorea for how to lead the West around by the nose until nuclear weapons are acquired—can somebody get Jimma into an institution before he gets everybody killed?)

Cost-benefit analysis and all that: The costs to NKorea must be greater than the benefits to be derived from its pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. The U.S. has shown no indication that it has any intention of increasing the costs, ergo, NKorean nukes and long-range ballistic missiles are basically a foregone conclusion. Goodbye California.

NKorea is also weaseling its way around sanctions, thanks to our friends, the Russians. The NKorean threat grows ever more pressing also. More from Chavez, Chavez and the East, and Axis of Evil, part II all discuss the growing threat we face from a growing consortium of non-democratic dictatorships who choose to blame the ills of their people on an outside source—the U.S.

We live in a dangerous world—and it's not getting any safer. How did the democrats in Connecticut vote for Lamont?

The EU either thinks, without any evidence in support, that Iran can be brought around to the EU’s way of thinking, or the EU wants Iran to direct its malice elsewhere. I find it difficult anyone could be so foolish as to believe the former. That leaves the latter.

The EU is actively undermining any attempt to stop Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, in the hope that they will be left alone. The sheer, unmitigated cowardice of it sickens me.

EU gives Iran two more weeks

Why? What possible purpose can this serve? Iran is no more going to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons than UBL is going to renounce his war on the US.

And why should Iran give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons? They have been given no reason to believe that negative consequences will arise from their pursuit of nuclear weapons. The EU has ruled out military action. China and Russia will not permit sanctions, as though sanctions would harm the regime, or its pursuit of nuclear weapons, in the first place. The US has hamstrung itself by its inability to speak with a unified voice—even from the administration.

Iran faces no real costs connected to its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran has only benefits to be gained from pursuing nuclear weapons. (See: Iran and the Deadline Diplomacy and Iran for a discussion).

I’ve conceded that the Iranian regime is not rational (thank you BrianR), in any meaningful sense, but this does not mean that their actions cannot be predicted. Iran behaves in a manner that is demanded based upon the apocalyptic worldview that its leaders possess. In this sense, Iran behaves predictably and is, at some level, “rational”. This “rationality” does not mean, however, that Iran is susceptible to diplomacy. The pursuit of the “bomb” is a religious imperative, of sorts. To deviate from such an imperative would be unthinkable. The only way to increase the cost to Iran to such a point, where pursuing nuclear weapons is more costly than the benefits to be derived from pursuing nuclear weapons, is to remove Iran’s capability to produce a bomb.

How can this be done? Can it be done by the use of air strikes and cruise missiles? There is no guarantee that all of Iran’s nuclear sites would be taken out completely. This destruction is something that must be verified. Iran is an irresponsible regime and a state-sponsor of terrorism. To even consider the possibility of leaving the job half-done, or un-verifiably done, is almost worse than having done nothing at all. For such an action would strengthen the regime, and legitimize the regime, by making them a survivor of the US. Iran would win regardless.

After the First Gulf War, Saddam was required to affirmatively demonstrate that he had destroyed his WMD. Saddam was an irresponsible actor. He had invaded four countries and committed acts of terrorism against his own citizens. Saddam had sponsored and subsidized terrorism outside his borders. Saddam’s destruction of his WMD stocks was something that had to be verified, based upon his past actions. Not to have done so would have been criminally irresponsible.

We are reaching that point with Iran, if we haven’t reached it already. Iran’s nuclear program must be destroyed and the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program must be verifiably destroyed. To do otherwise is to invite destruction at a later date.

There are times in which we must be willing to act in our own best interests—our national interests—in opposition to what others think is in their interest. Europe seems to think that they can buy the Iranian regime’s good will by being a lapdog and obstructing the US. If the “sins” of the last 50 years had not been committed by the West, Iran would still hold to the sins of 900 years ago. If those were removed, Iran would still act out of a religious imperative. Whether the mullah interpretation is accurate or true, I don’t really care. They seem to think it is and we must deal with the world as it is, not as we’d like it to be.

>The Doctrine of Necessity states the persons may be driven to commit violent acts that they ordinarily would not even consider, but for the violence’s (terroristic act) very necessity. One is compelled, contrary to his or her nature, to act with violence to resist someone or something or to change something because the evil of violence is outweighed by the evil of doing nothing[1]. Some things are so evil as to justify any response. The evil of violence is outweighed by the evil of doing nothing and permitting the continuance of the status quo. This person may loathe the very acts of violence, but inaction is intolerable to the extent that any qualms of conscience are overcome. Various rationalization techniques will often be used in concert with the Doctrine of Necessity to permit the use of violence against noncombatants, civilians, or other innocents.

When one’s perceived reality is such that it is accepting of violent reaction, then violent reaction is much more likely (inevitable) when such a person is confronted with something that the individual defines as evil. The closed system often creates evil (or makes it much more visible) by accepting only those events which prove the perceived reality.

>The notion of a Closed System denotes a psychological (and sometimes, physical) filtering system through which groups (and the individuals in those groups) accept or reject information that either coincides with, or is contrary to, the world view (socially constructed reality) espoused by the group. This filtering device reinforces existing beliefs and belief system by permitting only acceptable information to be considered by the group. This filtering system colors the reality of outside information to promote the world view of the group, within the group. The world view of the group is thereby ‘proven.’  Information superficially contrary to the belief system is viewed in a manner that makes it consistent with the belief system.  The system becomes self-sustaining and self-defending.

This “proven” world view includes matters of right and wrong, the definition of ‘evil,’ and what is the proper means for dealing with ’evil.’ The Closed System may either ‘create’ or exacerbate evil through selective admittance of information.

This element is often demonstrated most amusingly (and oftentimes, frighteningly) in conspiratorial thinking.

>Social Construction of Reality is a phrase representing the notion that one is only able to act in that which one considers and believes to be objective reality. While what one perceives to be reality may not necessarily be reality, it is real to the person who perceives that that is the way that reality is ordered, and therefore sets the boundaries in which that person or persons is/are able to act/s. People must be able to trust their senses—the means through which they receive information about reality—otherwise, they become paralyzed, or clinically insane. Therefore, at the level of decision-making, perception is reality.

Such reality helps to set the filters which create the closed system. Perceived reality colors the events that occur in life, reinforcing the reality. Perceived reality is self-perpetuating because of the closed system.

Perceived reality also helps to define what is acceptable and what is not, and what is therefore necessary to resist. Perceived reality, with the closed system, creates unacceptable circumstances that must be opposed, by any means available.

>These three elements interact with each other to produce violence. Each element increases the efficacy of each of the others. The closed system helps to both produce and sustain the constructed reality. The constructed reality lays the groundwork for the closed system. This may sound circular, but it is not. It merely recognizes that the way one views the world changes over time and with experience, and in the ways that one reacts to those experiences.

[1] The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing—paraphrase of Edmund Burke.

One can pursue irrational goals in a perfectly rational way. Aum Shinrikyo wanted to bring about the apocalypse and believed that this could be achieved by fomenting a war between Japan and the US. Aum pursued this irrational goal by developing chemical and biological weapons so as to begin heading to that goal. Aum was perfectly rational, but only within its worldview, which was not rational by most measures of rationality.

The following was excerpted from a policy paper (written as a sophomore, so pardon the odd formatting) examining the US no-negotiation (or rather, limited-concession) policy when confronting terrorists.

...
In looking at the interaction between a negotiator and hostage taker, the rationality of the hostage taker should be examined briefly. A common mistake is to label a terrorist as a madman because his or her goals are at odds with our own or seem irrational. Cauley, Sandler and Tschirhart (1983) warn, “Goals do not determine rationality but rather the efficiency in which scarce resources are utilized to achieve goals.” Terrorist action may be the best choice available with limited resources to achieve a goal. Examples of acts that may appear irrational to some night be labor strikes or barricading an international border to slow down the flow of agricultural products. These are people using their resources effectively—a political point is made.

When looking at suicide bombers, terrorists can appear awfully irrational. But as I. Zartman (as appearing in Barry, 1990) notes, “parties will choose outcomes they prefer over those they do not.” Perhaps the terrorist has become convinced that his or her death may help bring about changes that his or her family may benefit from. They have then made a rational choice based on the facts that they possess.

Causes championed by terrorists are often political in nature and are difficult for outsiders to understand. Zartman (as appearing in Barry, 1990) warns, “’irrational goals’ is an improper way of referring to unconventional goals.” Causes may be championed by an ethnic or racial minority that are difficult for a neutral observer to understand. For example, without understanding the ethnic composition of Spain, one could not understand the actions of the Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) terrorist organization.

A final point for the rationality of terrorists and hostage takers is the apparent cost-benefit ranking of terrorist actions. Low risk tactics, such as bombings, have a high incidence (Cauley, Sandler and Tschirhart, 1983), relatively speaking. High-risk tactics, such as kidnapping, have a low incidence, but can have greater political benefits. Hijacking a plane or kidnapping can use the news media to the hostage taker’s advantage—free publicity. Even if demands are denied, as in a no-negotiation policy, the cause of the hostage taker’s is publicized, which may lead to clandestine support or possibly, legitimate political change. And finally, Zartman (as appearing in Barry, 1990) warns that, in negotiating with terrorists, terrorists “can be correctly assumed rational until erratic behavior proves otherwise.”

...

This should include a discussion of the Doctrine of Necessity. I’ll pick that up later, after I dress up and update a never used thesis.

Iran scoffs at deadline

I’m pretty sure I’ve discussed why (Diplomacy and Iran): they have nothing to lose by ignoring the deadline, and everything to gain.

Ahmadinejad has made his move. The West is unwilling to develop a united front to make a coherent counter-move. There are also rogue players on the field: players who will not outright declare their allegiance, while doing everything to demonstrate the fact that they are playing on the Iranian “Nukes”. It is not as though the West could muster any negative reaction to Russia and China outright declaring themselves in opposition to the West and responsibility and justice.

I question the West’s resolve. There are, no doubt, individual leaders, in the feckless sea of appeasers, but even they, they are unable to muster the resolve to call the adversary by its name, or to take the steps to confront it. They have permitted themselves to become, in action, the eunuchs that French and Spanish leaders have aspired to be.

Where have you gone President Reagan?

We face an evil collection of wannabe empires. From Russia’s pursuit of greater Russia, to China’s dream of controlling the Orient and lastly to Iran’s desire to unite the Dar al Islam under the banner of the Islamic Revolution (this says nothing of Chavez’s desire to lead Latin American socialism), the West faces nascent empires. These are states that have demonstrated themselves to be irresponsible, if rational, actors.

The PRC props up the NKorea regime. The PRC forces abortions, and harvests the organs of still-living political prisoners.

Putin has co-opted the Duma and nationalized the only profitable sectors of the Russian economy. Putin has cut off the flow of natural gas to Europe to let Europe know of Russia’s power.

Iran imprisons political dissidents. Iran dispatches death squads to “deal” with dissidents living outside Iran. Iran has called for the destruction of Israel. Iran has a twice tried a woman for killing the man attempting to rape her (Save Nazanin petition).

Nazanin updates

The answer is, of course, sticking its head in the sand.

Film documents Hmong genocide

Yet more human rights abuse the UN has not and will not stop. At least the UN continues to attack stable, responsible democracies, such as the US and Israel, for human rights abuses.

If more evidence were needed that the UN no longer serves its intended purpose: here it is.

And a required snarky comment:

“The UN special adviser on the prevention of genocide, based in New York, could not be contacted for comment.”

–I’ve a nasty suspicion this is a common occurrence. I’ll bet he’s been dead since 1946 and no one has thought to check on him. That, at least, would explain the multitudinous examples of genocide, or other atrocities approaching genocide, over the course of the last 50 years.