Very nice analysis, Sam.
I do think that your conclusions can be -- and have been -- reached by
thoughtful people without the benefit of MOQ...so without taking anything
away from your insightful analysis, I am still wondering what MOQ
contributes to the consideration of actual conflicts. You may remember that
a couple of months ago I asked this same question with regard to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- what does the MOQ suggest with reagrd to an
Isr-Pal solution, and felt from the few but thoughtful responses that
essentially the answer was, not much. I would love to be wrong on this, as
those who are engaged in tackling these real problems do need all the help
they can get.
Best regards,
Lawry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Elizaphanian
> Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 5:23 AM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Baghdad and Morality
>
>
> Hi Rog,
>
> You asked an interesting question; one which I have been mulling over for
> quite a while:
>
> > What would you all suggest the MOQ endorses in the case of Iraq? What
> should
> > the rest of the world do with the perceived threat of Saddam Hussein?
> What
> > course is the best course?
> >
>
> A few things on this.
>
> The decision to attack Iraq has in effect now been taken,
> informally if not
> formally. That is because if Bush now backs away from a committed conflict
> then Saddam will be perceived to have 'won', and his position will become
> significantly stronger as a result - his credibility with Arab governments
> (and especially the Arab 'street') will be greatly enhanced - and his
> capacity to build up his economy and gain nukes (WMD) will be enhanced. In
> that case, a few years down the line, we will have a
> nuclear-armed Saddam to
> deal with, and the last situation will be much worse than the first.
> Although I don't rate Bush's intellect very highly (his or his advisers) I
> think that much will be clear to them, as will the fact that Bush will be
> exposed to ridicule in any re-election campaign, if he doesn't follow
> through on his bellicose rhetoric. (That he has resorted to such rhetoric,
> and closed off his options, is one reason why I don't rate the White House
> Intelligence Quotient particularly highly. Bush's various speeches to Wall
> Street also displayed a less than historical grasp of the situation -
> perhaps he thinks the name Hoover only applies to vacuum
> cleaners. But that
> is off the point)
>
> The justification/rationale for the attack runs roughly as follows:
> 1. Saddam is demonstrably aggressive and has used WMD.
> 2. Saddam is renewing his WMD capacity.
> 3. If Saddam gains WMD he will supply them to terrorists to attack the
> US/West and/or use them to establish hegemony over the oil
> resources of the
> Middle East.
> 4. 3 is an unacceptable outcome, therefore we must act now to prevent it.
>
> Logically, I think 3 follows from 1 and 2; much of the
> interesting debate it
> seems to me is about what 4 involves. I don't think 1 or 3 are really at
> issue. Although Saddam isn't the only monster out there, he seems the most
> volatile and nasty. However, 2 is a little open to question. Embedded in 2
> (and most of the pro-war arguments) is the assumption or
> assertion that the
> international regime on non-proliferation is ineffective. I think
> that this
> point needs to be made more openly and strongly than it is at present. To
> say the least, there is room for scepticism about both sides of the
> argument - it is too easy a soundbite for someone like Rumsfeld to mouth,
> but that doesn't make it false. I haven't had a chance to read the UN
> inspectors reports, which would seem the first thing to do in
> order to gain
> my own conclusion. In any case, the authorities may have evidence which is
> intrinsically unavailable for public consumption, so it comes down to a
> question of trust. I'll come back to that.
>
> It seems to me that the most important aspects relate to issues of
> international law. And this is also where the MoQ has something to say.
> Broadly, with regard to a society of individuals, a social order has more
> quality if it is subject to the rule of law. The development of a rule of
> law was a highly dynamic break through with regard to human society - it
> prevented the concentration of force in the hand of the most
> brutal/strongest, and allowed more people to get on with their lives, with
> all the DQ possibilities inherent from that. The rule of law
> underpins both
> democracy and capitalism (so I'm assuming you'll be happy with that Rog
> -) ) It seems to me that an international order which respects a rule of
> law is of higher quality than one which does not - so the EU is of higher
> quality than the UN, which is of higher quality to the international order
> c1900.
>
> If the US unilaterally attacks Iraq then it will undermine the rule of law
> at the international level. Of course, the rule of law internationally is
> something of a misnomer - it's a fragile thing, lacking, in particular, an
> effective enforcement body - and clearly there are times when 'you have to
> take the law into your own hands'. But an action against Iraq which is
> undertaken without regard to international law would be very different to
> one undertaken with a heavy heart because international law had
> failed, and
> which was consequently followed up by action to support international law.
> (I think this is the difference between Bush and Blair. Bush
> 'couldn't give
> a shit' about international law/opinion, whereas Blair seems to have a
> strongly internationalist impulse).
>
> One other thing: one of the principles of 'just war' theory (which is what
> international law derives from) is that the outcome of a war
> should not be a
> worsening of the overall situation. I think this is a point that
> needs to be
> more thoroughly aired and debated. In particular, there seems to be no
> attention paid to the law (or risk) of unintended outcomes.
> Whilst I have no
> doubt that if the US was serious about it, it could conquer Iraq and
> dismantle Saddam's system, I worry about the long term
> consequences for that
> country and also for the other major countries in the region, especially
> Saudi Arabia, which could easily have a 1979-type revolution - and again,
> the last outcome will be worse than the first. However, this is a question
> of the balance of risks, and is for those in authority to judge - it's not
> something I think we can second guess. However, I'm sure we will be given
> sufficient insight into the quality of judgement and decision making that
> characterises our dearly beloved leaders. It's possible that the US could
> make the right decision for the wrong reasons (as also the converse, of
> course).
>
> Sam
>
> "If what we do now makes no difference in the end then all the seriousness
> of life is done away with" - Wittgenstein
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:23 BST