ROG RESPONDS to DAVOR, SAM and LAWRY on the Q of the MONTH
THE Q:
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?
DAVOR:
What would happen if saddam is to put it bluntly 'eliminated' in Iraq (from
a domestic perspective?)(Is there a chance of high(er)quality pattern such
as a democracy?)...The static patterns cannot be destroyed by
DQ bomb, it would not change for the better.
ROG:
Seems to me the likelihood of better governance is pretty much as close to a
"no brainer" as you can get. The current regime is, on a scale of 1 to 10 a
complete zero. The question isn't whether it will lead to an advanced
democracy, but to something not as completely worthless as today.
DAVOR:
Second question:
What would happen if Saddam is 'eliminated' to the stability of the whole
middle east?... There are so
many uncertainties, for instance what would it mean for the oil production?
How are other Arab nations going to respond, nations like Syria, Libanon, it
is not just saddam under attack....
I could go on and on but I think the best thing to do is leave it, the only
legitimate intervention would be reactive not proactive I reckon.
ROG:
Inaction is itself an action, and one just as subject to uncertainty.
Different levels and types of uncertainties are what we exchange in our
choice. On the other hand, you may be right, I just am not a big fan of this
particular part of your explanation. Let's see what others say...
SAM:
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
ROG:
I disagree. Conflict may be likely, but he still has the option of forcing
other submissions on Saddam. In fact, the threat, though indeed restricting
some options, actually increases the potential success of other options.
SAM:
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)
ROG:
Isn't it cool the way the entire world hasn't had a smart conservative leader
in at least 3 generations? This is either the most incredible coincidence
ever, or perhaps a manifestation of 50 years of 3rd grader argumentation as
espoused by those with an anticonservative perspective and the knowledge that
if you repeat something often enough people will start to believe it (often
combined with the position that "liberals are just too smart.") I was hoping
the MOQ forum would free us from such shallow argumentation. Oh, and does
Bush only do this in his Wall Street speeches? Never his Main Street
speeches? How can I tell the two apart?
Of course YOU do give an explanation of why you think he is stupid (and the
huge segment -- the stupid segment supposedly -- of America that agrees with
him). Seriously though, I am indeed just railing against a sloppy bias in
political "commentary". It is totally unfair to build a caricature of your
opinion just due to its similarities to this pattern. (I lived in Texas for
much of the time Bush was there, and was myself EXTREMELY unimpressed with
the man's leadership)
I agree with Lawry that the rest of your post is spot on. I basically agree
with your summary of potential damage to the image of the US as well as to
respect of the the rule of law. I also fear for unnecessary death and
destruction on all sides that could come from a conflict.
LAWRY:
I am still wondering what MOQ
contributes to the consideration of actual conflicts.
SAM adds:
My own view is that the MoQ can't provide much in any specific conflict,
simply because the MoQ operates at a 'higher' ie more abstract level, so
that people can agree to accept the MoQ as a governing paradigm, and yet
disagree on what the way forward might be in any particular conflict.
ROG:
I agree completely with the two of you. The MOQ does provide a common map,
but it is one that is inadequate in real world moral dilemmas. But, with
that said, here is my take for ya'lls critique:
What is BEST for Iraq, the US and the world? I believe the answer is better
government and more freedom in Iraq, and the elimination of a cruel
exploitative dictator that threatens others. A GOOD solution would also lead
to peace, prosperity, respect for international sovereignty, suppressed
terrorism and accomplish these with minimal death or destruction. So, from
best to worst, according to the above requirements:
1) The world could force Saddam to step down (Very Good, but unlikely)
2) The world could encourage and support his overthrow via internal rebellion
(Good and possible)
3) The world could destabilize portions of his regime, allowing civil war to
break out and then supporting those leading the rebellion. (OK, and quite
likely, but potentially destructive)
4) The world could form a united front and remove him by massive military
force (very destructive, but quite likely if US plays cards right)
5) The US could unilaterally attack Iraq with conclusive proof that Iraq had
recently attacked it -- ie proof of 9/11 ties.(very destructive and still
quite possible)
I could go on, but I think the other options are suboptimal, and like Sam and
Davor, not worth the risk, damage and uncertainty. Attempts at any of the
above could also, of course, lead to unintended consequences much worse than
profiled above (an overthrow attempt could fail and lead to Sadam attacking
Israel). I do NOT think that the US should attack Sadam without proof of
recent hostilities though, UNLESS the rest of the world shows reasonable
support. The negatives, to me, outweigh the positives.
But this is MY PHILOSOPHY, not Pirsig's. Please help me critique and correct
it as you see fit.
Rog
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 - 16:06:30 BST