- That peace is the preferred basis for relations between and among countries
- Democracy is the optimal way to organise political life
- Free markets are the indispensable vehicle for the creation of wealth
The struggles of the 20th century (world wars, the Cold War, various satellite conflicts) were over those three ideas.
Michael Mandelbaum, a foreign policy professor, has written a series of books on foreign policy. One of them is "The Ideas That Conquered The World", which my dad has handily left here in our home library.
Based on those three statements listed above, Mandelbaum makes a very compelling case for the war in Iraq. I would like to read an opposing viewpoint which takes into account those three ideas, just to get some balance.
Anyway, here is a truncated version of his arguments (I do him no justice, I assure you).
A key point: September 11 did not threaten democracy or its advancement. It strengthened it.
The US and Britain, the key players in the world push towards peace, democracy and economic freedom realised several important things:- The authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, which had been allowed due to prevailing opinion that democracy would not work in Arab countries, were no longer welcome. They were supposed to keep a lid on terrorism. Instead, they sponsored it. The US and UK now believed democracy was the best way of stopping states from sponsoring terrorism. Iraq was the most significant threat in that area.
- Peace is now solidly established as the preferred way of dealing with other nations. Many countries disagreed with the US decision to invade Iraq. No country went to war to stop them. They took their grievances to the UN and the Security Council. There was unanimous opposition to Saddam Hussein's search for nuclear weapons. There was only disagreement on whether invading Iraq was the best way to get him to stop. The disagreements were filed, arguments made, and
- Removing Hussein and opening up Iraq to the free market would stop the world's reliance on Saudi oil, as well as depriving a dictator of the economic means to support terrorism and buy nuclear weapons.
Before you criticise, let's take a look at a few things:- "The war was just about oil". Oil was a consideration, but it would be foolish to think it was a real driver. Think about it. The US and UK have always worked towards handing control of the oil reserves to the democratically elected Iraqi government. The sheer amount of money spent on waging the war could never ever be recouped by buying cheap oil from the Iraqis, or even if they had taken it for themselves, it still would not have covered all the costs. This war was not about oil.
- No country sought to take territory for itself. Both the US and the UK are eager to hand over control of the country to the Iraqi government, once the country is secure. They don't want to be there. They want the troops home. If they wanted territory, they could have taken it. They didn't. And they won't. This war was not about a land grab (the traditional focus for most wars).
I'm sure I bored a whole bunch of you, and like I said, I would really like to read a good opposing viewpoint to get some balance. I haven't had a good look, but let me know if you find anything specific. I don't want a general "hey check this site out" with a link to a poorly researched anti-war site or something. I mean a specific article or extract with well-made points backed up by evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment