Doug Bandow, from Cato, lays out a case against a war with Iraq.

The problem with a lot of these arguments (not just Doug's), is that they set up strawmen, in the sense that they describe the array of arguments against going after Saddam, and then knock them down, one by one. The problem with that approach is that no single argument is probably sufficient to justify it--it is the combination of them, in totality that justifies it (if it is indeed justified).

For example, he says:

Lots of arguments have been offered on behalf of striking Baghdad that are not reasons at all. For instance, that Saddam Hussein is an evil man who has brutalized his own people.

Certainly true. But the world is full of brutal regimes that have murdered their own people. Indeed, Washington ally Turkey's treatment of its Kurds is scarcely more gentle than Iraq's Kurdish policies.

Moreover, the U.S. warmly supports the royal kleptocracy next door in Saudi Arabia, fully as totalitarian, if not quite as violent, as Saddam's government. Any non-Muslim and most women would probably prefer living in Iraq.

The point is not that Saddam should be taken out because he's a brutal dictator--as Doug points out, that criterion applies to lots of thugs around the world.

The fact that he's a brutal dictator is simply used to buttress the more important argument that he will have no compunction against using such WMD against us, if he can get his hands on them. Particularly if he can do it in such a way as to not leave fingerprints. Of course, that's an argument that Doug doesn't address.

Another point that Doug makes is that Saddam is rational; therefore he can be contained and deterred. However, there's a lot of evidence to believe otherwise--he's calculating, to be sure, and has a strong sense of self preservation, but he's also liable to major missteps, and miscomprehension about just what he can get away with (the invasion of Kuwait being a notable example).

What needs to be done, and I don't have time to do right now, is to lay out a whole series of criteria that one would use to determine whether or not to go to war with a despot like Saddam. Put them in a matrix, and come up with rules about how many must be met, or how many must be met in conjunction with others, to make a go decision. One would hope that someone is doing that in the State Department or the Pentagon or the White House Security Council.

That will be a much less assailable argument for those who are opposed to the war, than allowing them to go after rationales piecemeal.

Well said.
I prefer the Venn diagram approach myself -- is SH a member of Set A ("nasty dictators") AND Set B (possessors of WMDs) AND Set C (self-proclaimed enemies of the US) ... and so on. Not considering this was most of what was wrong with the LP news release you mentioned earlier. Or, in process terms, think of it as "entrance criteria," which is why I've posted on our need for a War Process rather than a Peace Process.

Another reason to take out Saddam is that he funds Palestinian genocide bombers. And that leads to why we need to see regime change in "Saudi" Arabia - the House of Saud is the wellspring of this poison.

In short, anything we do to destabilize these vile regimes in the Mideast is to our advantage. Stir the pot, kick a few out, and scare the willies out of those we don't nail right away. We need to make these thugs so scared of pissing us off that they'll dump their drawers if we glance at them. Teach them that if they want to play a zero sum game, we can run them right into the ground.

Yes, Venn diagrams would be an excellent approach. Then the arguments would be over a) whether the criteria were correct, and b) whether Saddam met the criteria.

It seems to me that it would clarify the discussion greatly.

I find myself in nearly complete agreement with Mr Skubinna, though it doesn't have to be looked at as a zero sum game. Getting rid of the deranged regimes throughout the region and shutting down the Palestinian madness would be a win for nearly everyone in the area who survived.

Ah, HJ, good point. I should have clarified that I don't consider it a zero sum game. It's apparent the Islamists do, though. And if they really think it's "us or them, winner take all," then my money's on Western Civilization. Bye bye, drooling homicidal fanatics.

Do you mean Doug Bandow, or is Nick a nickname?

Doh!

It's Doug. Chalk it up to a bout of brain flatulence.

Thanx...

The real problem with the anti-war gang's reasoning, in my view, is that they seems to be living in some kind of vacuum dreamworld, as if there are consequences and downsides only to our actions and not our inactions. At the same time, while they consider the risks, they fail to take account of the rewards/peace consequences of a good war. Experience with Germany, Japan and GulfWar I teaches us that there is an upside worth fighting for. God knows we don't need to be the world's policeman but the risk/reward payoff for war is as plain as the nose on one's face for the grownups in the room. Dick Armey what has gotten into you?

I say they are mad over there cause their ice cream cones keep melting so fast in the desert sun.

An argument in favor of going after Saddam that hasn't seen much press is this: If we get rid of Saddam we can get rid of the stupid sanctions regime, increase the flow of oil, reduce our dependence on Saudi Arabia, and start dealing with the real source of the problem, which is Saudi support of Wahabi extremists. As is, the house of Saud has the western economies by the nuts. Their opposition to an attack on Iraq has little to do with politics and everything to do with business. They know that with sanctions gone, oil prices will fall, and pressure will grow on them to stop exporting fanaticism.

There is also the humanitarian argument, namely that any western action required to get rid of Saddam short of carpet bombing Baghdad is certain to result in fewer Iraqi casualties than retaining the status quo for another decade.

Even carpet-bombing Baghdad would probably result in fewer Iraqi casualties than waiting until the place had to be slagged in retaliation for some WMD atrocity on Saddam's part.

I must have missed something 10 years ago - too much water in my ears or something....
The U.S. and its allies were rolling up the Iraqis and then just stopped. Bush senior stopped Swartzkopf (sp?) and let Saddam off the hook, setting up the current problem.
Can someone explain this? I thought it was strange at the time, but now it seems a really bad move - (yeah I know -20/20 Hindsight).

HJ, it was a really bad move. And yeah, we're all looking at it with the benefit of hindsight. My impression at the time was that 41 was making what he thought was the best decision based on what his advisors were telling him.

Poor ol' 41 never really grasped the concept of advisors playing politics...

In the Gulf War, we told Saddam if he used NBC weapons we'd take him down. Since he didn't (at least in a dramatic, overt fasion), we were kind of bound by our promise.

This time, there'll be no rules...

Tim Blair at http://timblair.blogspot.com/
mentioned that Stephen Skubinna, a regular poster here who jumped on me big time when I shot off my mouth, has re-enlisted.
Good on you Steve. Aloha and best of everything, Hunt