Category: Politics

Another useful resource this week: the BBC’s reporter diaries. The Agonist is also good — Sean-Paul is doing a good job of keeping up with the news. His head will explode within days, no doubt.

Turkey has OKed US overflight, finally. There was a lot of back and forth about this, mostly related to whether or not the US was going to let Turkish troops into Northern Iraq. Turkey wants to make sure the Kurds don’t form their own state, and will do so by force as necessary. No word as to what the final deal was, but Turkey reasserted that it would send troops in after they announced they’d open airspace. That’s not good.

Coalition troops… a side note. I’m going to say coalition, because there is a coalition, which consists for practical purposes of the US, the UK, and Australia. I don’t want to use the word “Allies” for this purpose, because I think it has the wrong connotations. So if you want to mentally add “small” every time I say “coalition,” go right ahead.

Anyhow, coalition troops are more or less moving freely through Southern and Western Iraq. This isn’t a surprise. The serious resistance, if there is any, will come nearer Baghdad. The advance did get bogged down at Nassiriya, where there was strong enough resistance to, well, bog down the advance. Unsurprisingly, Iraqi soldiers turn out to be more interested in fighting back on their home soil — this has not been the kind of wholescale rout we saw in Gulf War I.

We’re not seeing mass surrenders yet; this doesn’t mean we won’t see them in the future. Time will tell. Which, really, says it all for the entire mess. Nothing really unexpected has happened either way, and it’s too soon to tell whether or not anything will.

Because I think it’s worth highlighting the extremes of human dignity, I link to the speech Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins delivered before battle. This type of man is one reason why I wish both our soldiers and British soldiers well.

“We go to liberate not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country. We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Show respect for them.” And:

“I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts, I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them. If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family. The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please.”

Really, it’s like fish in a barrel.

Via A Whole Lotta Nothing.

Michael Swanwick is keeping a list of SF authors opposed to the war. Linked for my reference (via Making Light).

The Chicago Tribune reports that many of the recent pro-war rallies were sponsored by Clear Channel. Clear Channel is currently lobbying against proposed regulatory changes that would limit its ability to expand. This doesn’t diminish or negate the sentiments expressed by those attending, but it sure raises some interesting questions about Clear Channel.

Weird little Cheney interview. He says, referring to terrorism, “[T]he United States and the president have been forced to come to grips with issues that our allies to date have not yet had to come to grips with…”

And I really don’t understand that. Has he somehow missed the Red Army, or more recently the Chechnya terrorists who took over a theater in Russia? Shining Path ring a bell? Or, hey, how about the IRA and the Basque separatists? It seems very clear to me that many European nations on both sides of the debate have seen more than enough terrorist activity to get a very clear idea of the issues.

This is kind of trainspotting at this point, but the Guardian is running live coverage of the British House of Commons debate on Iraq. There’s no doubt Blair’s resolution will pass at this point; the question is how many Labour MPs will defect. Robin Cook adroitly separated opposition to war from opposition to Blair’s government yesterday, which makes today more interesting.

There we go. Here’s the full text of Robin Cook’s resignation speech, which I’ve been pitching as a must read, so hurry up already. In other British political news, Clare Short withdrew her threat to resign, confirming everything skeptics think about the left.

So. We’re going to war.

I think a number of things, which I will outline here, as much to remind myself of them in the days to come as for any other reason. I think that regime change in Iraq is an admirable goal; Saddam Hussein is a terrible leader who has caused great harm to his citizens. He is a dictator and a criminal. I have no doubt of this.

I do not think that war is inherently wrong. Given the way in which the international community functions, I was in favor of the war in Afghanistan.

I do not think that Saddam is any kind of immediate threat to the United States. He has no viable nuclear program, despite the fact that he’s been trying to get one for years. He probably has chemical and biological weapons. It is not moral to wage war on a country based on theories about what that country might do. Bush spoke tonight of the moral justification of preemptive strikes. I say this: that there is a difference between the belief that Saddam might someday hurt the United States and the knowledge that Saddam is about to launch an attack. In one case, a preemptive strike is justified. In another, it is not.

I think that had Bush managed to keep UN approval, this war would not be damaging to the United States. As is, there is more anti-American feeling in the countries of the world than there has been for some time. Today, the Canadian Parliament cheered Chretien when he announced that Canadian troops would not participate in this war. This is not an isolated incident. Pursuing this war in the manner that Bush has chosen has an undeniable cost. I do not think that toppling Saddam is worth that cost.

I believe that if Saddam isn’t in a position to launch terrorist attacks today, he wouldn’t be in a position to launch them next year. Let alone in the 30 days provided by Chile’s last proposal for a Security Council resolution. A unified world has kept Saddam from gaining nuclear weapons for over a decade. There’s no reason for that to change.

Despite my opposition to Bush’s war, I hope that it is very successful. Now that the die is cast, I hope that the war ends in a matter of weeks and not months. I care about the lives of US soldiers; I don’t want a long, messy war and I will not hope for one. I think we’ll get a pretty messy war, but I very much hope I’m wrong.

I also hope that those who think Saddam is a real and immediate danger are proven wrong. If Saddam is an immediate threat, Bush’s speech should be quickly followed by devastating terrorist attacks. I don’t think that will happen; by the logic of their positions, many do. I hope they share my desire to be proven wrong.

And there it is.

Two very important speeches were delivered today. One was delivered to the people of the United States; one was delivered to Britain’s House of Commons. I’m glad I had the chance to watch both of them.

President Bush made what we must now consider the definitive Administration case for war on Iraq. Robin Cook made what I consider to be the definitive case against. (I have not found a transcript of the latter, but there is a RealVideo archive.)

I want to encourage everyone to watch or read both. Cook’s speech is a textbook example of how to disagree with governmental policy without being unpatriotic. Bush’s speech, considered objectively, was probably the strongest he has ever made. I suspect most reading this will have read the Bush speech by now; take the time to watch Cook, too.

Edit: trimmed down Cook transcript; Bush transcript. The Cook transcript removed some of the interesting bits, so you should still watch the RealVideo.