DR. JACK'S TAKE ON WAR
I haven't seen one person besides George Bush and Tony Blair that wants to go to war with Iraq. And while that may mean that there is clear consensus and that Messrs. Bush and Blair are wacko, that may also mean that we’re all engaging in massive "groupthink." Christians, blacks, the media, college students . . .everywhere I turn, there is a sound denouncing of war with Iraq. Call me contrarian, but when everyone is shouting the same thing, I start to get skeptical.
Especially when the shouting has some serious flaws to it. If I were to believe the anti-war crowd (i.e. everybody), you'd think pro-war people were against peace; or that going to war with Iraq meant bombing innocent civilians, and that a better alternative would be to give food rations to those poor, starving Iraqis; or that if Bush and Saddam could just "get along," the world would be a better place. If I'm going to be on the side of these anti-war folks, I'd better have better arguments than those false ones to stand on.
Rather than being shouted into submission by the protesting masses, I'll let Dr. Jack help me decide on whether or not I think we should go to war with Iraq. Who's Dr. Jack? For you hoops buffs, Dr. Jack Ramsey is the former head coach of the Portland Trailblazers, who now writes a column for ESPN.com. His writing style is to analyze match-ups within each game. For example, let's compare the shooting guards head-to-head, or decide which team has the edge in intangibles, bench, or coaching.
So here's my best Dr. Jack impersonation on the proposed war on Iraq. For the purposes of this study, the following categories are in alphabetical order and will be given equal weight. The question here is: between war and waiting, which is the better option?
"Coalition of the willing"
The question here is, basically, is it wise for the US to go to war with Iraq without the support of the UN's Security Council? Here I must balance the importance of coalition-building with the need to do the right thing regardless of who else is with you. War is severe enough that you want to make sure you have some consensus worldwide. On the other hand, our modern world is full of overlapping alliances that may make it difficult for individual nations to publicly say, "I'm with you (US) and against them (Iraq)." Call me American in the worst way, but if I think something is the right thing to do, I will do it, no matter that no one is with me. EDGE: WAR
Domestic economy
There are two issues here: 1) Is war or waiting better for the economy? 2) Does the benefit of war justify the cost? For the past three years, we've been in a veritable freefall, from which no one has been immune. And yet it is in recessions that great leaders are made and great companies are formed. Quit waiting on the sidelines, people; war or no war, recession or no recession, let's go out and innovate! So I'll leave the short-term and long-term effect of a war with Iraq to the economists, and tackle Question #2. I lean a little more Republican than Democrat as far as whether the government or the private sector should be responsible for economic growth, but I disagree with most of Bush’s tax cuts. I just think it's irresponsible for a government to reduce its revenues and increase its expenses a la Reagan. I also think that most of Bush's tax plans sacrifice money later for money now; how convenient for him. It's hard to put a price on the benefits of war, but it’s also hard to justify shelling out $100-$200 billion on the military side when the government seems intent on making itself as small as possible on the domestic side. EDGE: WAIT.
Iraqi people
Military technology has gotten much "smarter" since the Scuds of Gulf War I. I don't envision many civilian casualties in the US's quest to get Saddam out. As for post-war work, this is where it gets tricky. Some Iraqi people would welcome US attackers as their liberators; others, fed by propaganda and starved by US sanctions, would curse them; and still others will stay awfully quiet, lest they be accused of treachery by either side. I agree with Bush that the Iraqi people have it in them to be as democratic as Germany and Japan, but I also think this situation, being mixed up with the mess that is the Middle East, will be much more complicated. Doesn't mean it’s not worth doing; it just means a longer and bigger commitment. And Bush is into big plans. Bottom line for the Iraqi people, as far as I'm concerned, is Saddam needs to go. And war is the quickest, most efficient way to do that. EDGE: WAR.
Middle East
Talk about tangled alliances. Oil, religion, and power all mixed up together, fueled by several centuries of hatred and "eye for eye" vengeance. Is there hope for peace in the Middle East? The world hates that we throw our weight around all over the world, and then decides that we're the only one that can mediate between two aggrieved parties. Again, Bush's think-big strategy works here: we're going to be involved in this part of the world, so why not think big? He loses points for the perception -- which I think is more false than true, but perception sometimes carries the day -- that this is a war against Islam. Nobody except the Great Negotiator himself, B. Clinton -- and even then, the peace accord kept violence away for all of eighteen months -- can expect more than a draw out of the situation in the Middle East. The difference with Iraq is that Saddam is a madman. He gots to go. EDGE: WAR.
Oil
Again, perception sometimes carries the day. Bush is too tight with the oil crowd to be free from accusations that this war is all about oil. Again, unfair: prices are high because of basic supply and demand. Supply is low because producers are keeping barrels off to the side, waiting for war. Demand is high because of an unusually cold winter in America and Europe. That makes for high prices. Will war with Iraq be a benefit to domestic oilmen? Maybe, but not enough to justify war. Still, Bush hasn't done enough to dispel the easy skepticism that he’s got oil on the brain as he thinks about Iraq. EDGE: WAIT.
"Preemptive strike"
Bush has softened here: when he first introduced the phrase a few months ago, he got into big trouble, and rightly so. Mostly because he opened a loophole for the North Koreas of the world to arm themselves, justifying it by saying they were protecting themselves from other "preemptive strikes." Since then, Bush has backpedaled, but some are still trying to slap this awful label on him. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn’t disarmament by force the logical consequence set up twelve years ago if Saddam didn’t disarm on his own? What else would be the consequence for Saddam not disarming, even further arming? "OK, Saddam, you broke the rules, and now . . . a slap on the wrist. You better not do this again!" As long as military efforts are surgical and targeted, I don't see any "preemptive strike" here. EDGE: WAR.
Saddam Hussein
Is he evil enough to justify a costly and bloody war? My opinion of yes is tempered by the fact that 1) no world leader is without his or her flaws, 2) media reports of brutality are hard to verify, and 3) just because someone looks and rules different from us doesn't make them wrong. Nevertheless, I think the inspectors would even admit that this guy is not to be trusted. As open and shut as this category might seem, I struggled with it. I think of the difference between Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. Martin lived a life of non-violence, arguing (correctly, I believe) that to use violence against violence would only justify violence, and that therefore violence must be met with peaceful resistance. Malcolm, who represented the poor urban Northern black to Martin’s middle-class rural Southern black, thought such a policy was ridiculous. If a man's house is on fire, Malcolm argued, should he be calm and peaceful? Malcolm resonated with a disenfranchised and put-down poor black community. Back to Saddam. Everybody wants peace. But what if threats to peace refuse to play by the rules of peace? Everything about Saddam's track record indicates that the more we give him room to play by the rules, the more deceitful and evil he is. I personally think his time is up. EDGE: WAR.
US image worldwide
This is a sensitive one for me, because I'm proud to be an American, and yet I am often ashamed of the hubris by which we throw ourselves around in the world. If we are the most powerful nation in the world (and we are), we need not be ashamed to say so and act so. But we must not then decide that everything revolves around us, has to go through us, and must go according to our wishes. Power, in Christian terms, is to be secured and exercised with an attitude of humility, servanthood, and edification. I don't think this is incompatible with T. Roosevelt’s famous adage, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Is the US the policeman of the world? I think it would be irresponsibile, given our power, wealth, and prestige to not play such a role. Those that oppose the US’s war on Iraq because they feel the need to check against an American Juggernaut (ahem, France) have every right to think that, but ultimately the world needs a policeman who will defend freedom. If the US can do so without over-extending its national ego and budget, I'm for that. But the perception that says otherwise is held by too many countries, and is backed up by too many US mistakes, for me to be too optimistic. EDGE: WAIT.
War on terrorism
Some are afraid that announcing war on Iraq will launch more terrorist attacks on home soil. I think otherwise. Al Qaeda et al take years to formulate attacks. If they were ready now, they would have acted already; if they are not ready, all they need is more time and the attitude that the world takes its time punishing terrorist nations. Besides, I think the Iraq/Osama connection is overplayed. They hate each other ideologically too much to join forces simply to vanquish a common enemy. Will war in Iraq distract us from other fronts, like Al Qaeda or North Korea? Put it this way: if you’re surrounded by bullies, attacking one of them isn’t a great solution. But neither is sitting around in the middle of them. Nobody wins in a terrorist-filled world. EDGE: PUSH.
So there you have it: War 5, Waiting 3, with 1 tie. Feel free to disagree. In fact, please tell me I'm wrong.
I haven't seen one person besides George Bush and Tony Blair that wants to go to war with Iraq. And while that may mean that there is clear consensus and that Messrs. Bush and Blair are wacko, that may also mean that we’re all engaging in massive "groupthink." Christians, blacks, the media, college students . . .everywhere I turn, there is a sound denouncing of war with Iraq. Call me contrarian, but when everyone is shouting the same thing, I start to get skeptical.
Especially when the shouting has some serious flaws to it. If I were to believe the anti-war crowd (i.e. everybody), you'd think pro-war people were against peace; or that going to war with Iraq meant bombing innocent civilians, and that a better alternative would be to give food rations to those poor, starving Iraqis; or that if Bush and Saddam could just "get along," the world would be a better place. If I'm going to be on the side of these anti-war folks, I'd better have better arguments than those false ones to stand on.
Rather than being shouted into submission by the protesting masses, I'll let Dr. Jack help me decide on whether or not I think we should go to war with Iraq. Who's Dr. Jack? For you hoops buffs, Dr. Jack Ramsey is the former head coach of the Portland Trailblazers, who now writes a column for ESPN.com. His writing style is to analyze match-ups within each game. For example, let's compare the shooting guards head-to-head, or decide which team has the edge in intangibles, bench, or coaching.
So here's my best Dr. Jack impersonation on the proposed war on Iraq. For the purposes of this study, the following categories are in alphabetical order and will be given equal weight. The question here is: between war and waiting, which is the better option?
"Coalition of the willing"
The question here is, basically, is it wise for the US to go to war with Iraq without the support of the UN's Security Council? Here I must balance the importance of coalition-building with the need to do the right thing regardless of who else is with you. War is severe enough that you want to make sure you have some consensus worldwide. On the other hand, our modern world is full of overlapping alliances that may make it difficult for individual nations to publicly say, "I'm with you (US) and against them (Iraq)." Call me American in the worst way, but if I think something is the right thing to do, I will do it, no matter that no one is with me. EDGE: WAR
Domestic economy
There are two issues here: 1) Is war or waiting better for the economy? 2) Does the benefit of war justify the cost? For the past three years, we've been in a veritable freefall, from which no one has been immune. And yet it is in recessions that great leaders are made and great companies are formed. Quit waiting on the sidelines, people; war or no war, recession or no recession, let's go out and innovate! So I'll leave the short-term and long-term effect of a war with Iraq to the economists, and tackle Question #2. I lean a little more Republican than Democrat as far as whether the government or the private sector should be responsible for economic growth, but I disagree with most of Bush’s tax cuts. I just think it's irresponsible for a government to reduce its revenues and increase its expenses a la Reagan. I also think that most of Bush's tax plans sacrifice money later for money now; how convenient for him. It's hard to put a price on the benefits of war, but it’s also hard to justify shelling out $100-$200 billion on the military side when the government seems intent on making itself as small as possible on the domestic side. EDGE: WAIT.
Iraqi people
Military technology has gotten much "smarter" since the Scuds of Gulf War I. I don't envision many civilian casualties in the US's quest to get Saddam out. As for post-war work, this is where it gets tricky. Some Iraqi people would welcome US attackers as their liberators; others, fed by propaganda and starved by US sanctions, would curse them; and still others will stay awfully quiet, lest they be accused of treachery by either side. I agree with Bush that the Iraqi people have it in them to be as democratic as Germany and Japan, but I also think this situation, being mixed up with the mess that is the Middle East, will be much more complicated. Doesn't mean it’s not worth doing; it just means a longer and bigger commitment. And Bush is into big plans. Bottom line for the Iraqi people, as far as I'm concerned, is Saddam needs to go. And war is the quickest, most efficient way to do that. EDGE: WAR.
Middle East
Talk about tangled alliances. Oil, religion, and power all mixed up together, fueled by several centuries of hatred and "eye for eye" vengeance. Is there hope for peace in the Middle East? The world hates that we throw our weight around all over the world, and then decides that we're the only one that can mediate between two aggrieved parties. Again, Bush's think-big strategy works here: we're going to be involved in this part of the world, so why not think big? He loses points for the perception -- which I think is more false than true, but perception sometimes carries the day -- that this is a war against Islam. Nobody except the Great Negotiator himself, B. Clinton -- and even then, the peace accord kept violence away for all of eighteen months -- can expect more than a draw out of the situation in the Middle East. The difference with Iraq is that Saddam is a madman. He gots to go. EDGE: WAR.
Oil
Again, perception sometimes carries the day. Bush is too tight with the oil crowd to be free from accusations that this war is all about oil. Again, unfair: prices are high because of basic supply and demand. Supply is low because producers are keeping barrels off to the side, waiting for war. Demand is high because of an unusually cold winter in America and Europe. That makes for high prices. Will war with Iraq be a benefit to domestic oilmen? Maybe, but not enough to justify war. Still, Bush hasn't done enough to dispel the easy skepticism that he’s got oil on the brain as he thinks about Iraq. EDGE: WAIT.
"Preemptive strike"
Bush has softened here: when he first introduced the phrase a few months ago, he got into big trouble, and rightly so. Mostly because he opened a loophole for the North Koreas of the world to arm themselves, justifying it by saying they were protecting themselves from other "preemptive strikes." Since then, Bush has backpedaled, but some are still trying to slap this awful label on him. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn’t disarmament by force the logical consequence set up twelve years ago if Saddam didn’t disarm on his own? What else would be the consequence for Saddam not disarming, even further arming? "OK, Saddam, you broke the rules, and now . . . a slap on the wrist. You better not do this again!" As long as military efforts are surgical and targeted, I don't see any "preemptive strike" here. EDGE: WAR.
Saddam Hussein
Is he evil enough to justify a costly and bloody war? My opinion of yes is tempered by the fact that 1) no world leader is without his or her flaws, 2) media reports of brutality are hard to verify, and 3) just because someone looks and rules different from us doesn't make them wrong. Nevertheless, I think the inspectors would even admit that this guy is not to be trusted. As open and shut as this category might seem, I struggled with it. I think of the difference between Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. Martin lived a life of non-violence, arguing (correctly, I believe) that to use violence against violence would only justify violence, and that therefore violence must be met with peaceful resistance. Malcolm, who represented the poor urban Northern black to Martin’s middle-class rural Southern black, thought such a policy was ridiculous. If a man's house is on fire, Malcolm argued, should he be calm and peaceful? Malcolm resonated with a disenfranchised and put-down poor black community. Back to Saddam. Everybody wants peace. But what if threats to peace refuse to play by the rules of peace? Everything about Saddam's track record indicates that the more we give him room to play by the rules, the more deceitful and evil he is. I personally think his time is up. EDGE: WAR.
US image worldwide
This is a sensitive one for me, because I'm proud to be an American, and yet I am often ashamed of the hubris by which we throw ourselves around in the world. If we are the most powerful nation in the world (and we are), we need not be ashamed to say so and act so. But we must not then decide that everything revolves around us, has to go through us, and must go according to our wishes. Power, in Christian terms, is to be secured and exercised with an attitude of humility, servanthood, and edification. I don't think this is incompatible with T. Roosevelt’s famous adage, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Is the US the policeman of the world? I think it would be irresponsibile, given our power, wealth, and prestige to not play such a role. Those that oppose the US’s war on Iraq because they feel the need to check against an American Juggernaut (ahem, France) have every right to think that, but ultimately the world needs a policeman who will defend freedom. If the US can do so without over-extending its national ego and budget, I'm for that. But the perception that says otherwise is held by too many countries, and is backed up by too many US mistakes, for me to be too optimistic. EDGE: WAIT.
War on terrorism
Some are afraid that announcing war on Iraq will launch more terrorist attacks on home soil. I think otherwise. Al Qaeda et al take years to formulate attacks. If they were ready now, they would have acted already; if they are not ready, all they need is more time and the attitude that the world takes its time punishing terrorist nations. Besides, I think the Iraq/Osama connection is overplayed. They hate each other ideologically too much to join forces simply to vanquish a common enemy. Will war in Iraq distract us from other fronts, like Al Qaeda or North Korea? Put it this way: if you’re surrounded by bullies, attacking one of them isn’t a great solution. But neither is sitting around in the middle of them. Nobody wins in a terrorist-filled world. EDGE: PUSH.
So there you have it: War 5, Waiting 3, with 1 tie. Feel free to disagree. In fact, please tell me I'm wrong.
Comments