Jim Miller on Politics

Update:  Here's the Washington Post article on the terrorists, with one Marine's view of their tactics:

Maj. Gen. James N. Mattis, commander of the 1st Marine Division, expressed outrage at the tactics employed by Arab fighters and some of the Iraqi paramilitary members.  "They lack any kind of courage," he said.  "They literally hide behind women and children, holding them in their houses as they fire. . . . They really lack manhood. They're violating every sense of decency.  They're as worthless an example of men as we've ever fought.

I think he doesn't like them.

Power or Principle?  Matthew Parris, writing in the Times of London, made one of the best arguments against the war on Saddam, shortly before it started.  He has, since then, weakened his own case by a series of overwrought columns, including one that questioned Tony Blair's sanity.  In this latest column, he destroys it completely, lapsing into paranoia:

Today there is only one hegemon, the United States of America; but there is no less a need than existed during the Cold War for a wary defensiveness towards the appetite, the pretensions and the dreams of a great and unchallenged power.  If the US eagle is to be contained, collective action is needed by the smaller mammals.

This is a very old way of thinking, in which only power matters between nations.  Machiavelli thought that way, as did Metternich, Talleyrand, and Bismark.  Kissinger is often accused, with some justice, of having this view of the world.  For Parris, and those who take this view, the United States must be opposed, not because its actions are wrong, but because its power is "unchallenged".  Nations often act this way; as British historian A. J. P. Taylor wrote:

In the world of sovereign states, each does the best it can for its own interests; and can be criticized at most for mistakes, not for crimes.  Bismark, as usual was right when he said of the Austro-Prussian war in 1866:  "Austria was no more in the wrong in opposing our claims than we were in making them."  As a private citizen, I think that all this striving after greatness and domination is idiotic; and I would like my country not to take part in it. As a historian, I recognize that Powers will be Powers.  (Origins of the Second World War, 2nd edition, pp. 278-279)

That nations often act this way, only from motives of power, does not mean that they always act this way.  Nearly every nation sometimes acts on principle, and some nations often do.  The United States has acted on principle regularly through much of our history.  (Of course, within a few decades after independence, we were so secure that acting on principle came easier to us than to less fortunate nations.)  The suppression of the slave trade by the British navy is a powerful example of a nation acting on principle, and it is easy to find other examples.

Before turning to my general argument, let me note a point that should be obvious, but is not.   Nuclear weapons make many old balance of power arguments obsolete.  A nation with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles can not be coerced by other nations as it might have been before they were invented.  To be blunt, nuclear weapons can make any attempt at conquest so horrendously expensive as to not be worth while.

Now then, what about Parris's two main arguments, that the United States has "unchallenged" power, and that other nations, especially Britain, should combine to check the United States?

The first argument is obviously false, as the period before the war on Saddam showed.  Canada and Mexico, our two closest neighbors, refused to go along with us on the war.  Turkey, a long time ally located in a key position, refused to allow our troops passage just before the war, complicating our war plans greatly.  If we are "unchallenged", someone forgot to tell those three nations.  Nor is there any evidence that these three nations will suffer much from their break with us.  Trade disputes may take a bit longer to be resolved, and Turkey will receive a little less aid, but that's all.

There is nothing unique about the pre-war period.  It is easy to find other examples of nations defying our policies with little loss.  Some years ago, for instance, our former possession, the Phillippines, ordered us to leave our bases there.  We went.  (It was probably a good move for both nations, by the way.)  In the last election in South Korea, the winning candidate argued for a reduced dependence on the United States and closer ties with North Korea.  As soon as he was elected, we began planning for withdrawal of part of our forces.  Those with long memories will recall that De Gaulle ordered us and the rest of NATO out of France, and we went.  Far from being "unchallenged", the United States is easy to challenge, and it usually costs the challenger little.

Even if the United States had "unchallenged" power, would it be the right policy for Britain to combine with other nations against us?  That would depend, I think, on what policies we were pursuing.  Let me illustrate with a historical example, and a current one.  During our Civil War, Britain and France, from traditional ideas about power, toyed with the idea of intervening on the side of the Confederacy.  Many of their leaders wanted to weaken the United States so as to give their own nations more power.  After President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, making the war unquestionably about slavery, as well as other issues, Britain and France stopped serious consideration of the idea.

The current example is even more striking.  Since the 1960s, the nuclear powers have often cooperated to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons.  They have done so even though spreading these weapons would often be the easiest way to check the power of their rivals.  The Soviet Union did not provide Vietnam with nuclear weapons during the Vietnam war.  The United States has not armed Taiwan with nuclear weapons, even though that would almost guarantee Taiwan against an attack by China.  For all the bitter rivalry of the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union sometimes acted from principle, rather than power.

I said that Britain's stance toward us should depend on the policies we are pursuing.  Parris says little about the policies he would have Britain support, but it is easy to deduce what they would have to be from his choice of allies.  He mentions Germany, France, and Russia prominently, and adds China in another list.  If Britain were to align with those four nations, it would have to accept some of their policies.  Germany has not had much in the way of a foreign policy for many years, but they have made a practice of selling the tools for building chemical weapons to many disgusting nations, including Saddam's Iraq.  Does Parris want to accept that?  Like Germany, France has been willing to sell tools for building chemical weapons, and many conventional weapons, to some truly disgusting regimes.  France has also pursued a neo-colonial policy in Africa that has done much damage there.  Worst was their support for the Hutu forces that committed genocide in Rwanda, both before the genocide and after.  That policy has helped to destabilize central Africa and led to millions of deaths.  Does Parris feel comfortable with all those corpses?  Russia, of course, has been fighting an incompetent and brutal war against the Chechens, along with arming and supporting Saddam.  Are those policies Parris wishes to support?  China, of course, is still a totalitarian nation politically, with a history of brutal suppression of Chinese and non-Chinese within its borders.  If Parris prefers to ally with them, will he be silent about their policies toward religious minorities, including Muslims, Christians and Buddhists?

He might sign up for all of these brutal policies.  He already favors a dirty peace in Iraq, filled with horrors, thinking that might force the United States to change its ways.

(Parris mentions three policy areas in which the rest of the world might differ from the United States, and is wrong in his understanding of all three.  He claims that the United States might move away from free trade, although it has been moving toward it under every president for more than a half century.  President Bush made some early compromises, probably essential to get the "fast track" authority from Congress necessary for most negotiations, but has since pursued consistent free trade policies, far better than those of, for example, Chirac's France.   Parris complains about our lack of support for the Kyoto agreement, apparently not knowing that (1) it was rejected unanimously by the Senate before Bush even took office, and (2) it would not produce any significant improvement in the environment, though it would damage the American economy.   Parris complains about our unwillingness to agree to the International Criminal Court, not realizing or not caring that it is incompatible with our Constitution.  That the United States might be more in the right on these issues than his preferred allies, Germany, France, Russia, and China, does not seem to occur to him.)

Parris is not the only European to hold these view, to favor death and brutality for many outside Europe, if it means a check on American power.  This analysis of polls done in Europe finds that Europeans agree that Saddam is a brutal dictator and that removing him will improve the Middle East, but still oppose American action.

Of course, Europeans see the necessity and justness of our cause, but they strongly resent American military and economic power and wish to thwart and stymie it at every possible avenue.

Regardless of the effects on the Iraqi people and others in the Middle East.  Parris has much company in his willingness to sacrifice the interests and even lives of those outside Europe—as long as it means a check on American power.  The single minded pursuit of national power for its own sake often leads to that result.