Replies to post #389 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[Zeev Hed]

Goodluck, a little correction, in international law, the closing of an international waterway (Suez canal, Sharam al Shekh) is a legitimate casus belli .1956 was preceded by closing the canal to Israeli ships (the fact that the then weak Israel cooperated with the imperialist French and Britons is probably the only fault). 1967, was preceded, once more by a blockade on sea lanes, as well as the removal of the UN buffer forces from the Sinai, also a casus belli. Yes, the actual opening of the massive warfare was a military preemptive strike in both cases, but the war was started by Egypt, in both cases creating bellicose facts in the field. If memory serves, in 1967, a ship was sent to try and break the blockade, and when it was fired on it withdrew, that was the act of war fully justifying the following actions. The only true "preemptive action" was bombing of the Iraqi nuclear facilities, but legally, Iraq never signed an armistice with Israel, so all this time there is still a state of active war between them, including the lobbing by Iraq of tens of scud missiles on Israel during the gulf conflict.

Zeev

[brightness]

I'm sorry to say that you have missed every point of mine:

1. Like I stated before, Israel was fully justified in taking the military actions when it did. Saddam Hussein has been sabre rattling calling an end to both Israel and Kuwait as a state non-stop for years; his attempt to assassinate Bush Sr. was casus belli by itself; his continued violation of cease fire agreement reached in 1991 renders him legally liable to enforcement. The military action would be "pre-emptive" only in the sense that the enemy had not corssed border or declared war yet, just like the Arabs had not invaded Israel yet (except Yum Kippur of 1973), but Israel then and US now are fully justified to military actions, whether you call that pre-emptive or not.

2. Here you are missing my point completely. The distinction between Sheriff and Bandit is the simple fact that Sheriff is more powerful; just ask Wyatt Earp. If Saddam Hussein were the most powerful military entity in the world, he would be perfectly entitled to enforce his version of law anyway he wants; but since the reality is that he is not, any attempt to challenge the existing and effective authority is wanton disruption of peace and waste of time, human lives and property.

3. Is there any doubt that the Iraqi military will be quickly vanquished in a clash with that of the US? So the dictator's fighting advantage is already besides the point; the issue is how docile the population will be to a foreign occupation; the answer I surmise you know well according to Machiaville. We do need to transform Iraq into a democracy during our occupation, so that they will never put up with another dangerous dictatorship like Saddam again.

4. The decision not to march to Baghadad was based on the assumption that Saddam, like any other dictator with keen self-preservation instinct, would give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons once chastised, and make peace and find his appropriate place in maintaining peace in the Gulf region.. Apparently he has proved himself otherwise.

5. Notice I was comparing the style in which the US run the world vs. the Caliphates and Ottoman used to. When the US was fighting native Americans, while not exactly a sanguine page in our history, the US was still a small potato with little significance on the world stage. The US became a power to reckon with only during and after WWI. If you think relauctance by a minority to give blacks the voting rights was bad, you should really take a look at what Caliphates did to sub-sahara africa. The muslims were raiding and kidnapping blacks into slavery long before the Europeans had the wherewitheral to set foot in sub-sahara. The Caliphates were extremely cruel and ruthless towards their foreign subjects when they controlled the center of the known world (that is not to say, the Crusaders of the time were any better).

6. Actually my theory would have led to a conclusion exactly opposite to Max Webers. So long as the Royal Navy was still interested, active and effective in enforcing existing international law and global power structure, it did not make any sense for the German nation to build any ocean going fleet; instead Germany should have played the role of stabilization on the continent on behalf of Britain like it always had done. The Anglo-German cooperation were quite profitable for both up till Welheim and Tirpitz decided to challenge the Royal Navy by buiding a fleet of their own. The situation was rather similar to Saddam building a nuclear weapon, a vainity device that brings the builder war and destruction instead of peace and deterrence. I agree with you that great power should be exercised judiciously; however, the case of Iraq represent the best case for proving that institutions are not toothless.