prototype

So, the U.S. elected to attack Iraq, starting yesterday. Some Washingtonian today was making some really, really great magnanimous statements on NPR--talking about how awesome and powerful our aerial assault would be, and how it was really "up to the Iraqi people" to determine how long they'd suffer the bombardment before deposing their leader. Oh, I see! By dint of our powerful military, we have the right to force other nations to change their government! It's all so simple when Washington is in charge.

Here: I agree that Hussein is evil, that he poses a threat to everybody. But he has never been proven to support al-Quaeda, nor would he use Weapons of Mass Destruction pre-emptively against the U.S.--not unless he wanted to face a coalition of powers that would have no choice but to support a U.S.-led invasion. I'll also concede that pre-emptive action is in large part warranted by Hussein's record of atrocities, as well as by the nature of geo-political conflict in the world today. Taking out people like Hussein before they have time to do something horrendous is a good idea. But alienating the rest of the world in the process is a bad idea. The arrogance noted above, that's part of the alienation. The assertion that you can bomb a nation into taking political action, and that you are ever justified in doing so, is morally reprehensible. If you think it isn't simply because it's the United States that's doing the bombing, you're displaying exactly the attitude that much of the world finds so unattractive. How is it just for Bush to protect innocent Americans by harming innocent Iraqis?

I agree with the principle of the war, but not with its execution.