deanpence

Imaginary Pundit

What is your position on the war?

You’ll have to be more specific.

Is this a just war?

Short answer: Yes.

Despite a century of abominable foreign policy and an increasing statist agenda among both major political parties—an agenda that includes the idea that government is the cure for some or all of the ills of society—America is still the freest nation on earth.

Saddam and his Ba’athist state, on the other hand, make up a domineering and tyrannical regime—one based on suppression of dissent, absolute control by an elite class, and the megalomaniacal and delusional person of Saddam Hussein—a regime that tramples on all the rights of the Iraqi people; they exist by Saddam’s “grace” and whim.

It is in this and only this light that I will judge whether America and its coalition are justified in toppling the Iraqi state. Whether Iraq has WMD, whether Iraq is a direct threat to the United States, whether Bush justified his war sufficiently—those are all other questions.

For a free nation to depose a tyrant is always and forever just.

Isn’t the goal of this war disarmament?

Okay, now we’re into other territory.

I personally can’t see any other way to disarm a tyrant who refuses to abide by the rational demands of the world not to manufacture, possess, or use weapons whose only function is mass and painful death. One shows no tolerance for such nonsense. One deposes such a fool. One trounces his regime and shows the world that one won’t tolerate such belligerence.

If Bush and his administration had decided to disarm him by force but not remove him from power, I would find myself seriously skeptical concerning their motivations.

Is removing Saddam from power worth defying the United Nations?

At risk of sounding like a schizophrenic Republican Bush-loyalist and right-wing idealogue, the United States does not answer to the United Nations. The American government answers to American constitutional law first and foremost—including the social ethics that implies—and secondarily to the American citizen who has the means of removing disagreeable officials from office. And finally, the American government answers to those with whom and to the extent which it has diplomatic agreements.

This is a hierarchy of responsibility. The government’s first job—well, only job if you ask me, but what do I know?—is to protect the rights of its citizens. All other responsibilities must be weighed against this most important one. America’s diplomatic responsibilities to a trumped-up international watch dog are subordinate to this primary one.

So how does liberating Iraq factor into protecting the rights of Americans?

In no other way than liberating China or North Korea or Iran or Cuba does. Oppression and coercion anywhere are a threat to everyone’s rights. As long as anyone’s rights are not recognized, mine are not secure. As long as Saddam (and any other oppressive government) is in power, your rights and mine are threatened. This should be clear after World War II.

All that being said, I think that the administration did a horrendous job of justifying this war to the UN and to American citizens.

It seems that, just as his father did before the first Gulf War, Bush flip-flopped from reason to reason for this war, making all those reasons sound like weak rationalizations meant to cover up some covert motivation.

If the war was about disarmament, where was the proof that Iraq had WMD? I saw a few inconclusive satellite images and little else.

If it was about liberation, was it worth it for America to liberate Iraq in particular—now—and what about other tyrants with weapons like North Korea? Why Iraq and not them too?

If it was about oil, what was our interest in Iraqi oil in particular next to American and South American oil?

If it was about Saddam’s connections to terrorism, where was the proof that he was aiding terrorists—besides, of course, the fact that he sent checks to the families of suicide bombing cowards in Palestine—or that he has plans to attack US interests?

None of these questions were answered to a sufficient degree, and I can hardly blame some of the countries in the UN for disapproving of the US’s war proposals.

The proof is out there, though, and it’s not difficult to find. I myself have become convinced that Hussein’s regime had direct links to terrorist groups, and I am relatively sure that it has WMD. But I found this proof through the media—PBS in particular of all places. Why didn’t Bush provide it? He should have known that he could not expect the faith of his people. He is not a god or a theocrat. “Believe it because I say so” just doesn’t fly. They may well have had overwhelming proof but couldn’t make it public for the risk of compromising sources—but that doesn’t burden me with the responsibility of turning off my critical thinking faculties. I have to judge based on what I know.

If it does turn out that Bush was right, and he knew it then, it was certainly worth it to defy the UN. But I do wish Bush would have lost his flair for the dramatic in playing the lone, noble soldier—and that he had been more consistent in his argument.

What do you think of the protesters?

Well, it is certainly everyone’s right to protest—to voice dissent—given the proper context.

What do you mean by “the proper context”?

I mean that one may certainly fill his own lawn with protest signs; one may obtain permission to protest on someone else’s property; and the government certainly must give permission for one to protest on public and unsecured property—all this providing that such protest is not done at anyone’s expense. Sabotage or blocking traffic or other expense to others is unacceptable. The right to free speech does not trump the right to own property. And it most certainly does not trump the fundamental social principle that one should never do anything at another’s expense.

Did you protest the war?

No, but I thought about it. I’m glad I didn’t now. I would hate to have done it and then see my principles clouded and mixed with the sorts of people who think that tyrants don’t matter, that war is morally unacceptable under any circumstance, that “capitalist imperialism” is the root of all evil and communism would really work if we weren’t all so damned evil. Even worse would be to have my ideas mixed up with those whose only agenda is to oppose and undermine the administration with no respect for the truth.

I’m not saying all protesters out there believe or do these things, but there certainly are a lot of them.

How is the administration handling the war?

As much as I detest Bush, I like that he doesn’t micromanage the military. Rummy [Donald Rumsfeld], on the other hand—Christ. What an ass. And he’s almost as robotic as Gore when reading remarks.

Of course you’re seeing all sorts of political posturing by both sides of the aisle, but I’m cynical enough to expect it.

What do you think should happen when the fighting stops?

First, find our POWs, and either kill or prosecute those who’ve murdered and/or tortured them.

As for Iraq, I don’t really know about particulars. I’d just like to see Iraqis governed by their own consent, really. That’s the best I can hope for.

Do you think this war has intensified the Arab world’s hatred for America?

For some, yes. For those evil sons-of-bitches like Bin Laden, I hope so. I invite and expect the hatred of the evil.

For others, especially those who haven’t been taken in by the inane concept of the utopian Muslim government and also don’t reject classical liberalism, I think they’ll see, in the long run, that the US and its coalition did Iraq a huge favor.

Will you vote for Bush in 2004?

Absolutely not. Whatever the outcome of this war, I’m still an independent libertarian, and I’ll continue to vote by my principles.