My Talking Points - prompted by a post on Amy's blog
My take has always been that if the Iraq War was unjust, then the Gulf War was unjust because the Iraq war was a continuation caused by ceasefire violations. If the Iraq War began two months instead of ten years after Hussein began violations fewer would've a problem with it. The time lag bothered most even though, ironically, that time (coupled with economic sanctions) was given to Hussein in order to help avoid war.
Ignoring the ceasefire agreement was certainly a viable option, at the risk of rendering future ceasefires meaningless and thus encouraging other rogue states. Not to mention encouraging Hussein himself. One has to measure that price against the dear price of engagement.
So, is it worse to be unpredictable (in the sense of sometimes enforcing or hewing to agreements and sometimes not) or to be predictable (i.e. having the world know where we stand and how we'll react)? A Ryne Duren or a Greg Maddox?
I should read more on how World War I started. Was it that the major powers were too predictable or not predictable enough? My impression is that key countries had 'set points' which if triggered automatically sent them to war. Was it that the set points were far too trivial for what was to become an unimaginably brutal war? Or was it that their triggers for war weren't communicated or taken seriously?
I see I've asked too many questions to call this my "talking points".
No comments:
Post a Comment