03-19-2003, 04:23 PM
For your sincerity and candor.
A few comments on the contents of your post.
1. The battle of champions method went down the tubes somewhere around . . . the time of . . . David and Golliath, perhaps? :) Mayhap later. I would rather see Saddam and Pres Bush boxing than Tonja Harding and whoever, in the ring, and for that matter, more than Mike Tyson, since he is no longer the Great Iron Mike that he could be again with more self discipline. Suffice to say that is not how such issues are resolved.
2. We, humankind as a whole, have not yet outgrown The State. The Nation. We may, in time, and perhaps in time the UN will evolve into what is both a SuperState and a NonState that will make States themselves less relevant. One can dream, I suppose.
3. In the meantime, however, those who lead states make decisions based on their perception of predicted future events, and what action they should take to either facilitate them, or prevent them, based on their predictions. Prediction is an inexact science, so no national leader gets it right 100% of the time. I think that most do their best, even Prime Minister Chirac, who has lately come in for some real grief on my side of the pond.
Inaction in the face of uncertainty is an option, but it is a decision to choose to do nothing and hope everything works out. I would suggest that one of the motivations behind the current declaration of imminent hostilities is that the past 12 years of UN action has boiled down to inaction, insofar as getting the desired results, so another action aimed at such results is being tried.
Many the world over prefer 'inaction.' They are afraid of risk, and of people who take risks. Such a mindset is antithetical to leadership, as it is understood in some circles anyway, and thus will rarely be chosen when other signs show a need to act. Whether force is the only course of action left is going to be a matter of opinion for a very long time.
War, the application of force by a State, is an option of any Sovreign State, and boils down to a contest of wills applied by physical means, as well as other less grisly means. (Note that no nation forfeits Soverign status to join the UN, and the condition of Sovreignty is the aim of many non-states at present. Sovreignty is very much alive and well in the world, and is indeed intended to be protected under the UN Charter.)
The 48 hour window was an interesting warning, and I wonder how much work various Arab leaders and diplomats could accomplish in that time frame to change what appears to be an inevitable blood letting, one whose extent will be unknown until it starts. I remark upon the Arab leadership because it is their local area where things are happening, and they will have to live with the long term outcomes, just as they did in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1980, 1982, 1991 . . . and so on.
No one embarks upon a war with the intention of losing it, so neither Saddam nor Pres Bush intends to fail. The question is, what is the long term aim of each, and do they both understand the other fully?
Embarking on war, even with competent forces, is to embrace the Laws of Chance: just ask Mr. Milosevic about things not working out as he expected.
Thanks again for your post, and for breaking "Lurk Mode." And I pray that you have erred in your assessment of how long this will take, but that too is a matter that is in the realm of Chance, since
No plan survives contact intact. (From Murphy's Laws of Combat)
I
A few comments on the contents of your post.
1. The battle of champions method went down the tubes somewhere around . . . the time of . . . David and Golliath, perhaps? :) Mayhap later. I would rather see Saddam and Pres Bush boxing than Tonja Harding and whoever, in the ring, and for that matter, more than Mike Tyson, since he is no longer the Great Iron Mike that he could be again with more self discipline. Suffice to say that is not how such issues are resolved.
2. We, humankind as a whole, have not yet outgrown The State. The Nation. We may, in time, and perhaps in time the UN will evolve into what is both a SuperState and a NonState that will make States themselves less relevant. One can dream, I suppose.
3. In the meantime, however, those who lead states make decisions based on their perception of predicted future events, and what action they should take to either facilitate them, or prevent them, based on their predictions. Prediction is an inexact science, so no national leader gets it right 100% of the time. I think that most do their best, even Prime Minister Chirac, who has lately come in for some real grief on my side of the pond.
Inaction in the face of uncertainty is an option, but it is a decision to choose to do nothing and hope everything works out. I would suggest that one of the motivations behind the current declaration of imminent hostilities is that the past 12 years of UN action has boiled down to inaction, insofar as getting the desired results, so another action aimed at such results is being tried.
Many the world over prefer 'inaction.' They are afraid of risk, and of people who take risks. Such a mindset is antithetical to leadership, as it is understood in some circles anyway, and thus will rarely be chosen when other signs show a need to act. Whether force is the only course of action left is going to be a matter of opinion for a very long time.
War, the application of force by a State, is an option of any Sovreign State, and boils down to a contest of wills applied by physical means, as well as other less grisly means. (Note that no nation forfeits Soverign status to join the UN, and the condition of Sovreignty is the aim of many non-states at present. Sovreignty is very much alive and well in the world, and is indeed intended to be protected under the UN Charter.)
The 48 hour window was an interesting warning, and I wonder how much work various Arab leaders and diplomats could accomplish in that time frame to change what appears to be an inevitable blood letting, one whose extent will be unknown until it starts. I remark upon the Arab leadership because it is their local area where things are happening, and they will have to live with the long term outcomes, just as they did in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1980, 1982, 1991 . . . and so on.
No one embarks upon a war with the intention of losing it, so neither Saddam nor Pres Bush intends to fail. The question is, what is the long term aim of each, and do they both understand the other fully?
Embarking on war, even with competent forces, is to embrace the Laws of Chance: just ask Mr. Milosevic about things not working out as he expected.
Thanks again for your post, and for breaking "Lurk Mode." And I pray that you have erred in your assessment of how long this will take, but that too is a matter that is in the realm of Chance, since
No plan survives contact intact. (From Murphy's Laws of Combat)
I
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete