October 15, 2002

I've been slumming over at WarbloggerWatch

I've been slumming over at WarbloggerWatch and I ran across the most amusing piece by Philip Shropshire. In it, he challenges warbloggers to send him on an all expense paid trip to Iraq. This is apparently an extension of the tired "chickenhawk" argument, where the extreme left criticizes anybody who supports a war against Iraq if they aren't currently enlisted in the armed forces. He "proves" his own validity by volunteering to go to Iraq, buth then insists on so many restrictions and provision to ensure that nobody takes him seriously. The whole exchange reminds me of Usenet flamewars, where one idiot threatens another idiot with an ass whipping, even though they may be separated by 1000 miles. Easy to brag when you know the chances are good you won't get called on to put up or shut up.

The hilarity really gets going with this bit:

It takes a certain amount of wealth to be a rebel. The upper middle class people who threw their planes into buildings didn’t think like Americans. True, they had wealth and privilege but they didn’t think of themselves as rich because, unlike Americans—the bestest greatest keenest group of folks in the world who wouldn’t dream of killing 1 or 2 million peasants in Guatemala or East Timor—they probably thought I’m not rich unless my people are rich.

Yep, the Sauds are known throughout the world for their generousity. The Royal Family is dedicated to ensuring that their vast wealth is distributed equitably among their people. Of course, the gap between the rich and poor in Saudi Arabia is approximately 100 times the gap in the US, but who's counting? Besides, it's the US's fault that the gap is so wide; after all, we keep insisting on giving the Saudi princes more oil money. The princes just can't give it away fast enough. So, in a remarkable generous move, they spend it all on cars, and palaces, and limos, and trips, distributing that wealth the best way they can. Sadly, most of what they purchase comes from outside the country, so the peasants really don't feel the benefit of this income redistribution, but I'm sure they appreciate the gesture. What wonderful people these wealthy rebels are!

Not content with this howler, Philip continues:

Let's assume for a moment that our country is run by oilman and let us assume that maybe they've concluded that the biggest threat to their Crack-like oil supply is not the Arab countries, but a country that has over 400 nuclear weapons. Now, Sharon has said that he'll retaliate if Saddam attacks Israel with germ warfare. I'm making the assumption that Sharon means nuclear weapons. But what if the US doesn't let him? What if they decide to attack Israel preemptively in order to protect the oil supply?

So Philip finds it conceivable that the US would launch a pre-emptive strike against Israel, to prevent them from launching a counter strike against Iraq, which would attack Israel in response to a pre-emptive strike from the US. I haven't laughed that hard since the first time I heard Abbott and Costello perform "Who's on First?"

Philip continues with this bit of fluff:

I just don't think that force creates longterm peace or stability...

Define "long term peace and stability," Philip, then tell us how disputes may be settled without the application of force.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Force, or the threat of force is the ultimate arbiter of all disputes. It ranges from a parent withholding privileges from a naughty child all the way to full scale war. Even diplomacy is the application of force, albeit implicitly rather than directly.

Peace is not the natural state of man, as any student of human history, or biology for that matter, can tell you. Coexistence involves a balance of power, and that balance is constantly shifting. Every group seeks an advantage, utilizing all available resources to get ahead. Groups which do not do so quickly fall behind, and die out. This is a natural consequence of the evolutionary process, and man is the ultimate result (so far) of this process. To expect the species to abandon the strategy which has proven so successful is like a child wishing for the moon. It ain't gonna happen. And if by some strange chance it does happen, then it will be another species' time to go for the gold. ( My bet would be on dogs. They aren't all that smart, but their evolutionary path has mimicked that of man. No other species of animal has adapted to such a wide range of environments while maintain species integrity.) What pacifists call peace is a temporary condition when all interacting forces are at equilibrium, and the system is at rest. This is also known as stagnation. Not a good thing, evolutioanally speaking. Fortunately, the real definition of peace has more in common with Ambrose Bierce's definition:

In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting.

In other words, the game continues, we just put our guns under the table for awhile. However, all diplomacy is bolstered b those guns, even when they are under the table. Come to the game unarmed, and you are guaranteed to walk out a loser.

Philip finishes up with a little gratuitous name calling, but we'll let that slide.

Posted by Rich at October 15, 2002 6:33 AM