March 10, 2003

HORSEFEATHERS’ SOUND THINKER AWARD GOES TO PROFESSOR BOBBITT

HE TELLS US THE RIGHT WAY TO THINK ABOUT WRONG IDEAS

Congratulations to Professor Philip Bobbitt, a Professor of Law at the University of Texas, he has the right idea about wrong ideas. Writing in today’s New York Times’ Op-Ed page, he takes up the common arguments against the Iraq war which go something like this: ‘What’s the hurry? Aren’t we better off now than we would be if we invaded immediately? We would surely have many casualties, and provoke many terrorist attacks against us. So why not just maintain the status quo? Keep the inspectors inspecting and keep him contained, bottled up?’

Professor Bobbitt says that that argument is fallacious; you can’t compare the conditions of the present with a future possibility because time never stands still. The only meaningful question to ask is: Will we be better off in the future if we invade Iraq or if we do not invade?

“Those who believe that the status quo can be indefinitely extended through inspections, then, have an obligation to tell us how the inspectors would prevent Saddam Hussein from buying a weapon from, say, North Korea — which would be a rather dramatic change in the status quo.

“Supporters of an indefinite inspectors' presence focus on large weapons like missile launchers that they say we will be able to detect. (Although Secretary of State Colin Powell's masterful presentation to the Security Council last month, and our experience hunting for Scuds in the Persian Gulf war, lead one to question that assumption.)

“Whether they admit it or not, those who favor containment are asking for an ever more expensive United States armed presence in the region, as well as perpetual sanctions that crush innocent Iraqis even further. This is because without troops on his borders, Saddam Hussein would not admit inspectors, and without the sanctions he could quickly replace whatever outlawed weapons we are lucky enough to find and destroy.

“It is also misguided to believe that the threat of our overwhelming military force is enough to deter Saddam Hussein from aggression indefinitely. Were Iraq to get weapons of mass destruction, it would be able to deter us from interfering in any plans it had to broaden its control in the Persian Gulf region. Saddam Hussein's ambition to impose his will on his neighbors is the only reason he has resisted his obligations to the United Nations for 12 years, at great cost to Iraq.

“I recognize that we are running a terrible risk if we put Saddam Hussein's back against the wall. But unless we are willing to eventually grant him a free hand in the Persian Gulf, he is bound to act in a way that will put his back against the wall in the future — after he does acquire nuclear weapons. At that point, however, the United States would have a significantly diminished capacity to prevent his aggression. One certainly cannot imagine an operation like Desert Storm if Iraq were to acquire nuclear warheads and accurate missiles.”

That’s not the end of Professor Bobbitt’s argument so check it out. He is also the author of “The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace and the Course of History"