In reference to a post last week about academic experts and the war (and pro-war liberal apologetics), I came across the following document (thanks samefacts):
>Advertisement in the New York Times
>Op-ed page
>9/25/02
>WAR WITH IRAQ IS NOT IN AMERICA’S NATIONAL INTEREST
>As scholars of international security affairs, we recognize that war is sometimes necessary to ensure our national security or other vital interests. We also recognize that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and that Iraq has defied a number of U.N. resolutions.
>But military force should be used only when it advances U.S. national interests. War with Iraq does not meet this standard:
>Saddam Hussein is a murderous despot, but no one has provided credible evidence that Iraq is cooperating with al Qaeda.
>Even if Saddam Hussein acquired nuclear weapons, he could not use them without suffering massive U.S. or Israeli retaliation.
>The first Bush Administration did not try to conquer Iraq in 1991 because it understood that doing so could spread instability in the Middle East, threatening U.S. interests. This remains a valid concern today.
>The United States would win a war against Iraq, but Iraq has military options–chemical and biological weapons, urban combat–that might impose significant costs on the invading forces and neighboring states.
>Even if we win easily, we have no plausible exit strategy. Iraq is a deeply divided society that the United States would have to occupy and police for many years to create a viable state.
>Al Qaeda poses a greater threat to the U.S. than does Iraq. War with Iraq will jeopardize the campaign against al Qaeda by diverting resources and attention from that campaign and by increasing anti-Americanism around the globe. The United States should maintain vigilant containment of Iraq – using its own assets and the resources of the United Nations – and be prepared to invade Iraq if it threatens to attack America or its allies. That is not the case today. We should concentrate instead on defeating al Qaeda.
>Roobert J. Art, Brandeis University
>Richard K. Betts, Columbia University
>Dale C. Copeland, University of Virginia
>Michael C. Desch, University of Kentucky
>Sumit Ganguly, University of Texas
>Charles L. Glaser, University of Chicago
>Alexander L. George, Stanford University
>Richard K. Herrmann, Ohio State University
>George C. Herring, University of Kentucky
>Robert Jervis, Columbia University
>Chaim Kaufmann, Lehigh University
>Carl Kaysen, MIT
>Elizabeth Kier, University of Washington
>Deborah Larson, UCLA
>Jack S. Levy, Rutgers University
>Peter Liberman, Queens College
>John J. Mearsheimer, University of Chicago
>Steven E. Miller, Harvard University
>Charles C. Moskos, Northwestern University
>Robert A. Pape, University of Chicago
>Barry R. Posen, MIT
>Robert Powell, UC – Berkeley
>George H. Quester, University of Maryland
>Richard Rosecrance, UCLA
>Thomas C. Schelling, University of Maryland
>Randall L. Schweller, Ohio State University
>Glenn H. Snyder, University of North Carolina
>Jack L. Snyder, Columbia University
>Shibley Telhami, University of Maryland
>Stephen Van Evera, MIT
>Stephen M. Walt, Harvard University
>Kenneth N. Waltz, Columbia University
>Cindy Williams, MIT
In light of all of that heft and expertise–not to mention the argument in the advertisement–I wonder about things like this:
>I must confess that one of the things that made me reluctant to conclude that the Iraq war was a mistake was my general distaste for the shabbiness of the arguments on the antiwar side.
That’s Jonah Goldberg. He thought this was a good argument for invading Iraq:
>Q: If you’re a new sheriff in a really bad town, what’s one of the smartest things you can do?
>A: Smack the stuffing out of the nearest, biggest bad guy you can.
>Q: If you’re a new inmate in a rough prison, what’s one of the smartest things you can do?
>A: Pick a fight with the biggest, meanest cat you can — but make sure you can win.
>Q: If you’re a kid and you’ve had enough of the school bullies pants-ing you in the cafeteria, what’s one of the smartest things you can do?
>A: Punch one of them in the nose as hard as you can and then stand your ground.
>Q: If you’re the leader of a peaceful and prosperous nation which serves as the last best hope of humanity and the backbone of international stability and a bunch of fanatics murder thousands of your people on your own soil, what’s one of the smartest thing you can do?
>A: Knock the crap out of Iraq.
>Why Iraq? Well, there are two answers to that question.
>The first answer is “Why not?” (If it helps, think of Bluto burping “Why not?” in Animal House.)
>The second answer: Iraq deserved it.
>Now. Here’s the important part: Both of these are good answers.