VERY SCATTERED WAR THOUGHTS: First, of course, I’m thrilled that things seem to be going so well thus far. Unqualified Offerings points out something to worry about, and notes that the real hurdles come later, but for the moment, I’m just glad to see news of surrenders, rebellions against commanding officers, posters of Saddam Hussein torn down, and the rest. In the ensuing weeks, months, and years, we need to keep the pressure on, since politicians usually do only what they must, and it’s non-politicians who create the rhetorical constraints on their actions. I am still very frightened about the possible long-term repercussions of the war, but a) one of the things that pushed me to favor war was my growing belief that failing to oust Saddam Hussein would also make my world more dangerous, thus all of the options were pretty bad; and b) the liberation-scenes will, I hope, be remembered by both Americans and people in the Middle East, and buy the US, at least, time in which to set Iraq on a better path.

Second: I don’t think “Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator” is a sufficient reason to go to war. And neither does pretty much anyone else who makes this argument. We’d be at war in dozens of states if that were enough; and likely we’d be doing a very poor job at it. However, it’s difficult to see what else one might expect to actually work to unseat Saddam. While I was in NYC, I had dinner with Jane Galt, who noted the extreme difficulty of mounting an internal resistance movement against a totalitarian dictator. You can do it if you can be armed by outside powers. You can do it if you have a deep, positive vision driving you forward (she pointed out that Solidarity relied on the intense Catholicism of the Poles, and of course they also had the huge morale boost of a Polish pope). It’s pretty hard to do it in a desert and against a sense of fatalism. So I am not sure the descriptions of nonviolent (sort of, sometimes… how did Milosevic sneak in there? etc.) topplings of repressive states that are cited by the anti-war movement are super-relevant here.

Another anti-war suggestion has been “human rights inspectors,” modeled on the weapons inspectors. Where to start…. Surely weapons, which are physical objects in the real, photograph-able, quotidian world, are easier to find than human rights violations. And yet somehow weapons seem to elude the inspectors. Color me darkly skeptical that human rights inspectors would be of much use. At very best, I guess they could raise Iraq from North Korea-level hideousness to China-level hideousness. That would be good, I guess. (W/r/t arguments for war, note that we’re not at war with North Korea and no one has suggested that we should achieve violent regime change in China, so again, “human rights inspectors are a lousy half-measure” isn’t the same statement as “we need to be at war with Iraq.”)

Then there is this call for (among other things) a UN Security Council tribunal to remove Saddam Hussein. Irrelevant now, really, but please raise your hand if you think this would happen. (One word: Chirac.) My take on this fun proposal is here, in Spenserian stanza form. The proposal for more vigorous and coercive inspections, found at the same sojo.net link, promises constant medium-level hostility; no reduction in hostility from the rest of the Islamic world (inflammatory American presence in Iraq without any pretense of liberation or hope); and endless cat-and-mouse inspection games. To quote noted foreign-policy thinker Morrissey, “Is that the best you can do?”

As I said here, I favor this war for national-security reasons. But it’s also important that we have a chance (will we squander it?) to do real, immense good in Iraq. This speech is heartening. Either it is for real, in which case, that’s awesome, or it is propaganda, in which case it’s probably the best propaganda we could hope for. So, I’m praying that we live up to the vision it implies.

EDITED TO ADD: Argh, I didn’t mean to sound as pessimistic about warless regime change as I did. I do believe that it’s possible to cultivate a strongly-held positive vision that motivates people to fight against dictators, and I also believe (though this is a lot harder and should be approached with extreme caution) that the US and/or its citizens should seek out and arm those resistance movements that are non-horrible and liberty-minded. (We don’t have a good track record here, from Boston pubs that pass the bucket for the IRA to US support of Jean-Bertrand “Defrock This!” Aristide.) In honor of the French, let’s call this the Lafayette Strategy. It’s really, really difficult, though it must be undertaken in all those countries we’re not invading. And in the ones we are. So my point is not that US invasion is the only possible means of liberation, but that other means are a lot harder than the “win without war” plans (human rights inspectors and whatnot) suggest.