JANUARY 2003 REASON DEBATE ON INVASION OF IRAQ: John Mueller (anti-invasion) vs. Brink Lindsey (pro). Worth a read, now.

My take: Mueller misses the point of the North Korea comparison (he assumes Saddam-nukes are only geopolitically dangerous if Saddam makes the incredibly stupid decision to use them, rather than the not-stupid-at-all decision to use them as major leverage at the bargaining table) and somehow forgets that Saddam’s sons were possibly more freakazoid than their father.

He also conflates two kinds of threats: “One can’t simultaneously maintain that Iraq’s military forces will readily defect and can easily be walked over–a common assumption among our war makers–and also that this same pathetic military presents a serious international threat.” I don’t think any warmongers were arguing that Saddam’s troops were the problem.

And he muddies distinctions between kinds of tyrants. Yeah, they’re all egomaniacs. But nobody thinks Jean-Bertrand Aristide (or Papa Doc Duvalier!), or Fidel Castro, is trying to develop WMDs. How come?

However, he makes good points about the oil market, the terrorism ties, and the difference between international response to the Iran/Iraq war and international response to any future (“future” from the January 2003 perspective of course) Iraqi invasion of Kuwait or elsewhere.

Lindsey relies on the belief that Saddam was in the process of developing WMDs, which seems, at this point, either unlikely or a great anti-war argument (= war led to WMDs being shipped out of Iraq to points unknown). Sure OK, pretty much everyone, including anti-war types, thought Saddam was amassing WMDs. Why wouldn’t he? Still, this point tells strongly against Lindsey today.

Lindsey makes strong points about Saddam’s wigfest character and Mueller’s blitheness.

The debate leaves me as clouded as ever–I tend to think Mueller more persuasive–but it is definitely worth a read. Via Hit & Run.