What's Good for the Goose....

Gore raps Bush for Iraq stance

Associated Press
Tuesday, September 24, 2002

[...] In his first major speech on the Iraq situation, the once and possibly future Democratic presidential candidate accused Bush of abandoning the goal of a world where nations follow laws.

"That concept would be displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the president of the United States," he said.

"If other nations assert the same right, then the rule of law will quickly be replaced by the reign of fear," and any nation that perceives itself threatened would feel justified in starting wars, he said.  [...]

Even if you agree with the reasons offered for going to war with Iraq and the goals that our government reportedly has in mind, this is one question about the idea of attacking Iraq that I think should be given serious consideration.  Would we be creating a situation where other nations could declare an enemy nation to be a "threat" and engage in a pre-emptive attack themselves?

Right now, we're putting ourselves in a position of saying that we believe Saddam Hussain is a threat, that he may be able to attack the US in any of a number of ways, and that the best defense we've got at this point is to go on the offense and attack him first.  There are various documents, reports, images and explainations offered to support our reasons for being concerned, and we are calling on our allies to aid in our plans.  We've even gone before the UN in hopes of getting a resolution passed that would essentially give us their blessing for an attack.  Given all of that, many would say that the odds of some other country using this as a precedent to attack whomever they consider a threat is fairly slim.

I have to wonder about that, though.  It's always possible to falsify evidence, and in the world of governments and international intelligence, there would usually be ways of making it appear legitimate, even if no one else can find a way to obtain the same information. I would certainly hope that no country would stoop to this level, but it is something that has to be considered, at least, as it is a realistic possiblilty.  Even if they have no evidence - real or fake - that isn't necessarily going to stop them, though.  President Bush's goal, as in so many things, seems to be to avoid issuing any actual evidence to support his claims of Iraq being a threat and hope that the world will just take us at our word.  And virtually any country could go before the UN to ask for permission to attack.  Bush has already indicated he may have us attack even if the UN turns down our request for permission, so that's certainly not a stumbing block.

One important diference between us and the rest of the world may be the fact that we are, after all, the United States, and that tends to let us get away with a bit more than other countries might.  I'm just not sure how much we want to rely on that as a sure-fire deterrant in situations such as the ongoing war between Israel and the Palistinians or between India and Pakistan, but it is something that might have a dampening effect on other nations.

There is one thing I see as being a hopeful sign.  Similar concerns were raised prior to the War on Terrorism.  Many thought that certain countries would decide that if the US can attack whomever they want to declare as being terrorists, and start naming their own enemies as terrorists so that they, too, could attack countries they don't like. So far, there's not been much of that happening, and maybe, with a bit of luck and restraint, it will stay that way.