Thursday, February 06, 2003

 
North Korea Threatens US with Preemptive Attack: Arguing Against the First-Strike Precedent

It has already happened. Thanks to the Bush Administration's established "first strike" policy, leaders around the world are heading down a path to catastrophe:

"The United States says that after Iraq, we are next", said the deputy director Ri Pyong-gap, "but we have our own countermeasures. Pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the US."

Bush should be proud. He has set the standard for our enemies. So much for strategic ambiguity. If you ever wondered what would happen if the US preemptively struck another nation, Pyong Yang has your answer.

Without doubt, a preemptive strike by the US would Immediately make the "first strike" policy a rationalized option for leaders around the world. If the US can do it, why not India and Pakistan, China and Taiwan, Russia and Georgia? (Note that four of these six nations are publicly known to have nuclear weapons). Ironically, those in favor of invading Iraq argue that such a policy will make the world a safer place, when in fact it sets a catastrophic precedent that pushes global hot spots past the boiling point.

The state of a post-Iraq-invasion world is not something the pro-invasion crowd seems to enjoy contemplating, unless of course it is to speculate on the ass-kicking that we just dealt or the spoils of war (oil) that we will receive.

In my experience, however, creating the likely image of that reality seems to be the best route to knocking some sense into those who see preemptive strikes as the only choice we have.

When arguing against an Iraq invasion, people tend to follow the wrong route with points that are both important and valid but ultimately unconvincing.

As an illustration, here are the WRONG arguments to use (if you want to change someone's mind). they are the one's most commonly used and the ones most poo-pooed by the opposition:

(Note that the opposition's arguments don't have to be relevant or otherwise make sense as far as they are concerned. Their arguments merely need to incite fear, hatred and rage which motivates people to action, a very simple proposition and one in which they tend to succeed. Indeed, appealing to a person's sense of rationality is always the more difficult challenge. That is why gaining support for war is always easier than building support against it.

Anti-Invasion Argument (AIA): Plead for the lives that would be lost in the event of a war.
Pro-Invasion Response (PIR): This will spur angry retorts of, "What about the lives of those on 911?" or "The invasion will save far more lives in the long run."
Comment: Strangely, the plea for life seems to fall silent on the "pro-life" crowd as well as moderates. Perhaps this is because talk of war is automatically assumed to have a cost of human life and therefore dismissed as a major personal consideration. More likely, however, the public goes through a depersonalization process (with the help of some handy propaganda that dehumanizes those killed as "the troops", "soldiers" or "collateral damage"). Congressman Rangel of New York and Senator Byrd of West Virginia tried to counter this effect by suggesting that we reinstate the draft. With this, people would suddenly have a "personal" stake in the decision to preemptively strike.

(AIA): Ask if the evidence is enough to justify a preemptive strike.
(PIR): There is enough evidence.
Comment: The amount and persuasiveness of the evidence is always a matter of opinion, interpretation and spin. When people feel they are in danger (whether true or not), they will more easily default to the side that they think will relieve them of that fear.

(AIA): Point out that there are other nations and entities more imminently threatening to the US than Iraq. Terrorists and those who support terrorists: Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have many known ties to the 911 terrorists.
(PIR): Just because there are other nations as dangerous or more dangerous than Iraq, that does not mean that we should do nothing about Iraq..
Comment: Perhaps. But that certainly doesn't mean a preemptive strike is the answer. Claiming that there are other members to the "Axis of Evil" is no way to persuade others that Iraq should not be destroyed preemptively.

(AIA): The financial cost of the war could run into the tens, even hundreds of billions of dollars. This would create enormous deficits and cripple our ability to handle economic hardships and other emergencies in the future.
(PIR): That's the cost of making the world safe. Besides, the fiscal injection will help us out of our economic slump. And anyway, the great Ronald Reagan deficit spent our way to prosperity and a cold-war victory and we're doing fine now.
Comment: Ugh! The simplistic nature of their response isn't worth further response since they obviously fail to see the nuances of how we are where we are today DESPITE Reagan's spending spree. We won't even discuss the absolute ridiculousness of comparing the Cold War with a preemptive strike on Saddam.

(AIA): Note that an Iraq invasion will require "nation building", something that Bush strictly condemned when running for office.
(PIR): Times change.
Comment: Translation - Bush means what he says only if it turns out to support his personal agenda.

(AIA): Iraq doesn't pose a threat.
(PIR): Yes it does. It proved that with its invasion of Kuwait and its use of chemical weapons on Kurds and Iranians.
(AIA): So. We supported the Iraqis during and after they used the weapons with knowledge that they used them and probably with weapons we provided to them.
(PIR): At the time, dealing with Saddam was a necessary evil in order to battle a greater evil (Iran).
Comment: Remember that these are typically people who believe that Oliver North, John Poindexter, Robert McFarlane, Caspar Weinberger, Ronald Reagan and the rest of the Iran-Contra criminals are American heroes. With that mindset, accepting the actions of Saddam at that time is not an issue.

(AIA): Evidence was fabricated, lied about, exaggerated and distorted.
(PIR): Oh, so you're a conspiracy theorist, eh? Let me guess, little green aliens actually planted the evidence presented by Colin Powell just to please their leader GW Bush.
Comment: "Conspiracy Theorist" is a label people use to undermine the credibility of the accuser. It is very effective and it is a tactic that progressives should use liberally against the right. Unfortunately, the misdeeds of the Bush Administration are so egregious that merely describing them in all their factual detail seems to elicit instant images of a conspiracy theory. Thus, we have to be very deliberate in our presentation of arguments against the administration.

(AIA): Cite the ulterior motive that the war is actually for oil and not WMD or terrorist connections.
(PIR): There is no doubt that there is a strategic interest in the Middle-East but the assertion that WMD and terrorism has nothing to do with it is absolute nonsense.
Comment: Unfortunately, this argument is unprovable either way. You can always cite evidence of a pattern that supports your accusation, but people tend to see exactly what they want to see and little else.

And Finally…

(AIA): An Iraq invasion will: a) fuel anti-Americanism, b) undermine the fight against terrorism, c) help al-Qaeda win more recruits, d) destabilize Pakistan, Turkey and other countries in the region, and e) the cost of a postwar occupation would drain funds from homeland security.
(PIR): a) so what, b) This is the fight against terrorism. c) So what. They're all terrorists (sic) anyway d) They all hate Saddam too. e) No it won't we will simply drain funds from Social Security and Welfare.
Comment: So the you go. With a thought process and a philosophy like that you have to hit them on an issue that is undeniably nonpartisan, (ie. their own well-being).

As a note, the mongers often come back with this ridiculous attack:

(PIA): Are you saying we should wait for Iraq to attack us before we take action?
(AIR): Containment has worked in the past and it will work now.
Comment: Note that competent intelligence and viable homeland security should be our first lines of defense, not preemptive strikes.

So the question is: What argument can be made that will change the minds of those who are either undecided about or in favor of an invasion of Iraq?

The one thing that I have found that stops the mongers cold, or at least makes them think for a moment without reflexively counterattacking is this:

Start out by softening up your opponent. Don't put them immediately on the defensive. Say that, "Saddam is despicable and he had better start complying with the UN resolutions" and so on. Then, as the focus of your message, say this, and say it with passion:

"The overriding issue to the entire Iraq situation is this. America cannot set the precedent of a "first strike" policy. It is an absolute recipe for disaster and is as un-American as I could possibly imagine. If the US sets this precedent, what keeps every other world leader from doing the same? This gives legitimacy to those crackpots who have pondered striking first at their enemies but who have held back as a matter of international retaliation. Now they can say, 'Hey. These people are threatening us and we are not about to sit here and wait for them to attack first.' North Korea has already noted that they are free to follow the precedent that the US has set….and who is to say that they aren't? America? The country that set the precedent in the first place? I don't think so.

Bottom line. You absolutely cannot separate the world into distinct pockets of influence and activity and expect actions taken in one part of the world to have no effect on every other part of the world."

The key points to focus on are:

~ The precedent set by the Bush Administration of a "first strike" sets a catastrophic example for the world to follow….and the world will follow.

~ Such a policy is the antithesis of what America stands for. Use the term "un-American" liberally.

~ Other countries will follow.

~ Refer to the action of striking first as a "Bush Administration" phenomenon, not an "American" phenomenon. Even non-Americans understand the difference.

~ Refer to the Iraq situation as an "invasion" or a "preemptive strike", not as "war". It is not war. Psychologically, "war" is more acceptable to people than either an invasion or a preemptive strike.

~ Preemptive strikes do not make the world safer. They make it far, far more dangerous.

In conclusion, rather than simply complain about someone else's actions, I will offer some alternative suggestions. How about focusing on our true enemies, terrorist groups and their known supporters (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) while containing other known enemies which we suspect or know to have a viable weapons of mass destruction program (North Korea, Iraq, and about a dozen others). In addition, we should solidify our intelligence capabilities and homeland defenses.

If we go into Iraq in a preemptive strike, without UN support, we are setting a precedent that will change the fundamental method by which every nation on this planet determines the boundaries for war. Every incident of international tension will instantly escalate 10-fold and the US will be in greater danger than ever before.


Join our mailing list to be notified of major posts.

posted by Thomas Ball 4:04 PM