Rushed, Dishonest, Unforgivably Partisan, Devistating 2 Alliances

The book is near 500 pages so yes it will probably consume my entries for a while. Over 100 pages into the book Packer finally starts 2 show his views on the Iraq War. The most intense debates he has are with himself. I share this with Packer though my intense debates in isolation are more a result of not having someone 2 engage with in discourse, save my brother on occasion.

I am not a committed pacifist because I believe at times expressing your will through force may be justified. For instance if my 2 year old niece puts a bottle of poisonous chemicals in her mouth and I rip it out that is a sign of physical force to express my will, however I believe it is justified. Now the wider the scope, the more elements involved, the more difficult to justify. Packer looks back at Kosovo, Bosnia and Haiti, what he considers "just wars", and evaluates if an intervention in Iraq is justified. My background on Haiti is dismal but records show that NATO military intervention in Kosovo (lead by the U.S.) caused more deaths. The majority of crimes for which Milosevic was charged actually took place after NATO military strikes began, leading some scholars 2 believe NATO attacks spurred the crimes we were trying 2 prevent (much like we see in Iraq today). This obviously doesn't make these crimes excusable. The lesson is 2 take these "humanitarian interventions" of the 90's into consideration when calculating foreign policy decisions. Packer has yet 2 mention the failure in Somalia or ignoring Rwanda, neither of which would fit nicely with the pro-war liberalism he is framing for his reader in parts of the book.

It must be understood, in regard 2 everything summarized above, that Iraq falls outside any definition of "just war". Packer's cites four problems he had at the beginning of the war--rushed, dishonest, unforgivably partisan, and devastating 2 alliances. He goes on 2 point out that three different times in the past 20 years a military intervention in Iraq would have been justified under most "just war" theories: 1) in 1987-88 when Saddam was gassing the Kurds, 2) In 1991 when a popular uprising was taking place, and 3) in 1998 when Saddam refused any access to weapons inspectors. In 2002 as the Bush Administration was laying the ground work for an invasion of Iraq there were no mass killings taking place, there was no popular uprising and Saddam had allowed weapons inspectors back into the country (even if he was not giving inspectors full access the chief inspector agreed more time was needed 2 negotiate). Essentially 2002 was one time in the past 20 years when a "just war" case could not be made for Iraq.

One issue I hope Packer addresses, and I imagine he will since he falls in this category, is the labeling of people who change their views on the Iraq situation. You know what I am talking about, the old "well he voted for the war in '03 and now he changes his mind? That is a weak individual not 2 be trusted". This labeling is beyond me, its like mocking people who quite smoking.