Saddam's invasion did not pass the global test.
I missed that point, sorry about confusing it. Although I should point out that Iraq's attack was not a pre-emptive attack either (not even meant to be in name) and so not really relavent. Bush did go in claiming this was a pre-emptive attack.
In my mind this does not mean passing a test before hand, but running the invasion in a way that lends legitimacy.
Agreed. In other words we need to
be able to make other nations understand our reason, not that we have to make them do so before launching an attack.
It seemed though, and maybe I got it wrong, that you were implying the test of legitimacy was based on acceptance of the rationale (before or after). I was taking exception to that version of the "test". The fact is there are already grounds for legitimate pre-emptive attacks. We need to meet those criteria and that's all. Other nations
should accept them but there is no reason that all of them will, or even a majority.
For example it may be that the US learns that nation X is preparing a nuclear device that it intends to detonate in Israel. The US might decide to pre-emptively attack nation X. The facts would make our attack legitimate, though its popularity might be low, especially if we don't make a "clean" attack, or it seems we are playing favorites by allowing Israel to have nuclear devices.
Thus it is not our ability to convince everyone to support or accept our attack which lends it legitimacy. It is our meeting international standards of legitimacy regarding pre-emption which should be enough, and indeed should be enough for other nations even if they decide not to play along.
If it meets the criteria and they don't like it, that really is tough cookies.
Not being able to back up your claims removes legitimacy after the fact. The US has very little credibility because of this, and it has harmed our ability to pursue terrorism world wide.
Absolutely. They played the "we know something you don't" card to everyone in the buildup to war, suggesting that Bush and Co were meeting the criteria for legitimacy. Now that we know they didn't know jack, they have lost even the semblance of legitimacy retroactively.
I think it is somewhat unfair to criticize Bush for not creating a larger coalition since the US should never wait on other countries before it protects itself. However, in cases where the reasons for invading are not well supported it is better to spread the blame and rely on world opinion.
I think it is fair to criticize him for this when it is clear that time is on our side. It was obvious that Hussein was not an
imminent threat and so we could wait if it meant adding to the coalition.
France signaled its willingness to come on board (contrary to Rice's assertion) if the inspectors were allowed to finish their job or felt they were being hindered too much. As they themselves stated they wanted to leave it up to the assessment of the only people who could tell us what was going on. Bush and Co pretended they had other sources but as it turns out, that was a complete lie.
I'm not sure if I'd call it "spreading the blame" to include allies, and in any case I would be just as against a popular illegitimate attack as an unpopular one. The key is having the information which supports it's legitimacy no matter the popularity of the cause.
I am really getting tired of people equating the vote to "give the president the authority to use force" as a vote to actually invade.
I hate it too, though this habit dates back to the first gulf war. Democrats who wanted to be on board with the popular war said that their vote was a vote for war... but it wasn't. I do wonder how many Dems would be saying that again now if Iraq turned out to be legit?
Heheheh... I distrust both sides.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
