HUMANE HAWKISHNESS

I want to clear up the misunderstanding that I excluded Iraqi civilian casulties in my analysis of whether in retrospect the Gulf War was justified, and whether an upcoming war with Iraq is justified if it contains a similarly botched endgame. I have to confess that I'm not completely comfortable reducing something as precious as human life as part of a cold cost-benefit analysis, but since I reject the morality of absolute pacifism, its something I have to put aside. Considering Saddam's predilection for killing his own people, its unclear exactly how much higher the loss of Iraqi civilian life was due to U.S. military action. However, whatever those losses are, they can only be justified under limited circumstances. Clearly there is a point B that is so close to point A that the lives lost reaching it aren't worth it.

That however was not the case in the Gulf War. As dissapointing as the actual results of the war were, they were a dramatic improvement over the likely results of allowing Saddam to remain in Kuwait. Similarly, even if Bush II's reluctance to invest in long-term nation-building prevents the creation of a stable, democratic Iraq, the end result is a major improvement over what would happen if we don't remove Saddam from power. However, it is a far better outcome, both strategically and morally if the destruction of Saddam's regime is followed by the construction of a true Arab democracy centered in the greatest capital in Arab history.