Thursday, March 20, 2003 :::
Some comments on Volokh's comments:
- If the war doesn't set a bad "precedent", per se, it could make foreign nations more likely to believe that we would attack them. Mind you, that's part of the point — we're trying to deter something here — but it also is true that preemptive strikes make sense only when trying to preempt something, and that someone might be interested in attacking us out of fear where they would otherwise feel there was nothing to fear.
- "When China is deciding whether or not to invade Taiwan, it will focus on its own interests, not on being consistent with what other governments have done," he writes, and it bothers me to see these comments separated by a comma. I have too many arguments with people who focus on one single consideration, or assume that, for example, Hussein will focus on one single consideration, rather than weighing factors against each other. Volokh doesn't quite say that, "Because China will focus on its interests, it won't consider whether its actions are in any sense just," but the way this is phrased seems to suggest this line of thinking. (Some of his factors for precedent to make a difference, later in the piece, make it clear that Volokh does not mean this, but I think can easily be read into this phrasing.)
- I think the massive ordinance air bomb and so forth might cause China to care a little bit at least what the United States thinks (and what it thinks it can argue to the United States).
On balance, as much as that might look like rebuttal, I think the precedent concern is a weak argument against the war; if we are clear why we are doing it, it is far outweighed by the deterrent effect alone. Cancel off the risk of near-term loss of life against the continuing threat we're arresting and the liberation of the people of Iraq — I do believe that the life of a free Iraqi is worth more than that of a subject Iraqi — and I think we have a case for action.
::: posted by dWj at 12:50 PM
|
