Tuesday, February 11, 2003

Mario Cuomo: Three questions on Iraq. Look, after WWII, after the Holocaust, we went back to Europe and spent billions of dollars in the Marshall Plan to bring Germany back to life, to bring Italy back to life. We went to Japan after we defeated them, after they killed our men and women, and we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on Japan. Why? Because you wanted to dry up the things that might create chaos, continuing hostility -- and incidentally, because you wanted to create a trading partner. You wanted to make of them an asset to the world. It's the same here. You have to invest in them not because you love them -- which would be a nice reason to do it, but it's too much to ask for, I've discovered -- but because pragmatically it's the only way to work. We're interconnected. We're interdependent. If they're miserable, unhappy, jealous, misguided, they're going to hurt you. So you go and you change that. And you do it with money and investment and understanding. Is it expensive? Of course it is! But not as expensive as a war, especially in the era of nuclear weapons. [Salon.com] Not only was Jesus' call to "love your enemy" the moral thing to do, but in the end, it's the practical thing to do as well. We will not win the war on terrorism through police action or military strength alone. The war can only be won through compassion and understanding.   5:33:01 PM

Eric Muller on IsThatLegal? is giving a tutorial on "How not to handle a controversy of your own creation," with Howard Coble as its prime example: This morning, though, we have confirmation that Representative Coble did not see fit to meet with Representatives Mike Honda, D-CA, Robert Matsui, D-CA, and David Wu, D-OR, after they'd asked him by letter for a meeting last week. He also points out an online petition calling for an apology, Coble's resignation from the chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, and Congressional action to help educate the American public about the Japanese internment. Finally, he makes a good point about my demand that Mr. Coble give up his House seat should he fail to issue an apology or otherwise admit his statements were wrong: I don't agree with the idea that he should give up his seat in the House over a comment like this. That's extreme, isn't it? I do think he ought to be relieved of the Chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, because I find it hard to believe that a guy with his views on the internment of Japanese Americans is going to strike an even tolerable balance between national security and personal freedom. I admit, I may have been caught up in my disgust for his comments. But I also think it is critical that we hold our elected officials up to high standards when they screw up, especially when it comes to race. It simply isn't acceptable to have a wing of one of our two political parties (apparently represented by Senator Lott and Representative Coble) which is willing to serve as apologist for any type of racism, either today or in the past.   5:14:13 PM

France Unveils Iraq Proposal as Alternative to War. France, which along with Germany, Russia and China, opposes a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, did not say whether its proposals, a virtual blueprint for containment, could be turned into a resolution, should the United States and Britain introduce a measure asking the council to authorize force. [Yahoo News] France's proposals, which seem aimed at locking Iraq into the status quo (sanctions, no-fly zone, inspections) for an indeterminate amount of time, raise an important question: Which is the greater evil - to allow a ruthless dictator to continue to oppress his own people, and to ensure that their poverty and suffering continues due to sanctions and periodic bombardment - or to wage war to remove Saddam from power and hopefully help establish a more humane government in Iraq? This seems to be a question that is evenly balanced. Even if we are able to "contain" Iraq, that containment does nothing for the millions of people under Saddam Hussein's control who will continue to suffer. On the other hand, we know for a fact that a war will unleash a great deal of suffering, but likely for a shorter period of time. While I continue to question the Bush administration's rush to wage war, I also question the logic of those proposing this new resolution. It seems that the French, Germans, and Russians would be perfectly content to allow Saddam Hussein to ignore Resolution 1441, as long as they could lock him into a never-ending inspections regime which would prevent him from developing more prohibited weapons (while keeping those he already has). And it also appears that in doing so, they will continue to ignore the plight of the Iraqi people. My question is this: Is there ever a situation where it is the responsibility of the world to relieve the suffering of some of its members, even if that means war? Or is war such a great evil that it must be avoided at all costs, no matter how brutal the regime? I don't have any good answers, but I think the question is worth asking.   4:45:51 PM