April 16, 2006

 That old-time sophistry

Henry Kissinger (still keeping the faith of cynicism) tries to defend the Bush doctrine of preventive war with the "what if Hitler had been stopped" trope:

Had Churchill's early warning been heeded, the Nazi plague could have been destroyed at relatively little cost. A decade later, tens of millions of dead paid the price for the quest for certainty.
If France and Britain had wanted to fight Hitler before they actually did, they would not have needed any dubious theory of pre-emption or prevention. They only needed to stick by their treaty commitments: just for starters, Article 10 of the Covenant of the League of Nations and the 1924 and 1935 Czechoslovak treaties with France. Hitler's ostentatious scrapping of the armaments restrictions in the Versailles Treaty, the Anschluss, and the reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936 could have been casus belli [mistake in Latin grammar fixed] by themselves. He wasn't some possible future threat to international security but a serial violator of it, practically from the word go.
Posted at 08:34 AM | TrackBack (1) | |


Just to raise the dorkiness quotient here a bit, the plural form of casus is casus. It's in the fourth declension, and so has different endings from most nouns ending in -us.

Posted by: Ian D-B at April 16, 2006 09:03 AM

Why leave it there - "imagine if the Allies had stopped the Kaiser in 1914, instead of waiting for later. At the costs of a few thousand deaths, his evil could have been stopped far earlier."

Which is the counterfactual that they were thinking of, at the time.

Posted by: Barry at April 16, 2006 09:57 AM

Of course it is silly to limit the discussion of preventive war to instances where subsequent events showed it would have been a good idea.

How many wars might have been started on "preventive" grounds that were not started, where the "later" war ultimately proved avoidable?

In other words, how many wars, and how much destruction, has avoiding preventive war prevented?

Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at April 16, 2006 12:35 PM

Ian D-B: thanks, fixed, mea culpa.
Bernard Yorntov: preventive war, as opposed to narrowly defined pre-emptive war (see the 1837 Caroline case} is aggression, and illegal in international law as it stands. If you allow preventive war, then you return international relations to a Hobbesian trap or Prisoners' Dilemma, and it will often seem reasonable for states to settle any conflict by attacking first. You need to have very strong reasons to overthrow a rule that is both settled law, commonsense morality, and good game theory.

Posted by: James Wimberley at April 16, 2006 02:03 PM

That puts Kissinger in a class with David Brooks (oooh, what a class to be in!) who compares Bush's Iraq invasion to Exodus and the marches of Martin Luther King. Brooks you can laugh at. HK has a lot to answer for.

Posted by: PW at April 16, 2006 02:11 PM

James Wimberley,

I was not arguing for preventive war. I was pointing out, or trying, to, the silliness of the "it would have stopped X" argument by suggesting that it also "would have stopped A, B, C, and D" at enormous cost when there was no need to go to war at all to stop A, B, C, and D.

In other words, if you say, in case X it would have ben a good idea, then you also have to count all the cases where the circumstances were the same as X but a preventive war would have been a disastrous mistake.

Sorry I wasn't clear.

Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at April 16, 2006 02:57 PM

Well, it may be six of one and half a dozen of the other. With Bush in office, if we don't have a preventive war in one place, we'll probably have it in another.

It's a bad deal for the Iraqis, but they are the 'flypaper' to which we are stuck. You know Bush has just been itching to do "something" about Venezuela, and then there's always that Bay of Pigs thing his father was involved in that turned out so badly. Wonder how you spell 'Oedipus'....

Posted by: serial catowner at April 16, 2006 03:37 PM

Onward and upward to the next level of dorkiness: the u in singular casus is short; in plural casus it's long, so the pronunciation would be casoos (oo like moon) rather than casus (us like us).

Posted by: Brian Boru at April 16, 2006 04:54 PM

Well hell, let's pick an example that may be a bit closer to home than some would like: If we had moved against Saddam Hussein when he made his unprovoked attack on Iran back in 1980, instead of looking after his coat, many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi, Iranian, and Kurdish lives would have been saved. I sure can remember Hank screaming for intervention against that bad old Saddam, back in the day. (Ahem.)

So fine, you might say, certainly our failure to contain Saddam on first offense does not mean that we never move to contain Saddam. A valid point to be certain, but we already moved to contain Saddam back 1n 1991. Granting that Bush Sr.'s containment policy had not been able to rid the world of Saddam Hussein, and granting that the policy was problematic from a humanitarian standpoint, it is beyond doubt that Bush Sr.'s containment policy eliminated the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the region, and if Junior had allowed the U.N. inspectors to complete their work, they would have provided us with ample proof of this.

Posted by: ploeg at April 16, 2006 08:35 PM


You are absolutely correct that the letter of international law should be the sole determinant of the decision to act. Luckily Iraq was in violation of several UN resolutions, thus justifying the invasion! If you assert that this invasion was in fact illegal, I would wish to see the ICJ decision to which you must be referring. Oh wait, there is no ICJ decision against the coalition. That means the legality of the US-led invasion is “contested” at worst.


What are you trying to say with this post? That we should calmly abide while dictators create misery? That we should wait for the decision of some international body before taking decisive action?

Well if your answer is the first, then you a despicable pool of scum. If it is the second, then you are in agreement with Kissinger, whom, in a bold break from his traditional realism, is calling for an expansion of legitimate casus belli to include humanitarian reasons (Albeit for realistic reasons: he wants to be able to spread around the costs of policing the world instead of letting the US and Britain take the brunt. This is actually a good parallel with the pre-war situation in Europe: because of the depression everyone wanted someone else to take care of the Hitler problem; The British wanted the French to handle it, the French wanted the British to handle it, the US wanted either France or Britain to take care of it, and everyone outside Germany wanted the Germans to just snap out of it.).

Posted by: TheJew at April 16, 2006 09:49 PM

"What are you trying to say with this post? That we should calmly abide while dictators create misery? That we should wait for the decision of some international body before taking decisive action?"

Please note that this is the default policy of the USA, and especially of the GOP. With the modifier that the right-wing in the USA is more likely to actively help dictators increase misery. In addition, please note that wars are messy, violent, are guarranteed to cause much misery, under the best of circumstances. Wars also have a striking tendency to get out of control.

Posted by: Barry at April 17, 2006 08:18 AM

"They only needed to stick by their treaty commitments"

Sure, but countries often don't stick by their treaty commitments which is why I find it so odd that much of the focus on international relations is on treaties. Take the NPT for example. Pretty much no one tries very hard to enforce it with the occasional exception of the US. (I have no illusions about us doing so on a consistent basis). The treaty was poorly designed from the beginning but even that much is ignored. The history of Iraq is instructive. The enforcers of the NPT ended up badly surprised by discovering Saddam's nuclear progress after he invaded Kuwait. Despite that, long term sanctions were possible only with extreme arm-twisting from the US. When the inspectors were stopped from doing their jobs in 1998 (after more than 2 years of being severely hampered) most of the world yawned. In 2002 Germany, France and Russia wanted to stop the sanctions despite the fact that no inspections had taken place in 4 years and no effective inspections had taken place in 6. This was after it had been discovered that North Korea had continued its nuclear program under the Agreed Framework and that the NPT was going to be as useful as tissue paper with them.

After all this, important European governments still believed that pure chit-chat diplomacy would be effective in Iran. So much so that explicitly refused to link even the threat of mild sanctions in to the talks, effectively forcing the diplomatic world to start at zero over what should have been apparent to even a diplomat in 2003--the fact that mere talk about the nuclear research going on in Iran was not going to stop anything.

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at April 17, 2006 09:16 AM

Churchill was a loon. I'll repeat that. Churchill was a complete loon. At various times Churchill detected threats of the end of civilisation as we know it. These included, in no special order:

1. staying the course in the disastrous Gallipoli campaign

2. opposing independence for India (and the rest of the empire) and any and all circumstances until the Roosevelt and Truman administrations told him to go away

3. returning Britain to the gold standard and precipitating the British economic collapse in the 1920s

4. staying the course in the disastrous Iraq campaign in the 1920s

5. using chemical weapons of mass destruction in the said Iraq campaign

6. complaining bitterly about George V meeting a 'naked fakir' named Mohandas Gandhi

7. advocating massive rearmament to:

7.1 beat up the French (1900s)

7.2 beat up the Russsians (1900s)

7.3 beat up the non-European inhabitants of the empire (1890s to 1965

7.4 beat up the Germans (1910s to 1950s)

7.5 beat up the Russians again (1940s to 1960s)

Eventually, like a clock every 12 hours, one of his world-threatening crises actually turned out to be a world-threatening crisis and Churchill actually turned out to be much better war leader than he had been during the First World War.

If George W wasn't too young you'd almost swear he was Churchill re-incarnate. Except for the bit about turning out to be a superb war leader. And being able to get through a complete grammatical sentence without stumbing.

Posted by: Alan at April 19, 2006 01:01 AM

PS Votes for women and trade union power were also world-threatening crises in the Churchillian worldview. I'm sure I've forgotten other world-threatening crises. I suspect European Union should make the list as well, but I've run out of energy. Churchill, after all, had a long career.

Posted by: alan at April 19, 2006 01:07 AM

When did Churchill propose to "beat up the French"? He was a lifelong Francophile and strong supporter of the Entente Cordiale (see "Churchill and de Gaulle" by Francois Kersaudy). Even after all his problems with de Gaulle during the war, he still insisted that France was treated as one of the victorious Allies at Potsdam and got its occupation zone in Germany. Churchill was no saint and in a very long career was often wrong - but always rationally, not on Nazi Germany, and not in May 1940. I object to the comparison with an ignorant and disastrous fool like GWB.

Posted by: at April 19, 2006 03:21 AM

Sorry, the previous comment was mine.

Posted by: James Wimberley at April 19, 2006 03:22 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

This site tracked by OneStatFree.com. Get your own free site counter.
Site Meter
eXTReMe Tracker