Extra Ordinary Ideas

Iraqnophobia

Since well before the birth of this blog, I’ve suffered from an odd ailment: an unwillingness to really engage the critical issue of the incipient conflict in Iraq. This is not due to an insufficient appreciation of the importance of the issue. Lives are at stake. National security is at stake. Our policy will shape America’s future role as world superpower, for good or for ill.

Rather, I’m reticent because I know that I do not know enough about foreign affairs or military strategy to have an informed opinion, and – for a non-foreign affairs specialist – I am too slow out of the box to have any real hope of catching up to the high-level discussion.

Moreover, this issue is being addressed so exhaustively by smart fellow bloggers that I could study it nonstop for a week, only to add little value to recent online deliberations.

Thus, without analysis, I encourage you to check out "The Pentagon’s New Map" by Thomas P.M. Barnett. This article takes a strongly pro-war position. While I can see significant problems with some of Mr. Barnett’s reasoning, I appreciate the fact that he engages the larger issue (What should our intellectual/conceptual framework be for deciding what types of foreign military actions further our national security?) rather than completely burying himself and the reader in the messy specifics (Should we invade Iraq?).

The debate over war in Iraq can be, and should be, at least partially about developing principled criteria for intervention in the post cold war era so we won’t have to do all the intellectual work over again next time. Little of the public debate is taking place on that level.

UPDATE: Jerry Brito links to a lefty New York Times piece by Thomas Friedman critical of the "wolf is at the door" level of the war discussion. Friedman's thesis is that the Administration believes that the war is in America's long term security interests, but has decided that the American public will only support a war in response to a very immediate threat. Accordingly, short term dangers are emphasized (Friedman says exaggerated) while long term strategic thinking about national security - such as Mr. Barnett's article - is sidelined even when it supports the idea of intervention.