WELL, THAT GOT OUR ATTENTION...:

In praise of premature war: Rarely has the West suffered by going to war too soon. On the contrary: among the wars of Western history, the bloodiest were those that started too late. The West, therefore, should be thankful that it has in US President George W Bush a warrior who shoots first and tells the CIA to ask questions later. (Spengler, 10/18/04, Asia Times)

The West should be thankful that it has in US President George W Bush a warrior who shoots first and tells the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to ask questions later. Rarely in its long history has the West suffered by going to war too soon. On the contrary: among the wars of Western history, the bloodiest were those that started too late. Why should that be the case? The answer, I believe, is that keeping the peace requires prospective combatants to maintain the balance of power, for example between Athens and Sparta in the 5th century BC, between Catholic and Protestant states in the 17th century AD, and between the Central Powers and the Allies at the turn of the 20th century. Once powers truly are balanced, however, neither side can win, except by a devastating war of attrition. Postponing war therefore creates equally matched opposing blocs who eventually will annihilate each other.

More than ever does this principle apply to the present race for nuclear weapons. It brings to mind the old joke about the housewife in Hertfordshire who telephones her husband and says, "Dear, be careful driving home. The news report says that there is a maniac driving in the wrong direction on the motorway." He replies, "What do you mean, one maniac? Everyone is driving in the wrong direction!"

Whether or not Saddam Hussein actually intended or had the capacity to build nuclear weapons is of trifling weight in the strategic balance. Everyone is planning to build nuclear weapons. They involve 60-year-old technology no longer difficult to replicate. It hardly matters where one begins. "Kill the chicken, and let the monkey watch," as the Chinese say. Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, the theocrats of Iran, the North Koreans and soon many other incalculable reprobates have or will have such plans. It hardly matters which one you attack first, so long as you attack one of them.

Except, of course, that it was late even this time, though we are rather early by historical standards. His old man should have helped the Shi'a and Kurds topple Saddam in '91. And we all should have realized that Islamic liberalization had to be a priority right after the Cold War. Without in any way minimizing the tragedy, we must recognize that 9-11 did concentrate our minds wonderfully.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 19, 2004 9:52 AM