War, *huh*

[flwyd]

Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain

You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead

-- Bob Dylan, "Masters of War"

Even among those whose job it is to support U.S. policy, there has been recent decent over the impending Iraqi war. Bush Sr. (who I at least respect as being intelligent) has warned against unilateralism. Two american diplomats have resigned in protest. It's more than just a bunch of hippies this time.

As someone who takes pride in having nuanced ideas, I don't want to classify myself as something so binary as "anti-war." It's my hope that everyone is, in general, against war. But war, or "military action" more generally, can't be discounted amongst a possible set of solutions to the problems posed in the world. For instance, responding in war was probably the only workable solution against Hitler & co.

There is, however, no shortage of problems with the war, as proposed, in Iraq. The decision to go to war should be a goal-directed engineering choice. First, what are the requirements that any action must satisfy? The Bush administration has not been very clear on this. "Regime change" is a nice buzzword, but who will become the new regime? What values and priorities will they hold? We certainly have the goal of curbing terrorism. The administration has also expressed a goal of greater regional stability. I haven't heard much from the big wigs about the goal of safety, freedom, health, et al. for the Iraqi people. Trhough more than a decade of sanctions, bombings, and a despotical leader, that certainly ought to be a goal of action if we're at all compassionate. The administration has also been quiet on what the economic goals are. I'll advocate for economic independence and local ownership for Iraqis. There's nothing wrong with American (and other international) companies making some money either. It's tough to rebuild a country purely from within, and even if no war is declared, Iraq is in need of some rebuilding work.

So that's a brief pass at requirements gathering. The next pass is analysis. Find out more about these requirements, make some refutable assertions, draw connections, etc. (Can you tell I'm taking an Object Oriented Analysis and Design course?)

At this point, war or no-war hasn't even been considered.

Now enter the design phase. First, consider some high-level approaches. This is where war is properly debated, and it is firmly grounded in the detailed requirements and analysis that took place. Several options need to be considered, and all relevant factors must be taken into account. How much will each approach cost? In dollars? In lives? In infrastructure? How likely is each approach to succeed? What have been success and failure stories of each approach? What are some possible weak points in this situations -- things that are likely to go wrong, even if the project as a whole succeeds.

There are several options at this stage, and I don't know enough about the situation in Iraq to pretend to know which is the best. (Plus, I haven't done much analysis.) Sanctions haven't worked (and have, it seems, been much worse than the status quo). So perhaps lifting sanctions, supporting health and safety and enterprise among Iraqis. Once they no longer need to worry about getting hit by U.S. bombs and can find food without trouble, they may be able to turn their focus to political change. Kidnapping Hussein might be an option to consider. It bothers me that it's considered unacceptable to assassinate a leader, but that it's okay to kill a hundred thousand people in the hopes that the leader is forced to step down. (I clearly understand why allowing assassinations is a Bad Idea (tm). This is just an odd consequence when combined with other things.)

War is certainly one possible solution. But it needs to be split into several categories. The current debate is obviously on multilateral/unilateral, but other debates need to happen. What will be the role of distance weapons vs. ground troops? Bombers keep U.S. troops safe, but they cause a metrick fuckload of collateral damage. During the Kosovo war, we managed to hit not only the Chinese embassy in Belgrade but Sofia. The capital of Bulgaria. Which wasn't even the country under attack. I recall a quote from a man in Khabul a year and a half ago (which I quoted in my journal): "Osama is not living in mud huts in Khabul." We've learned of U.S. plans to drop 800 bombs on Baghdad in the first two days. No matter how much "smart" bomb accuracy is touted, this is going to destroy an immense amount of infrastructure and kill plenty of people that we are trying to liberate. Do the benefits outweigh the costs? What about a ground-based solution? What are its benefits and fallbacks in the context of the requirements? What are the targets? Just military installments? Hussein and his cronies? All Baath supporters? What role will other area countries play? What role will the Iraqi people play?

The Bush administration, in their typical absolute power approach, have not been very forthcoming with any of this information. I would be astonished if much of this thought hasn't happened within the administration and the military, but the rationales have not been made public. Since the Bush administration has not presented the rationales, options rejected and why, and reasonable estimates of costs and benefits, reasonable members of the American public, the international community, and most politicians and public servants must oppose the war. Reasonable decision making requires all relevant evidence to be presented, and it has not, and anti-war should be the default position, given its cost in lives, dollars, and resources. Those who support the war thus either have more access to information than the rest of us or trust that the Bush administration has considered all proper options and made the most sound decision. They are declining their own choice to reason and handing their opinion to an external source. (This sort of action is not always bad, and is often optimal, it's just not particularly rational.) I don't see that the Bush team has established a history of deserving trust, especially since they're so secretive.

It should therefore be the position of almost every reasoning person that the U.S. should not go to war until more and deeper information about the planning process is available. The analysis and design process and documentation should at least be revealed to major players that are currently against the war, like Russia, France, and Germany. They should perform their own independent analysis and design. Once they have reviewed fully the approach, they should make their case against war (if they still hold that position) and allow people to select which of two competing proposals and proposers seem more worthy of trust and support. This is democracy at its core. And we all know how much of a fan of democracy George Bush is.

Wow. This was originally going to be a one paragraph article pointing out the G.H.W. Bush comments. Go writer's momentum.