Re: Re: Bonobos digest, Vol 1 #387 - 1 msg

On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:20:09AM -0800, Quentin Crain wrote:
> All:
> 
> I agree with Kendall in general so this is a nit, but
> perhaps important anyway.

Hi Quentin,

In what follows I shall pick the snits off yr nit! :>

> When we are speaking on "utilitarian grounds" we must
> be careful to weigh consequences now vs. the future.
> Kendall writes that an invasion now would be
> preferable to many years of sanctions. 

Actually, and I only make this point because I anguished over the original
claim, I said (or meant to say) that it *might* be preferable, and of course
we really ought to follow what ordinary Iraqis have to say about the matter.
It's just as close to a reason for the invasion as I've been able to come up
with.

  That would
> likely be true. But, one is not certain of the future
> duration of sanctions. Will it be 12 or 10 years? 10
> or 8? 8 or 6? etc. While no one wants to simply count
> up the dead, the future is unknown so should factor
> appropriately in any utilitarian analysis.

Yes, though it's hard to see the sanctions being lifted if there isn't an
invasion; that is, I can think of the US lifting sanctions in only two
cases: 1) an invasion, 2) an internal coup which deposes Hussein.

> Also, as I am sure he knows, we must also factor in
> the likelihood that Bush will truly carry out some
> real democratic changes in Iraq. This seems a lot
> *less* likely than 12 more years of sanctions -- I
> mean who really believes Bush wants the people of the
> Middle East to have power over their own societies,
> and hence their resources!?

Yes, I tend to give this logical possibility almost no weight whatever,
since it seems not only unlikely but inimical to US interests *as Bush
construes them*.

> Finally, we must ask ourselves what actions we would
> want if we were an Iraqi, and specifically if we were
> an Iraqi likely to be killed by an invasion. 

Yes, Quentin, thanks for pointing this out. I didn't take this fully enough
into consideration in my post. The practical problem, of course, is that
it's hard to determine *what* Iraqis might prefer since there are two
heavily distorting factors to consider: Hussein's tyranny and the US's
sanctions regime and threats of invasion. 

  It seems
> likely to me that one would prefer 12 years of some
> existence, where the possibility of freeing one's self
> of Saddam is remote but non-nil, over being dead.

Good point. The only way my utilitarian calculus comes out at all decently
is if the US invasion is "super clean" (which seems unlikely, granted), that
is, if it is in fact what Gulf War I was only in propaganda (that is,
something on the order of 1500 killed in toto). Still not *my* decision to
make, given that I'm not going to be one of the 1500, but it is as close to
a reason to thinking an invasion might achieve some good as I've been able
to come up with.

> I submit the wrinkle has been smoothed! <wink!>
> 
> Thanks!! -- Quentin

Thank you for making such good points.

Kendall
-- 
Jazz is only what you are. -- Louis Armstrong