An Exchange on Iraq with the Maverick Philosopher

A few days ago Bill Vallicella posted an entry on his blog criticizing what he dubbed “the diversion argument” – i.e. the claim made by John Kerry and others that the war in Iraq constitutes a diversion or distraction from the war on terrorism proper.

Dr. Vallicella counters that the war in Iraq can legitimately be considered part of the war on terrorism, and that the argument as it stands is unsound:

The war on terror is a war against Islamic terrorists, first and foremost. Of course, there are non-Muslim terrorists, e.g., Basque terrorists, but the threat they pose is negligible as compared to the threat posed by the Muslim variety. It would be an egregious error to identify the war on terror with the task of bringing to justice the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack. Even worse is the mistake that Kerry made during his speech, namely identifying the war on terror with the task of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden.The war on terror is not solely about Osama, or solely about the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, or solely about al-Qaeda; the war is about Islamo-terrorism as such.



… Given this, it makes no sense to identify the war on terror with anything so specific as the task of capturing Osama. But that is what libs and lefties do ad nauseam.



…We know that Saddam directly supported Islamo-terrorists, since we know that he supported, with large sums of money, the families of Palestinian Arab suicide-bombers.

Since I have endorsed what might fairly be called a version of the diversion argument in the past, I wrote Dr. Vallicella to take issue with some of his points, to which he graciously responded on his blog.

I wrote:

…I think one can concede that Hussein’s regime had ties to Islamo-terrorism (e.g. the payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers) but still maintain that the Iraq war constitutes a diversion from the war on (Islamo) terrorism. As far as I have been able to tell, Saddam’s regime never directly sponsored terrorist attacks on the U.S. (the first WTC attacks were carried out by Iraqis, but I don’t believe that it has been credibly claimed that they were acting under orders from the Iraqi government).

To which he responded:

If you grant, as I think you do, that (i) the war on terrorism is a war against Islamo-terrorism whatever its source, and that (ii) Hussein’s regime had ties to Islamo-terrorism, then I don’t think you can say that the war in Iraq is a diversion from the war on terrorism. To prosecute a proper sub-task of a given task is not to divert oneself from the task. I think what you want to say is that there has been an undue emphasis on Iraq, that resources used there could have been put to better use elsewhere. But then we would be discussing a Misallocation rather than a Diversion Argument. Kerry, however, repeatedly used the word ‘diversion’ in his speech.

I’m willing to concede the point here that one should speak properly of a misallocation rather than a diversion. If we define the war on terrorism as a war on any and all groups that have ties to (radical Islamic) terrorism, then I think Dr. Vallicella is right that an attack on Saddam Hussein’s regime counts as part of that war, since it seems clear that he had some ties to terrorism.

Dr. Vallicella continues:

Just how much a threat Saddam posed is hard to ascertain because the relevant facts are hard to ascertain. But it is worth mentioning that Saddam tried to assasinate Bush the Elder. There is also the ‘Abu’ connection: if I am not mistaken, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, and Abu al-Zarqawi all received support from Saddam. Abu Abbas was the mastermind behind the Achille Lauro incident during which the elderly, wheel-chair bound American Leon Klinghoffer was shot and then thrown overboard.

I agree that the threat posed by Saddam qua sponsor of terrorism is hard to ascertain. However, I think what should be pointed out is that the stated reasons for going to war – i.e. Saddam’s ties to terrorism combined with the threat of WMD – have turned out to be based on false information. So, if nothing else, I think it’s safe to say that Saddam turned out to be less of a threat than we were led to believe (I don’t say deliberately misled; I don’t have the information to know if President Bush, et al. deliberately made false statements about Iraq’s WMDs).

I continued:

…Since there are other groups and regimes that have supported, directly or indirectly, attacks on the U.S., it would seem prudent to have dealt with those before dealing with Iraq. I realize that reasonable people can disagree about the gravity of the threat Iraq posed, but I think at the very least one has to take into account the considerable opportunity costs of going to war in Iraq when we did. Was it really the best allocation of the resources that it has absorbed (and will continue to absorb for the forseeable future)?

To which Dr. V responded:

I think one must also consider the other reasons for the war in Iraq, namely, the humanitarian reason; the enforcement of unanimous U.N. resolutions that that august body did not have the will to enforce; the need to put an end to an on-going war; the need to try the noble (if perhaps in the end misguided) experiment of bringing (more) democracy to the Middle East for the sake of the long-term stability of the region; the need to remove a dictator and his sons who was going to have to be removed at some time anyway, with removing him now while he is weak being better than later when he is strong; the sheer danger of allowing Saddam to develop nukes which he would be more than happy to give to terrorist groups for use in the U.S. and Israel.I submit that these reasons, taken cumulatively, add up to a very strong case for the war. I stress the cumulative nature of the case. Thus the first reason, taken by itself, is insufficient. It may that they are all insufficient, taken by themselves. But taken together, they are reasonably held to be sufficient.

While I think the cumulative case is strong, I think it would only be dispositive if allocating the necessary resources to a war in Iraq wouldn’t take away resources from more pressing matters. However good it may be to liberate an oppressed populace or enforce UN resolutions, the primary duty of the United States government is to see to the safety of American citizens. If going into Iraq has made it less able to do this, then it is derelict in this duty. It may be good for a man to give money to starving orphans in Africa, but not if by doing so he neglects his own children. That is, I regard this primary duty as exercising a kind of veto power over other ventures, however worthwhile they may be in themselves. One might add that given the seriousness of going to war, the gravity and cetainty of the threat should be the paramount consideration.

So, if the war in Iraq has resulted in resources being allocated to it that could have been used to deal with more pressing threats, then I think it was a mistake. I think given recent revelations, it’s reasonable to think that is indeed the case.

Thanks again to Dr. V for taking the time to engage in civil and (I hope) instructive debate!