Monday, March 06, 2006

Daniel Pipes and moral obligation

You should read this amazing collection of opinions from Daniel Pipes on the desirability of a civil war in Iraq. From an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (also here; my emphasis):

"The moral one is a good one, but it's not a defining one. That is to say that we do want to help Iraqis. All of us want to see a free and prosperous Iraq, but it is not a moral obligation on us. Just because we got rid of Saddam Hussein doesn't mean that we are obligated to fix Iraq. I think the great achievement of the coalition was to get rid of this hideous totalitarian thug running Iraq. A danger to the Iraqis, the region and the outside world. That does not imply that we must - we can try - but it doesn't mean we must or are obligated - to fix Iraq."

Here is a pdf of an article from 1987 (found here) by the same Daniel Pipes - along with none other than Laurie Mylroie! - advocating that the United States supply that same 'hideous totalitarian thug' with arms, intelligence and economic concessions. Who the hell is Daniel Pipes to talk about moral obligations? Given the fact that a sovereign country was attacked on the basis of very tenuous legal arguments based on lies, and the fact that Saddam's status as a thug seems to depend completely on his willingness to further Israelamerican interests, the United States is completely morally and legally liable for the damage it has done. Americans had better hope the United States stays on top, for when it is no longer on top there will be demands for reparations, and it's going to be expensive.