Just a couple points, but first I want to thank you...it's been such a pleasure finding your blog.

JMM makes this point: "I don't say these are in themselves justifications for war. But it is not enough simply to say you oppose war. That statement brings with it a responsibility to say what the proper policy is or would be."

Who is he addressing here? There is a world of difference between people like him who are paid to study policy and make pronouncements for a living and the lay public. Ditto between the lay public and the narrow(priveledged, I might add) few that have the time to study affairs as closely as the author of this blog.(or the reletively few like myself that have the time to read such works).

Because that is so, we entrust others to formulate, condense, report on, and pontificate on matters of policy. We take our cues from the media, our families, our churches...we discuss, form opinions...we are pro, or we are anti. No one asks us to do better, nor is their any moral prerequisite for us to do so....and in many ways formulating opinions or stances have no real power to impress policy directly.....who has more power to sway the public, JMM or me? In other words, the person carrying the anti-war banner isn't a foreign policy expert, nor do they have to be. The message they send is, 'your policy is wrong, change it.'

I've seen JMM on board for war since being enamored of Pollack's book. He bit hook, line and sinker....swallowed it whole. There was no critique of it's assertions, but plenty of pushing us to buy it. Since that time, he's been in the reluctant warrier camp....because once you accept the argument that SH can't be contained, and that he's evil beyond measure...there really isn't any other course to take, is there?

So here we are, 10 days before a war that JMM was a reluctant supporter of, because HE bit on some unjustified rationale and HE didn't have a better answer. Now, when this is all falling apart, he takes a dive because this administration has been incompetant in the execution of the policy...not the policy itself.

He further makes this statement:

"And what the costs will be to your policy."

Well, the reluctant warrior JMM never did say what the costs would be in eliminating SH...it would be difficult to assess to say the least.. as no one- even the brightest FP minds can make an assessment of where this will be in 20 years- let alone what it will cost in dollars or life.

He also can't resist taking a small swipe at the sensitive folk that made a fuss about the dead Iraqi kids...once the poster kids of the left for lifting sanctions and now the tool of the right for getting rid of SH.

Sean-Paul,

The "what's your alternative" ploy has cropped up again and again, as if antiwar protestors had never bothered to think about it.

Jessica Tuchman Matthews of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace outlined a detailed regimen of increased inspections backed by military force and did so months ago. The ideas have received very little attention either in the mainstream press or the blogosphere, as far as I can tell.

These ideas are similar to Walzer's, but far more elaborately spelled out by Matthews. Not that Walzer isn't smart or right; he's obviously both. It's just that an intelligent response to Saddam Hussein doesn't require rocket science.

But it does require a refusal to view the world through the collective delusions of Bush, Cheney, Perle, and Wolfowitz. And that's what the last, awful year has been about. For reasons that will always remain mysterious to me, these people were taken very seriously by serious people. But the fact that they have enormous power right now was and is, no reason to coddle them or their batty ideas. Pre-emptive unilateralism (PU) should have been ridiculed and dismissed as ridiculous from the start, from the earliest glimmering that that was going to be Bush's policy.

But for reasons unknown to me, a layman, instead PU became the focus of a long, exhausting, exhaustive worldwide debate. Some of it has been invigorating, as in this blog. Some of it has been theater. But all of it would have been unnecessary if otherwise reasonable people, from the Senate on down, had loudly and forcefully called a cat a cat.

Because PU stinks. It has much as much intellectual weight as clones from outer space, and from the beginning should have been loudly "derided" by politicians, press, and public.

I read Matthews's suggestions when they were published in the Washington Post. Personally, I didn't think they were worth much. Regardless, you can say what you want about anti-war protesters. I've spent some time at anti-war protests and most of them don't have good policy alternatives. Many of them think that they are simply "getting the blood off their own hands". Others think the U.S. should just pull out and that we could do that now with no consequences. Of course, there are crazies in the hawk establishment as well, but to say, as Marshall does, that those stating their opposition to war need to do more than oppose is not as vapid as you seem to think.

Left in the West:

Matthews advocates robust, increased inspections backed with immediate surgical use of force at the first hint of non-compliance. What's "not worth much" about that idea? That's just commonsense.

I'm sure you know that just as a debutante's coming-out party is usually not a place to find serious discussions of the cutting edge in nanotech, anti-war protest events are not usually considered policy forums. Instead their purpose is to call attention to the fact that there are millions of people around the world who want to see our leaders craft a solution to Iraq that does not involve war. Obviously, mass demonstrations lasting a few hours cannot offer many opportunities for extensive, nuanced policy wonking.

To criticize the public protests for not providing alternatives is to go up against a straw man.

Read Matthews' full article at http://www.ceip.org/iraq It's called Iraq: What Next? The Post article merely scratched the surface of what her organization proposed.

I don't think that Marshall's point is vapid. I just think he's mistaken. He hasn't looked at the serious alternatives carefully, of which Matthews' is but one.

Matthews advocates robust, increased inspections backed with immediate surgical use of force at the first hint of non-compliance. What's "not worth much" about that idea? That's just commonsense.

Hardly. You think "surgical force" won't be debated just as "overwhelming force" is being debated now? Moreover, why would those opposed to force back surgical force but not overwhelming force? I mean, if you're opposed to force, you're opposed to force, right?

And once "surgical force" is applied -- then what? Iraq capitulates? They give in? Hussein throws up his hands and says, well, okay, here's what I *really* have. Your surgical force convinced me.

And do we offer up "overwhelming surgical force" or merely "demonstrative surgical force?" (Wasn't this an issue in 1945? Folks wanted us to drop a "bomb for show" on some island and warn, well, if you don't give up, then you'll suffer the consequences for real.)

And who's to say that Clausewitz doesn't apply here -- the idea of "war is diplomacy conducted by other means?"

I ask the questions because I'm confused. I think everyone's confused. And Sadaam is merely playing into that confusion. How come none of these dictators suffer normal health problems like most normal folk? How come they seem to last and last?

Walzer mentions "smarter sanctions?" What exactly does that mean? Will it prevent deaths from sanctions?

I agree that it behoove serious policy commentators like Josh to offer alternatives, especially when they change their position on the coming war.

But is there a moral obligation for ANYONE who opposes the war to come up with an alternative?

Don't be silly. Of course not. Most people aren't anywhere close to being able to voice such an alternative. But, does that mean they should just shut up about the qualms they have about our current course of action?

Not in the least. In fact, I think it is despicable to suggest that only those with a reasonable alternative should express an opinion at all.

The ironic thing about this entire discussion is that the Bush Administration's response to criticism to their plan is that the "costs of doing nothing" outweigh the risks of going to war. But the alternative to war isn't necessarily nothing. There are number of well developed alternative proposals that have been extensively debated and discussed (for the latest evaluation, see this CNS report).

Of course, people who oppose the war need to provide alternatives. But its usually the presence of viable options that are the reason why oppose the war in the first place. The Administration has to stop acting as if the only alternative is a doomsday scenario.

"If you oppose the war, you cannot simply say that you 'stand opposed'. It is morally incumbent upon you to proffer a better plan."

That's false for three reasons.

(1) You assume that anything needs to be done. Most of the world believes nothing need be done about Iraq.

(2) Opposition is based on the immorality of the actions Bush proposes. Would the Agonist claim that it is immoral to oppose a murderer shooting someone in the head unless you first offer the murderer some alternative course of action?

(3) In as much as the plan asked for is a technical matter, no civilian need concern themselves with such details. You don't have to be an expert on policy to criticse decisions about policy. That is anti-democratic.

David,

1) That's why we live in America. If we thought that those countries that believe that "nothing needs to be done" make more sense - we would move.
I'll also remind you, yet again, that "most of the world" believed that nothing needed to be done about Hitler. What that's you say? Saddam is not Hitler? Perhaps Hitler wouldn't become Hitler if we stopped him early enough?

2) Alternatives were offered for 12 years. For you to state otherwise is to disregard reality. I refer you to inspections of Kazakhstan, Belorus, South Africa as a standard for what inspections should be like.

3) You don't have to be an expert on policy to criticse decisions about policy.

That's right, you don't. However if you are misinformed or ignorant your opinion matters little or none.

That is anti-democratic. The Administration has to stop acting as if the only alternative is a doomsday scenario.

I think all the options were exhausted. 12 years!!! I'll also like to point out the hypocrisy of the situation:

1) Germany stated that they wont' support the war even if the UN does - nobody calls them "unilateral" nor mentions their disrespect for UN.

2) The French turned down the Brittish plan *even* before Iraq responded to it - nobody is calling them unilateral.

3) The French put troops on the Ivory coast without a UN resolution, vote or anything. Any condemnations?

Hi from Leon Oswald cool amazing this page