There has been a lot of cross-blog bickering about the tenor of the debate over what many consider to be the inevitable war with Iraq that will commence shortly before St. Patrick's Day. “Give me rational reasons not to go to war,” some people seem to say, while others ask for the rationality of going to war.

Well, in an attempt to pull off F.Scott Fitzgerald's oft quoted test of a quality mind, I am going to attempt to hold two opposing ideas in my head and manage to keep typing.
It seems the deviation between hawks and doves who tend toward rationalism is based on their starting points in the arrgument–the foundational assumptions that they have made about the situation. It comes down to a judgement about what is more dangerous–to go into Iraq with all guns blazing now, or to find some less direct (and less violent) approach that takes longer. It also comes down to whether one is inclined to trust the Bush administration and its motives for this war.

Aside from these two assumptions, the rest of the”facts” both sides present are fungible. The truth is, no one really knows what will happen if we go to war, or if we don't. The problem is that the debate has been restricted to the worst two options–continue economic sanctions and inspections, and deal with Iraq's efforts to circumvent both; or deploy troops to dislodge Saddam, and in the process kill thousands of those the US government claims it wishes to “liberate.”

(read more…)