International Affairs: October 2003 Archives

I'm sure that Saddam's generals have just started coordinating with al Qaeda in recent months, and that there wasn't any such contact until America invaded.

WASHINGTON — A senior member of Saddam Hussein (search)'s ousted government is believed to be helping coordinate attacks on American forces with members of an Al Qaeda-linked terrorist group, a senior defense official said Wednesday.

Two captured members of Ansar al-Islam (search) have said Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri is helping to coordinate their attacks, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. ...

Al-Douri is No. 6 on the most-wanted list of 55 Iraqis and was vice chairman of Saddam's Revolutionary Command Council. He was one of Saddam's few longtime confidants and his daughter was married to Saddam's son, Uday (search), who was killed in a raid by U.S. forces in July.

Of course, the US government has taken every report of possible Saddam-al Qaeda ties and blown them way out of proportion.

Kurdish officials have long alleged that Saddam's government helped Ansar, but U.S. officials have said they haven't yet found definitive proof of that.

Oh.

I haven't really seen anyone else discuss this (surprisingly), but if terrorists wanted to attack Southern California setting forest fires would be one of the easiest and most effective methods. Even if our current blazes were set purposefully, I doubt it was done by Islamic terrorists though, because no one has come forward to claim credit.

Furthermore, it just doesn't seem like such an attack would fit the "style" of Islamofascist death-cultists. A lot of damage has been done, and the fires are a major disruption to California's economy, but there have been fairly few deaths. As such, the threat of arson just doesn't create the type of "terror" that Bin Laden and his cronies go for. Setting forest fires isn't a direct attack on the economy or on symbols of the economic system, doesn't target democracy or democratic institutions, doesn't make people afraid to leave their homes; in general, fires don't have the sort of widespread emotional impact that the terrorists long to foment.

Nevertheless, these fires will still cause property damage on the same order-of-magnitude as the 9/11 attacks, though with far fewer deaths.

Wikipedia has a pretty good entry on mutually assured destruction, the nuclear deterrence policy that kept us safe during most of the Cold War. What's more, it explains how the policy has changed over time, and gives some interesting details that I wasn't aware of relating to our current stance with Russia and other nuclear powers.

I just wanted to remind people that the idea that America was a major supplier of weapons to Saddam Hussein and Iraq is a myth.

Name one weapon in the Iraqi arsenal that was made in the United States.

I have offered that challenge to dozens of so-called anti-war activists who claim that the U.S. armed Iraq. According to these protesters for "peace," George Bush Sr. and Ronald Reagan supplied Iraq with tons of weapons.

None have been able to name the specific weapon – missile, bomb, fighter, tank or shell – that is U.S.-made or has U.S. equipment installed in it. None have been able to name any specific weapon system. ...

The fact is that Saddam owes billions to France, Russia and China for weapons purchases. Clearly, Iraq is buying more weapons from Paris and Beijing despite a U.N. arms embargo. Perhaps one reason why Paris, Moscow and Beijing oppose a war in Iraq is because they would lose their best customer.

The propaganda spun by the far left that the U.S. armed Iraq is false and backed by no facts. The so-called anti-war types are more interested in slamming Bush than stopping a war. None have been able to name one American-made weapon in the Iraqi arsenal.

Everyone seems to buy into this myth, but the facts of the matter are pretty simple: even when we were ostensibly "allied" with Iraq during the 1980s, America was never a major supplier of arms to Saddam Hussein. From what I've seen, the most that can be substantiated is that America sold $200,000 worth of weapons to Iraq between 1972 and 1990, out of a total of $40 billion spent by Iraq during the same period. For more myths, check out StrategyPage.

Cypren points to to a CNN story titled: "Iraqi official says limited German, French help won't be forgotten".

MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- A top Iraqi official attending an international conference on raising funds to rebuild Iraq warned Thursday that France and Germany's limited donations would not be forgotten.

Ayad Allawi, the current head of Iraq's U.S.-appointed governing council, said he hoped German and French officials would reconsider their decision not to boost their contributions beyond funds already pledged through the European Union.

"As far as Germany and France are concerned, really, this was a regrettable position they had," Allawi said. "I don't think the Iraqis are going to forget easily that in the hour of need, those countries wanted to neglect Iraq."

Which, of course, is part of why certain countries wanted us to fail. They already had profitable arrangements going with Saddam, and now they have to deal with an entirely different government, which isn't turning out to be too fond of the former tyrant's business partners. (His most recent partners, anyway, considering that the US did business with Saddam's regime in the 80s.)

StrategyPage (an awesome military news resource, with no permalinks) posts some numbers that show that although the US spends far more money than any other country on its military, when purchasing power is taken into account the differences shrink (a little).

October 22, 2003: Global defense spending is generally thought to be concentrated in the United States, and a handful of other countries. This is generally true. If you take just money spent on military items, the lineup looks something like this (as a percentage of global defense spending, in year 2000 dollars);

United States 43 percent
Japan 6
United Kingdom 5
France 4
China 4
All Other Nations 38.

However, if you take into account Purchasing Power Parity (or PPP, the relative cost of common goods in different countries), those nations with lower costs (like China and India), loom larger.

United States 31 percent
China 13
India 6
Russia 5
France 3
All Other Nations 62.

Nations that spend little cash, but have cheap local costs (food, housing, payroll), like Iran and Pakistan, all of a sudden have larger defense spending (Iran is now about six percent of U.S. spending, and Pakistan about four percent.)

The post also points out that good training and leadership are critical to the effectiveness of any military, and I imagine that poor training can cost just as much as good training. Poor leadership can actually cost more than good leadership, depending on how corrupt your leaders are.

SDB has a great essay up about the North Korea problem, and in it he gives a concise (!) explanation of America's Cold War nuclear deterrence policy (which I've commented on previously, slightly objecting to one of SDB's earlier positions; I either misunderstood what he was saying before, or he's rethought it and now agrees with me).

In that case, the Bush administration would have to publicly and formally renew a basic tenet of Cold War deterrence policy: any nuclear blackmail will be treated as if a nuke had actually been used, and the response to any such threat will be maximal.

During the Cold War, nuclear blackmail was one of the dangers. What would we do if the Hotline phone rang and the voice in the handset said, "Pull your forces out of Germany or we'll nuke Pittsburgh"? The strategists wrestled with that, and ultimately concluded that only deterrence could prevent such a thing. Thus it became American doctrine that if we received such a phone call, then the President would "push the button" (or at least consider doing so). Understand that I don't mean that it would happen ten seconds after hearing such a thing; there'd be time for diplomacy, and an attempt to deal with the situation via lesser means. But in the final resort, if we really faced such a demand, then it was publicly stated that American doctrine was to launch every nuke we had. No "proportional response", no city-trading-duel, no waiting to see if Pittsburgh really did get vaporized before launching. It was important that this be public because like any deterrent its real purpose was to make sure that the situation didn't arise at all. Since the Soviet leadership knew that was American doctrine, they couldn't be at all sure that we wouldn't really do it if they made that phone call, and it never happened. ...

We'd also have to establish a new doctrine, and this would be more controversial and politically risky. The doctrine would be that if anyone set off a nuke in our territory and no one claimed responsibility, or if a terrorist group claimed responsibility, in that case we'd also obliterate NK. No questions asked, no excuses listened to, no attempt to determine if the nuke had been sold by NK, no delays, no nothing. Under this doctrine put in place after an NK nuclear test, if any city of ours was destroyed, NK would be destroyed as soon thereafter as we could manage. That's the only way we can limit the danger that NK would surreptitiously sell one or more nukes to someone like al Qaeda.

That's the spirit of what I said before, although he says it more clearly and at greater length.

The only disagreement I have with what he's written is his characterization of evil.

Deterrence is a real moral problem. In some cases it's the only way to bring about the best possible case, but the only way you can have a deterrent is by being willing to commit tremendously evil acts. Is it immoral to be prepared to do evil things if through your willingness and preparation you avoid the need to do so and also prevent someone else from doing the same evil thing? Regardless of whether it's moral or not, that's what we'd have to do.

I don't think that nuclear deterrence is evil, even though we're threatening to obliterate the innocent people who live in a (presumably non-democratic) enemy country. In fact, even if we were put in a position such that we had to carry out the threat, our actions wouldn't be evil. Yes, millions of people who were not directly involved in the decision to threaten/attack us would be killed, but the morality of it seems very similar to the morality behind felony murder laws (which vary state-by-state, but are all pretty similar).

The felony murder rule is as old as this country. It's designed for instances where two people go to rob a bank. The getaway driver waits in the car-the robber goes in and shoots the teller-prosecutors can charge both with first-degree murder. ...

Under the state's felony murder rule, a person can be charged with murder if someone dies while the person is committing or attempting to commit a felony like arson-even if the death is accidental. Prosecutors don't have to prove intent, an element usually required for a first-degree murder conviction. ...

In Colorado, the felony murder law says the death of anyone during a serious crime or the "immediate flight" afterward makes everyone involved in the original crime guilty of murder -- no matter who did the actual killing or when.

Felony murder laws lay the responsibility for any deaths that occur during the commission of a felony at the feet of the criminal, even if he doesn't intend to kill anyone. An unarmed man tries to rob a bank, the security guard shoots at him, misses, and hits a customer, killing him -- the would-be bank robber is guilty of felony murder.

Similarly, if America is threatened or attacked with nuclear weapons, and we respond, the deaths that result are fully the responsibility of the people who provoked us to self-defense. Our policy of deterrence is not evil, any more than the bank guard in the above example was evil.

We're all familar with the stall tactics used by Saddam Hussein in the years leading up to the recent invasion of Iraq by the United States and our allies. He played every trick in the book to slow down inspections, mislead investigators, lay false trails, and at the same time preserve either actual WMD, or the infrastructure needed to produce them.

So I wonder, is Iran playing a similar game? Obviously, no one is taking Iran's compliance with requests for documentation at face value -- not even the UN or the IAEA -- especially considering the rhetoric coming out of Tehran.

Basically, there are traces of highly-enriched, weapons-grade uranium on some equipment in Iran, and Iran says the equipment was contaminated when they bought it. What country did the equipment come from? Iran says it doesn't know, since it was bought through third-parties. (Un)fortunately, that pretty much blocks any attempt to verify Iran's claims.

The agency needs to match traces found inside Iran to isotope samples from the country the contaminated equipment came from as a way of testing the assertion that enrichment to weapons levels took place outside Iran. If the samples do not match, arguments by the United States and its allies that the high enrichment took place inside Iran as part of an arms program would be greatly strengthened.

Without knowing where the uranium supposedly came from, there's no way to verify that claim with actual data, and there's no way to demonstrate that the enrichment wasn't likely to have been done in Iran.

Dick Morris asks a sensible question: Why is this nation with among the world’s largest oil reserves seeking to develop nuclear power if not for a bomb? They don't need it for electrical power, since they've got enough oil to last them for centuries.

If Iran gets the bomb, do we seriously believe that the concept of deterrence will effectively preclude its use? What is to prevent the logic of the homicide/suicide bomber from functioning at the nation-state level? Is it beyond the realm of possibility that the Iranian ayatollahs might, indeed be willing to sacrifice the faithful in Tehran to obliterate the infidels in New York, London, Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles?

Personally, I think that deterrence will be successful at preventing a nuclear holocaust, but I wouldn't be surprised if we're forced to prove our resolve by actually using a nuke or two in response to a threat of nuclear blackmail. Still, as Mr. Morris says, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that Iran will be willing to use nukes without warning -- although likely against Israel rather than America, for simple logistical reasons.

Iran yesterday defiantly showed off six of its new ballistic missiles daubed with anti-US and anti-Israel slogans in a move sure to reinforce international concern over the nature of its nuclear programme.

DUH!

The Shehab-3, which means "meteor" in Farsi, underwent final tests this year and has a range of about 810 miles, putting Israel and US bases in the Gulf within striking distance. It is based on the North Korean No-Dong and Pakistani Ghauri-11 medium-range missiles.

Israel suspects Iran's theocratic leadership may be planning to arm the weapons eventually with nuclear warheads. Yesterday's show of military prowess will do nothing to dispel US and European suspicions that Iran has ambitions to build an atomic bomb.

If you're trying to convince your wary, worried enemies that you're not a threat, parading around ballistic missiles painted with prayers for their death isn't a good tactic.

There is a timeline of the history of the area which is the modern state of Israel on the BBC. While I have no evidence of it's accuracy (the BBC is, after all, liberal), going through it there are a few points or "facts" that I find interesting:

First, it appears that as zionist immigration steadily increased to the area, groups such as Irgun Zvai Leumi bombed quite a few people in an attempt to get the British mandate palestine declared a Jewish state.

Second, it appears that in 1947, the British turned over control of the area to the UN, largely due to too many of their people being bombed. The UN created a proposal to divide the area into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The Jewish residents were 1/3 of the population and owned 6% of the land, but they were to get 56% of the area. Strangely, the "palestinians" rejected this, though it passed a UN vote, and it was never implemented because hostilities broke out.

Third, the hostilities that began seemed to have been largely precipitated by the newly declared Israelies. The palestinians appear to have largely fled, due to events such as Deir Yassin. The advancing Israelies did have to deal with five arab nations armies, and was victorious. I guess I am not surprised that a nation formed in violence would continue to suffer from that problem today.

I admittedly have never known much of the history of Israel pre 1967, or maybe 1964 with the formation of the PLO. This timeline by the BBC seems to be missing some important information, such as the deep, ancient hatred the Arabs hold for the Jews. They even have statements that I don't understand, such as here:

Palestinian and Arab representatives rejected this and demanded an end to immigration and the safeguarding of a single unified state with protection of minority rights. Violent opposition continued until 1938 when it was crushed with reinforcements from the UK.

I know there are plenty of people out there who are anti-semite (democrats) and pro-love+good (republicans), and i'd love to hear their takes on this, or what I am missing. I'm obviously treading in dangerous waters here, but I would like to know what the BBC got wrong. As one of my heros may say, "You're a lucky, lucky boy 'cause you know why? You get to drink from, the fire hose! "

A few weeks ago I was talking to Michael about intellectual property (specifically, patents and copyrights) and proposed that these things are artificial and probably completely unnecessary. Unfortunately, when challenged at the time I was unable to formulate any kind of an argument, other than, in effect, "just because something seems to have always been a certian way, or because you can't really concieve of how else it would work, doesn't mean it's correct or even necessary." Pretty weak, and not at all descriptive of how we would expect things like "innovation" or actual investment in new technologies to happen without patents, or for art and other activities, copyrights.

I've thought about the issue quite a bit more, and have not come up with any definitive answers. I have, however, put together some points of focus, questions that need to be asked, etc - organizing the problem and, I think, making the solution to the problem of "no IP" a bit easier to eventually get to.

Copyrights and patents are not that old. I believe the first patent law wasn't enacted until 1623, and the Statute of Anne was enacted in 1710. To say there was no innovation, or investment, or creation of works that would today be worth copyrighting before 1623 or 1710 seems to be incorrect. These facts don't really make any statement about the validity of copyrights or patents; You could just call them "advances in business technology" or something similar if you wanted, but I think it does demonstrate that the advance of technology does not grind to a halt without these concepts in place.

In effect, copyrights and patents are a state-created monopoly for a set period of time. But the necessity of this action has yet to be proved in any way. No one seems to think monopolies are good, so why would ones created by the state be different? Companies that create original products or works still have a period of monopoly - however long it takes for someone else to copy everything about it. In some cases, they are uncopyable - you can distribute all the CDs you want of a band, but you'd be hard pressed to form your own band, performing the songs off the CD, and draw the same crowd to your concert. For businesses, your monopoly would last as long as you could keep your invention secret, through obsfucation or trade secrets or anything other than government coercion. While I don't think that would last very long for most things, that doesn't mean that there would be no profit to be made, even after someone tried to copy you. Plenty of companys continue to compete in businesses where nothing they produce or do is covered by any IP laws, but they still find a way to profit.

I think a good (or at least popular) example of what may happen in the modern age without patents would be the software industry. Software patents are a very recent invention, and have been fraught with problems since their inception. Before their conception (at least in the US), we didn't have a shortage of creativity, new algorithims, etc, and the industry flourished. Perhaps it was just a young industry that, once it "matured" needed stronger IP laws. And of course they still benefited from copyrights if not from patents. But there is still no evidence that these things are needed. You do not need a copyright to sell people support for the software you make, nor do you need a patent on one-clicking or something equally ridiculous to compete in the marketplace. These are small examples and there may be a flood of instances where nothing would have been done without strong patent or copyright law, but I haven't heard of it.

Patents and Copyrights are, (unfortunately?) not universally recognized. The US has worked hard to push our IP laws on other countries, but it is far from complete. One statement Michael made was that places like China, who have weak to nonexistant copyright laws and patent laws, don't create anything. In regards to art, or other copyrightable material, that seems wrong. But most asian artists are forced to make their money through tours, personal appearances, and corporate sponsorship as opposed to CD sales. I cannot say if this is "good" or "bad", but I do not see a lack of innovation. With patents in china, while it is obvious they are behind technologically, I do not think it is fair to blame a lack of patent IP when looking at a huge, largely rural still communist contry in comparison to the western world. Historically, china produced a ridiculous amount of important technology, well before patents were in place. 40 years of communism, not patents, seems a much easier target for any blame on Chinas technological development.

The point of all this is really just an intellectual exercise, of course - plenty of people have said the same things I say here better. But they need to be said, and said again. Intellectual property is completely artificial, a relatively new concept, and, I'd say, unproven in its merits. The experiment to prove its merits is beyond me at this moment, but suffice to say development and creativity happened on a large scale before copyrights and patents, and I'd be hard pressed to believe it would cease if they went away tomorrow.

One thing I like about President Bush is that he's not afraid to try to clean up the garbage America has left lying around the world for far too long.

WASHINGTON — Eager to please a key Florida constituency, President Bush directed his secretary of state and his Cuban-born housing secretary Friday to recommend ways to achieve a transition to democracy in Cuba after 44 years under Fidel Castro (search).

Secretary of State Colin Powell and Housing Secretary Mel Martinez (search) will chair a panel that will "plan for the happy day when Castro's regime is no more and democracy comes to the island," Bush said during a Rose Garden ceremony.

"The transition to freedom will present many challenges to the Cuban people and to America, and we will be prepared," the president said.

Bush also said the United States would step up enforcement of existing restrictions against the communist regime, such as a ban on tourism by Americans, and crack down on the trafficking of women and children in Cuba. The United States also will launch a public outreach campaign to identify "the many routes to safe and legal entry" for Cubans who try to flee their homeland, he said.

Yeah yeah, "eager to please a key Florida constituency" and such, but still -- action is action. I approved of Clinton's bombing of al Qaeda in the 90s, even though he only did it to distract us from Monica and I knew it would be ineffectual.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Iranian ex-judge, peace activist, lawyer, and genuine freedom fighter (not terrorist) Shirin Ebadi.

"We hope that the prize will be an inspiration for all those who struggle for human rights and democracy in her country, in the Muslim world, and in all countries where the fight for human rights needs inspiration and support," the committee said. ...

"This prize gives me the energy to continue my fight," Ebadi told a news conference in Paris without the head scarf required under Islamic law. She said she would go to Oslo to receive the $1.3 million prize at the Dec. 10 ceremony.

"It's a great honor to receive this prize. It's not because you're a Muslim that you can't respect human rights, so all real Muslims should be really happy with this prize," she said.

11TH WOMAN, THIRD MUSLIM

Ebadi is the 11th woman to win since the Nobel prize was founded in 1901, the first Muslim woman laureate and the third Muslim winner -- after Palestinian President Yasser Arafat in 1994 and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1978.

And a far better choice than those two murderers.

Iranian state media reported the award without comment, and reaction otherwise reflected the split between President Mohammad Khatami's reformist government and powerful hard-liners.

"This prize carries the message that Europe intends to put further pressure on human rights issues in Iran as a political move to achieve its particular objectives," Amir Mohebian, an editor of the hard-line Resalat newspaper, told Reuters.

Good, I'm glad you got the message.

But Vice-President Mohammad Ali Abtahi, a leading reformist, said the award was "very good news for every Iranian" and a sign of the active role played by Iranian women in politics.

According to Time Magazine, terrorist chief Yasser Arafat has stomach cancer, and it couldn't have happed to a nicer fellow. The best part is that Arafat is trapped in his Ramallah compound, and if he leaves (for surgery or anything) Israel will likely exile him and never let him return.

The best thing for everyone (except maybe Arafat) will be for the Palestinian leader to die as quickly as possible. With Arafat out of the way, it's possible that the Palestinians and the Israelis will be able to work out a lasting peace of some sort.

I blame Clinton.

Thanks to Donald Sensing for pointing out this excellent Bill O'Reilly interview with Bruce Willis, who just returned from Iraq after touring with his band and playing for the troops there. Mr. Willis has offered a million dollar reward to the people who "get" Saddam Hussein; active duty military personnel cannot collect such bounties, but he has said that if US forces get Hussein that he'll donate the money to charity.

It's also great to read in the interview that Mr. Willis really understands what the battle in Iraq was about.

O'REILLY: Did the weapons of mass destruction controversy bother you at all?

WILLIS: I don't think that's what it's about. I think this is about a war on terrorism. And it's about trying to stabilize Iraq. Stabilize the Middle East, which, God knows, could use some stabilization. And it is about a war on terror. I don't -- I don't know. Maybe people have a short memory, but the memory of those people forced to jump out of the World Trade Center will forever be etched in my memory.

Bill O'Reilly points out some other celebrities who have gone over to Iraq to perform for the troops, and Mr. Willis responds to the many celebrities who haven't.

O'REILLY: Now, in the world that you live in, the show business world, you're in a minority here by going over there. I have a list of some other stars who have gone over there. Drew Carey went over, Roger Clemens went over, Wayne Newton, Paul Rodriguez, but most of it is sniping at the government, and even at the military. They say we support our military, but every two minutes you hear another negative coming out of there. How do you react to that?

WILLIS: I would like to -- I would like to suggest that anybody who is, as you say, sniping at the government to, you know, go over there themselves and see what I saw. I didn't hear one complaint from anyone in the military over there, and these guys are out there living in the dirt. They had great spirits, great morale. Had the opportunity to walk through Walter Reed hospital yesterday and see some of the, you know, some of the young kids who had come back.

Bill Whittle has an essay up called "Power", and in it he praises America and challenges our country to face up to our historical mistakes.

I never ceased to be amazed at the United States of America. My love for this country is so deep and so wide that I am often accused of being blinded to her many faults. And, to be fair, I can see how it would appear so.

But that is not the case at all. My enormous love and respect for this nation does not come from a belief that she is perfect, unblemished and incapable of error. Precisely the opposite. I love her because she remains an example of what we can aspire to, down here among the Damned Human Race. I love her because she tries to be good; she wants to be. And I love America because I see that America learns from her many mistakes.

America has certainly made many mistakes, but I think our greatest short-coming is that we constantly underestimate ourselves. It's somewhat excusable, since the rest of the world underestimates us too, but you'd think we'd have learned by now.

There are many examples of this failure of vision -- from our reluctance to engage al Qaeda in the 1990s, to our fear of truly free trade -- but the most glaring was our overly drawn-out conflict with the USSR during the Cold War. I'm no historian, but I play one on TV, and from what I've read there was really no possibility of us losing militarily to the Soviets after the time of the Vietnam War. The Soviet nuclear program was a charade, with incredibly few working missiles and warheads; the condition of the Soviet ground forces was pathetic compared to the US Army, particularly once we switched to an all-volunteer force.

Not only could we overpower the USSR militarily, but we had momentum on our side thanks to our superior economic system. The planned economy of the Soviets simply could not compete with American capitalism; as a result, we also left them in the dust technologically.

Much of this was known or guessed by our leaders, but not until Reagan demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" did anyone have the balls to call the Soviets' bluff. Once Reagan pushed the arms race into overdrive and all the cards were on the table, the USSR quickly folded and crumbled into dust. From outside, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics looked like a mighty fortress, but the innards were really nothing more than a bunch of termites holding hands.

We spent decades coddling horrendous dictators and indirectly oppressing millions of innocents; this was the price for of miscalculation. In the end, all it took for us to win was a little daring, a little confidence, and a challenge to the world to put up, or shut up.

The current War on Terror is a similar beast. Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein and Iraq -- our enemies are all weak, sniveling failures, who hope to bluff and bluster their way into dominance over a world they did not create, and in which they do not belong. America sucked it up for a while out of fear and cowardice, but now that we've thrown off our self-imposed shackles and come into the light, the cockroaches are fleeing into the shadows.

Forgive me if this is just plain too geeky, but I started playing Temple of Elemental Evil last night and it gave me the urge to apply the D&D alignment system to world politics.

In D&D, moral alignment is described along two axes: the first includes "lawful", "neutral", and "chaotic"; the second is "good", "neutral", "evil". So a person or organization has an alignment with two components, one from each set, and there are 9 possible combinations. For example, "lawful good" or "chaotic neutral". If someone is neutral along both axes, they are "true neutral". Please refer to this post for more specific information on D&D alignments (I wrote it for reference).

With regard to "international law" and the interests of the United States, America can be seen as a neutral good actor. We tend to give lip-service to organizations such as the UN, but we really don't seem to care that much whether they go along with us or not. And from my perspective, our country is generally trying to do good.

Our diplomatic enemies, such as France and Germany, are lawful evil. They don't have the military or economic power to challenge us directly, so they fall back on international legal institutions such as the UN to thwart America and to further their own goals. Since they're willing to leave vicious tyrants in place for the sake of stability, I have no problem categorizing them as evil.

Saddam Hussein was pretty clearly chaotic evil. Sure, he used the legal system in his own country to control his people, but from everything I've read that system was pretty arbitrary. Saddam's laws were designed to keep people terrified; the populace could never be certain who would be the next to be dragged off to jail and tortured. And of course, Saddam had no respect for "international law" either.

Kim Jong Il does seem pretty insane, but I think that's by calculation, so I wouldn't categorize North Korea as chaotic neutral; it's more like neutral evil. They tend to use the UN and treaties when it suits their purposes, but they abandon them just as quickly when it doesn't. The concentration camps and threats of nuclear blackmail put them pretty firmly in the Axis of Evil.

As for Britain, they're more lawful good than we are. Tony Blair has to be concerned with respecting the UN because so much of his population does (and dislikes America). The UK is trying to do good, and it is trying to do so within the legal framework of the world, such as it is. Blair was willing to bend a little to help in Iraq even without (yet another) UN resolution -- because it was a good cause -- but it made him uncomfortable.

The terrorists and al Qaeda are, of course, practically the epitome of chaotic evil. Their whole purpose is to destroy the existing social structure of the world, and to bring about the end of America and the dominance of the "infidels".

Update:
Yes, I'm being mean to people in the comments here who say innane things. I know, I know -- I'm normally such a polite fellow, but it's kinda fun to indulge just this once.