Monday, March 10, 2003
Blogging has, obviously, been light lately. Between snowstorms, kids with strep and pneumonia, and a visit to my alma mater to give a talk, I’ve been a bit busy. Anticipate being even busier in the future. Have even toyed with the idea of taking a hiatus until I finish my manuscript but can’t quite seem to do so.
We lurch ever nearer war (one week away?) but I can’t seem to get too exercised to oppose it. On the face of it, it seems as if one could make a fairly coherent and persuasive case against war: imagine trying to explain to your kids why American bombers destroyed much of Iraq’s infrastructure and, no matter how “smart” and careful they are, kill at least a few innocent Iraqi civilians; “you see, Saddam Hussein just didn’t meet that deadline so people had to die.” Yes, the cost of keeping the American troops in the region is significant and yes, keeping American troops and the credible threat of their use appears to be the only way to get Saddam to bunch. But the cost of going to war and killing people? That’s high too. Anyway, I’m still opposed but hardly virulently so. I think this is in part to the fact that so many of the anti-war arguments that are articulated either in the streets or in the papers are so blatantly wrong-headed, duplicitous or both.
Meanwhile, in Korea:
-- North Korea test fires another missile More here and here
--A Korea Herald editorial states that Bush should talk to the DPRK and shouldn’t go to war with Iraq because in doing so he would be “obtusely ignoring the global sentiment of people across the world”
--The USFK headquarters are to remain in Seoul (but not in Yongsan)
--And, surprise, surprise, U.S. branded a fascist and rogue state (by Communist newspapers)
We lurch ever nearer war (one week away?) but I can’t seem to get too exercised to oppose it. On the face of it, it seems as if one could make a fairly coherent and persuasive case against war: imagine trying to explain to your kids why American bombers destroyed much of Iraq’s infrastructure and, no matter how “smart” and careful they are, kill at least a few innocent Iraqi civilians; “you see, Saddam Hussein just didn’t meet that deadline so people had to die.” Yes, the cost of keeping the American troops in the region is significant and yes, keeping American troops and the credible threat of their use appears to be the only way to get Saddam to bunch. But the cost of going to war and killing people? That’s high too. Anyway, I’m still opposed but hardly virulently so. I think this is in part to the fact that so many of the anti-war arguments that are articulated either in the streets or in the papers are so blatantly wrong-headed, duplicitous or both.
Meanwhile, in Korea:
-- North Korea test fires another missile More here and here
--A Korea Herald editorial states that Bush should talk to the DPRK and shouldn’t go to war with Iraq because in doing so he would be “obtusely ignoring the global sentiment of people across the world”
--The USFK headquarters are to remain in Seoul (but not in Yongsan)
--And, surprise, surprise, U.S. branded a fascist and rogue state (by Communist newspapers)
