Worst Case Scenario: Pre-emptive attack on Iran makes no sense

This editorial appeared in the Sacramento Bee on Tuesday, April 11th, 2006. It summarized my sentiments about the brewing Iran situation.

Is the United States planning to use military force against Iran in the hope of preventing it from developing a nuclear arsenal? The idea seems absurd on its face, given the price Americans have already paid in Iraq and the likelihood that a new war would only worsen a bad situation in the Middle East.

Yet both the Washington Post and Seymour Hersh, writing in the New Yorker, report that the Bush administration is studying military options. Hersh also says that using tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities is being considered.

There are so many reasons why attacking Iran is premature at best that it's hard to believe the administration would go beyond having a contingency plan for a worst-case scenario. But some analysts believe it would.

It would be reckless to use military force barring evidence of a greater threat than is now apparent. While Iran continues to defy international demands to stop enriching uranium (now President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims they have enriched enough uranium to power a small nuclear reactor), widespread fears that it plans to build nuclear weapons, while well grounded, do not justify pre-emptive war.

President Bush says he still favors diplomacy and calls the media reports "wild speculation." One must hope that's true. Iran is a more formidable adversary than Iraq was. It could unleash terrorist groups in Iraq and in the Palestinian territories; it could cut off oil exports and block the Strait of Hormuz to other Persian Gulf countries' exports, sending already high oil prices soaring; its hard-line regime could use a U.S. attack to stir up nationalist sentiment and crack down on domestic reformist elements; and while bombing Iran's nuclear plants might set back its presumed weapons program, such a strike would be unlikely to end it if Iranian leaders are as determined as U.S. leaders believe them to be.

By attacking, the United States would assume a burden that would be very costly in every sense, provoking political turmoil in an election year. It might also deal a serious blow to relations with America's principal ally, Britain, whose foreign secretary says a military attack against Iran would be "completely nuts."

Some critics say they believe Bush and key aides, despite the setbacks in Iraq and the resurgence of anti-Western forces in Afghanistan, remain in a state of denial. They cite a recent administration National Security Strategy document, for example, that calls Iran the most serious threat to U.S. security. Against that, one must hope that the president, as he says, remains committed to a diplomatic course. Indeed, it's conceivable that the stories were generated by dissident Pentagon and other officials seeking to put the White House on the defensive.

A diplomatic solution to the clash of wills over Iran's nuclear program will not be easy. Russia and China, who have veto power in the United Nations Security Council, strongly oppose both the use of force and tough sanctions against Tehran.

Still, the worst thing the United States could do now is to launch another war of choice that is likely to worsen, not improve, U.S. security and standing in the world. Military contingency plans are a prudent option. But going beyond that in the absence of a clear and present danger would compound mistakes already made, inflame opposition to Bush at home and possibly destroy what's left of the coalition of the willing mustered against Iraq.

Technorati Tags:

Iran

Coming to Public Judgment on Illegal Immigration

At a time when there is public outcry for a serious debate on the issue of illegal immigration, the problem in holding a thoughtful discussion on the issue is that it is so complex, so multi-faceted, can be framed from so many different angles, that it becomes muddled from the very beginning of the conversation. Couple the discussion with a partisan debate and it becomes even murkier.

In Daniel Yankelovich’s landmark book, Coming to Public Judgment, he discusses that democracy can work only if people have wrestled with the issue inside and out. In this immigration debate, the American public has not yet solidified a national consensus needed to cope with this issue. In a sentence: The American public has still yet to achieve public judgment. While I believe that most people understand the context of the issue, most have still yet to fully comprehend the consequences of their opinions. This stems either from not fully knowing the implications of their opinions or from their inability to reconcile their values.

Coming to public judgment is a normative process. Yankelovich defines “public judgment” as

“[P]ublic opinion that exhibits (1) more thoughtfulness, more weighing of alternatives, more genuine engagement with the issue, more taking into account a wide variety of factors than ordinary public opinion as measured in opinion polls and (2) more emphasis on the normative, valuing, ethical side of questions than on the factual, informative side.”

While I admit that I still have yet to come to public judgment, it is evident as I listen to NPR and other radio talk shows that I am not alone: the American public is also presently struggling with this process.

With this definition in mind, solidifying public judgment on the issue of illegal immigration can only be determined by the values one holds and weighing the consequences to these questions:

• Have immigrants who have crossed the border illegally broken the law?
• If they broke the law, what is a fair and just punishment?
• Do their actions warrant deportation?
• Are there alternatives to deportation?
• Are they deserving of the American dream?
• Do they benefit the economy by working in jobs that Americans are not willing to supply?
• Do they hurt the economy and burden the American taxpayer by receiving government assistance?
• Do they pay taxes?
• Are they law-abiding people?

In thinking about these questions, coming to public judgment means reconciling one’s values. One has to mull over and carefully weigh the values of freedom, justice, equal opportunity, compassion, and integrity when considering these questions.

Since there is no formal mechanism to measure public judgment, we hold our elected officials accountable to provide a solution consistent with the nation’s public demand. It is evident that the proposal offered by Senate Judiciary Committee carefully considered the questions above and offered this happy medium. The provision states:

"Under the McCain-Kennedy plan for the 12 million undocumented workers already in the United States, [these immigrants] can apply for temporary status for six years, must demonstrate past work history, pay a 2 thousand dollar fine, undergo rigorous background and security checks, learn English and American civics, make good on back taxes, and satisfy additional criteria. Then if they wait until everyone already waiting their turn is processed through system they can apply for a green card. It is not amnesty, as opponents of the measure contend; rather it would give immigrants an incentive to come forward and an opportunity to earn legal status."

The same process of introspection applies when considering this proposal.

• In your opinion, do you believe that this proposal could be classified as amnesty?
• Is the two-thousand dollar fine and other conditions adequate punishment?
• What are the implications of this proposal?
• Will this encourage or deter illegal immigration?
  

According to Yankelovich, if one understands what is at stake, does not waver in opinion and achieves consistency within an issue, then one can declare that he or she has achieved public judgment. Only when we have reconciled our values and in thinking and re-thinking our perspectives on an issue will we be able actively advance the democratic process, confident that in the end that we will make sound policy.

___________________

Recommended Reading

Daniel Yankelovich, Coming to Public Judgment. New York: Syracuse UniversityPress: New York, 1991.

Technorati Tags:

Immigration