Is the widely-touted international disapproval of possible US military action against Iraq founded on a higher moral stance than the US position? Or is it merely a matter of competing self-interests? SDB suggests the latter.
The Russians oppose an attack on Iraq because they hope to profit from a relationship with the existing government. The Europeans oppose an attack on Iraq because they fear their own unassimilated Arab minority populations. The Arab nations in the vicinity oppose an attack because they fear that their own governments may be affected. A lot of other small nations oppose an attack mostly because they fear the idea of the US using its now-unmatched military might in its own interests.
That’s all quite reasonable; they’re probably all legitimate concerns. But they’re all parochial; they’re all self-interested. Our parochial, self-interested position is to want to make an attack.
It’s perfectly understandable why they want us to put their interests above our own. But that doesn’t mean it makes sense for us. Why, exactly, is their parochial self-interested position supposed to mean more to us, and more closely guide our policy, than our own?
(In a completely separate vein, he has some interesting and sound observations on engineering and the World Trade Center investigation.)