You are correct in stating that Iraq and Afghanistan were not exactly paradise on earth before we destroyed them. But, you ignore the Geneva Conventions by hinting that we have no responsibilities towards those nations. We did destroy most of what infrastructure they had, so now we are responsible for rebuilding it. If either nation had attacked us first it would be a bit different, but they didn't. Even Germany and Japan who did attack or declare war on us were rebuilt by us after the war. I would far rather seen a half trillion of our dollars go to rebuilding those nations than to see it wasted on still more futile adventures by our military.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Destor23, I am astounded that anyone can disagree with nuclear proliferation being the most important thing happening in the world today. Well, then again, maybe not. The movers and shakers in this country seem blissfully ignorant of the threat.

Helping to secure the nuclear material of the old USSR is clearly the most important thing we need to be doing around the world right now. The old James Bond movie plots of loose nukes were fantasies in the cold war days, but now are possible. We know Pakistan has already exported its technology to North Korea. They blame one scientist for this breech, but that is just face-saving. In the old USSR, technology, fissile materials, and actual ready-to-use warheads are all up for grabs.

The second most pressing need is to somehow put the genie back in the bottle in south Asia. Pakistan's arsenal scares me to death. Pakistan is one well-placed bullet from anarchy, and if the Mullahs come to power there we will have the first nuclear Islamist state. Their only dilemma will be who to blow up first. The Indian army in Kashmir? The Anglo-American army in Afghanistan? Or do they just give a bomb to their old friend Bin-Laden and let him do the dirty work?

If this does not scare you, you just aren't paying attention.

What a bone chilling post from Mister Etzioni. I do detect a certain hypocrisy:

Thus, to state that we owe it to Afghanistan and Iraq to reconstruct their countries after the ravages of war sounds right. However, when I studied—and then dedicated a segment of Security First to describing—what reconstruction actually entailed on the ground, the absurdity of this claim stood out. .... Iraq’s economy was allowed by Saddam to deteriorate. To fix it would take huge amounts of resources and a decade or more, I found.

You'll excuse me for editing out the portion which relates to Afghanistan. I'll propose to deal with it later.

Overall, the dishonesty and hypocrisy of this statement is utterly breathtaking. So America's off the hook because it's all Saddam's fault? And besides, it will cost too much?

It strikes me that in blaming Saddam Hussein for the deterioration of the Iraqi economy, circa 1992-2003, Mr. Etzioni conveniently ignores the effects of United Nations sanctions. He entirely overlooks the responsibility of the United States in imposing these sanctions, and then using it's security council veto to prevent the sanctions from being lifted or modified.

And of course, Mr. Etzioni also ignores the pernicious effects of the 'no fly zones' established by the United States without United Nations mandate. And he ignores the effect of various raids and bombing operations since 1992, such as Desert Fox, which deliberately targeted military and infrastructural sites. He takes no account of various American efforts and covert operations to overthrow the government of Iraq. All of these doubtless made their contributions to the deterioration of Iraq's economy.

Mr. Etzioni cannot be bothered to contemplate the damage inflicted by the United States on Iraq in the Gulf War, the immense costs of that damage and its contribution to the Iraqi economies degradation.

But should the Gulf War be counted? Well, three thoughts: First, there is substantial evidence that the United States deliberately or mistakenly greenlighted Iraq for the invasion of Kuwait. So there is that little moral issue. Acknowledging that the Sin was Saddam's, there is a taint to spread. Secondly, there is a real question as to whether the degree of force and violence used was necessary, given that Iraq was apparently on the verge of committing or had committed to withdrawing. Third, it can easily be argued that Iraq earned its pummeling in the Gulf War through an act of aggression... but so did Italy, Japan and Germany in WWII, and yet the United States did not quibble about blame, but rather saw it as imperative to rebuild these societies.

Mr. Etzioni gives no thought to these three points, nor, apparently, to any other issue.
One wonders what Mr. Etzioni expected from Saddam Hussein. Mass sepuku by Hussein, his family and all associates? Even then there is no indication that this would have altered sanctions if the replacement government was no more satisfactory to the United States.

I have referred to dishonesy and hypocrisy, and it strikes me as the most naked sort to simply ignore the contributing role of the United States in the period from 1992 to 2003, to the 'gradual deterioration' of that economy.

Even if we set aside that issue, it must be clear that at the time of the American invasion, the Iraqi society and economy was functioning in a way that it simply is not now.

Much of the current state of the Iraq economy and society can be attributed to colossal violence and mismanagement by the United States. War is not pretty. Saddam's brief occupation of Kuwait amounted to 40 billion in reparations owed. The United States occupation has been far more brutal, far more damaging, far deeper and much longer in a country much larger then Kuwait.

I think Iraqi's would jump for joy if they were restored to the point prior to the invasion in March 2003. They would be ecstatic to be restored to the point prior to the Gulf War of 1992.

But Mr. Etzioni shirks all notion of responsiblity. Instead he offers up his misers quibble "who is going to pay for this."

Who indeed. It would be punitive to imagine that the Richest Country in the History of the World, a country which has spent half a trillion dollars degrading and destroying Iraq might be obliged to pony up more than a punitive share.

As I've said, dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Afghanistan is in a very early state of economic development; practically everything it needs must be provided de novo. To refer to ‘reconstruction’ here is like speaking about ‘rebuilding’ a city where there was barely a village.

A facile statement that ignores that fact that Afghanistan and its surrounding regions have a history of civilization that goes back to the time of Alexander the Great and beyond.

But here, Etzioni offers up in his smug little fists, a few grains of truth. Afghanistan's 20th century economy was little different from its 19th century economy, and even then it was a political and economic backwater. True enough. Or perhaps truthy enough.

And its truth enough that Afghanistan's economic and political degradation begins with the Russian invasion of 1979, or perhaps the Russian backed coup of 1973. And that much damage arose through the Russian occupation 1979 to 1989. That far more damage arose through the civl war and eventual taliban domination from 1989 through 2001. Truthfully, there wasn't much left when the American's came calling in 2001.

So, in this sense, Mr. Etzioni has a point. Much of the damage to Afghan society and economy comes prior to the American's own unique contribution. And even before that damage begins, there was definitely a gap.

But is there any point in simply being a miser, confining ones contribution to restoring the Afghans to their point in 2001, and then calling it a day.

2001 cannot be considered satisfactory, given that whole 9/11 thing. Bring it back to that point or some reasonable equivalent, simply restores the status quo that Al Quaeda and other groups found so fertile. The idea, presumably, is to defeat Al Quaeda.

wonder if these case studies work half as well for the reader as they worked for me.

Without reading Mr. Etzioni's novel, I think I can safely say that it probably did not.

With regard to Mr. Etzioni's histrionic over nuclear terrorism, I've previously commented that it neither cost effective nor practical from the point of view of terrorists, and I do not propose to review my arguments.

In respect of Mr. Etzioni's concerns over Nigeria, point taken, but given that case, I think it further underscores the hypocrisy on display with respect to Iran.

Well gee, considering that US aid to Israel exceeds what was spent on rebuilding Europe after WWII under the Marshall Plan, and that pro-ISraeli agents are directly responsible for pushing the US into a war on Iraq, then here's a suggestion:

END US AID TO ISRAEL; USE THE MONEY TO REBUILD IRAQ.

We don't have any moral duty of any sort whatsoever to continue underwriting Israel' crimes and expansionism. We do owe a moral and legal duty to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, countries which we invaded illegally.