On Consequences

I was just speaking with a cubicle-mate, and he remarked that - given the unlikelihood of a Nuremberg-style tribunal for the various members of the Bush Administration - the UN specifically, and International Law more generally looks hollow and illegitimate. After all, if there's no consequences to disobedience, what's to stop China, France, or whoever from breaking international law in the future if the UN is powerless to stop any nation stronger than, say, Gabon?

This, I think, mistakes legal and political punishment for a consequence. The American government, economy, and military are all going to pay heavily for the violation of international law that was the Iraq War. A short list of the consequences would be: 2600 dead (so far), $1 trillion in expendtures, and the probably-permanent besmirching of whatever good record America had pre-war.

It would therefore be profoundly stupid for the leaders of China, Russia, or whoever to look at Iraq and say, "Gee, the Americans haven't paid a price for their breach of the law. We should go do the same!"

Rather, the intelligent, reality-based response to Iraq is to look and say, "Gee, the Americans violated international law, and it turned out to be a total fucking disaster. Perhaps there's a correlation."

As much as I would love to see Bush, Rumsfeld, et al at the docket in the Hague, don't confuse personal punishment with consequences. As with so many criminals, the biggest punishment for the American government, for now, is having to live... like a criminal.