I had the privilege last night of attending an excellent panel discussion entitled "American forgeign policy in Iraq." Professors Abraham Sofaer, David Abernathy and Eric Roberts conducted a lively discussion in which many good points were made. Professor Abernathy in particular did a tremendous job of outlining the potential hazards of a war in Iraq. Based upon what I heard, and other information I have read, I have come to the conclusion that war on Iraq, as it is currently being proposed is both morally and practically unacceptable. It is also entirely unnecessary.
First, I ask you, the reader, to suspend your disbelief. Let us assume that the primary goal of this war really is the removal of Saddam Hussein. Well, fundamentally, the strategic approach of the Bush administration to this war is flawed. Rather than attempting to soothe international fears about unilateral U.S. actions, President Bush and his cohorts have justified their fears by announcing that the U.S. will do as it sees fit, with, or without, international support. This both alienates our potential allies and colors all future actions and proposals, especially in the Muslim world. The U.S. has a long history of high-handed and unfair actions in the region, and a U.S. invasion of Iraq without international support is hardly likely to be viewed as anything other than an imperial superpower sticking it's nose into other people's business.
Of course, the administration claims that Iraq is our business. They say that because Iraq is attempting to design weapons of "mass destruction" it is a direct threat to U.S. security. Yet there is no publicly available information to support this. We don't know what weapons Iraq has or is trying to build. Furthermore, to claim that such weapons are aimed at us, rather than at the Saudis or the Israelis, is pretty disingenuous. If Saddam Hussein was a real threat, isn't it likely, Saudi Arabia and Iran would support a war to remove him? I mean, get real. Furthermore, even if he had these weapons, would he use them unless he felt trapped? Saddam Hussein is not a stupid man. He knows that if he attacks anybody, except maybe his own people, and they find out itŐs him, he's out. Given Saddam Hussein's unhealthy obsession with power, it seems scarcely likely that he would do something that he knows will prompt an immediate attempt to remove him. He is homicidal, not suicidal.
Regardless of the questionable justification of the invasion of Iraq, there is still the minor practical issue of getting the job done. It ain't a walk in the park. People, maybe a lot of people, will die. Urban warfare is never simple, and never easy. Unless Saddam Hussein is killed very quickly, there will be real fighting, and real people, including Americans, are going to die. Moreover if Saddam Hussein finds himself with his back against the wall, and nothing to lose, he is quite likely to use any means at his disposal to exact revenge on his enemies. Remember the burning Kuwaiti oil wells in 1991? There is nobody more dangerous than a man with nothing to lose.
And then one comes to the question of postwar Iraq? Who will govern? If it is a democracy, the Shi'ite majority would naturally assume power. This fact will scarcely please the Sunni Saudis, nor does it dovetail the U.S. policy of isolating Iran. Of course, it's highly likely a civil war would result anyway. Now the next possibility is that the U.S. governs Iraq for at least a brief period in a MacArthur style occupation. Something tells me that Muslims around the world, and indeed most Europeans and Africans would regard that as neo-colonialism. All those who already distrust the U.S. (read: almost all the Middle East) will be all the more likely to support those who they view as protecting them against American aggression, especially the extremists and terrorists. Net yield: more instability, more violence and more terrorism. Let's not even talk about the cost and difficulty of maintaining such an occupation. Of course we could simply withdraw and let the country descend into chaos, but that is unlikely to aid our interests either.
The simplest option would be supporting a local dictator. We've done it often enough in the past. But that leader had better be damn popular and strong, else he will be seen as a U.S. puppet, and torn down by the forces of nationalism. The inevitable result of such a foreign-backed regime would be extremely strong local opposition, forcing us to either back out and leave the puppet to his fate, or support him militarily, as we did in South Vietnam in the 1960s.
But even ignoring the negative affects on Iraq and our standing in the world, we will be establishing some very dangerous precedents with our actions. Preemption seems to be the current term of choice. But for those on the receiving end, that's just a fancy word for aggression. Japan claimed it was preemption that caused its 1937 invasion of Manchuria, so we are no doubt placing ourselves in good company. More currently, could not either India or Pakistan (with some justification) consider a preemptive strike against the other with similar justification? Those two threaten each other far more than Saddam threatens us, and both have nuclear weapons. No, I don't think preemption is a good precedent to establish, unless the ultimate goal is a world war with nuclear weapons. Better that we stick to self-defense. There is a difference between being proactive, and aggressive.
As for the moral arguments against a U.S. attack on Iraq, it is quite simple. Killing a lot of people in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein is simply brutal, akin to collective punishment. It is not justifiable to kill thousands in order to get rid of one man unless that one man is an extreme threat, and all other means have been exhausted. Note: I don't say that there is never a justification for war, but I do think it should be the means of last resort. Saddam Hussein has yet to be shown as an extreme threat, and we have yet to exhaust other means.
A war with Iraq is both stupid and inhumane. So then, what do we do about Saddam? Well, I don't care for the guy much either. The primary difference between him and Hitler is he lacks the means to be as destructive. I don't advocate giving him the means to be that destructive either. So I'd say getting rid of him is a pretty good idea. I also suspect that his neighbors don't care much for him either. So rather than invading Iraq, wouldn't it be smarter to either enlist the help of his neighbors in removing him, or, failing that, assassinating him ourselves? No, these aren't cut-n-dried solutions either, but the point is, choose the right tool for the job. There's no point in throwing out the baby with the bathwater, particularly when that bathwater's radioactive, and likely to haunt you for years to come.
BUT, AND THIS A VERY BIG BUT, THESE ARE ALL MOOT POINTS. The fact is that the U.S. wants to attack Iraq, not because it hates Saddam Hussein for being a ruthless brutal dictator, nor because it is afraid that he may do something against us. In reality, the administration's true goals are to make an example, to the rest of the world, of what happens to those who don't go along with U.S. interests and policies. Don't get me wrong, Saddam Hussein is not a nice guy. But that's precisely the reason the administration targeted him. Nobody will miss him, but everybody will appreciate the message implicit in his removal: mess with us, and you're toast. This message, I might add, is directed as much at our allies, as at our enemies.
This really is a scenario in which the war was decided a long time ago, and the justification for it was thought up later. Initially, there was the attempt to tie Iraq to the Al Qaeda terrorists. I still haven't seen the evidence. Now they are trying to use the issue of "weapons of mass destruction." If that doesn't work they'll try something else. The point is not that these reasons are all invalid. Some are valid. But beginning with a set plan of action, and then trying to find an excuse to justify that said plan is a dangerous game. And in this context, it also involves lying to the people of this country and the world.
At its core, there are many good reasons not to go to war, especially in the manner the Bush administration advocates. But the fundamental one is this: it's a phony war. Sadly enough, few people are willing to admit this, or even understand it in the first place. For those of us don't object to the hypocrisy and lies surrounding the drumbeat for war, and believe fundamentally that the ends justify the means, there is the problem that this a poorly designed and planned campaign, with consequences we can ill afford. In essence, we cannot achieve the ends without harming ourselves significantly through the means. But for those of us who look deeper, we realize that both the means and the true ends are wrong, and that is all the more troubling. The war against Iraq will be fought not for human rights, not for national security, and not for international justice. It will be fought because the current government of the United States of America has a message to send, a fact which the thousands who die will no doubt find truly comforting. Guess that's what is meant by "land of the free" and "home of the brave." Ladies and gentleman, boys and girls, welcome to the beginning of an American empire.
