Home----Essay Index

War…why?

 

Note: This is an unfinished essay I wrote just prior to the Iraq war.  It lacks a conclusion, and more understandably, it lacks the perspective we now have—the knowledge that Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction.  At the time, I was convinced the Administration was not wrong and/or lying about it (take your pick).  All the same, I’m still reasonably happy with this piece and will post it anyway, with some comments at the end.

 

 

I think if I was still sixteen…still young and brash and arrogant as hell…I’d probably be 100% against this imperialist regime of Bushies trying to tear apart world peace.  I’d be convinced that it was an oil war…that Arab nations ruled by dictators need to solve their own problems, and so on.  Well, I’m not sixteen.  I’m not young, stupid, and arrogant anymore.  September 11^th did change a few things, and Saddam Hussein has been in defiance of U.N. resolutions for twelve years.  Yet even though there are some reasons why this war may make sense, I’m finding it hard to leap up in support as so many American’s have.  I’m not completely outraged by the war—as many are—or pleased to see it happening—as many others are.  If anything, I’m confused, and saddened.  It seems like there should have been another way, and yet…what other way?

          I have listened to opposing pundits badger each other for months, oversimplifying their positions and refusing to acknowledge the arguments of the opposition.  Peaceniks scream murder for making war on a savage murderer, and warmongers cry self-defense for a preemptive action against a nominal threat.  The truth—whatever it may be—has been drowned in worldwide political wrangling the likes of which…well, the likes of which we’ve gotten used to in the United States.

          To those for war, the arguments are compelling:

 

1)     Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction he might give to terrorists. Therefore, he must be disarmed. 

2)     Saddam Hussein is and has been in defiance of U.N. resolutions since 1991, and therefore the world must act to enforce those resolutions. 

3)     Saddam Hussein is a cruel and vile dictator, and the United States has a moral obligation to remove him from power.

 

          For those against, the arguments seem equally compelling:

 

1)        While Iraq clearly has weapons of mass destruction, if U.N. weapons inspectors are given more time, he can be—or at least could be—peacefully disarmed.

2)        Since Iraq has no direct link to terrorist organizations, the likelihood of its chemical or biological weapons ending up in the hands of terrorists is low; as such, preemptive war in not justified. 

3)        While the disarming of Iraq will moderately decrease the threat of attack, the war and the long occupation that will follow will ultimately increase it.

4)        While Saddam Hussein is a cruel and vile dictator, it is up to Arabs—and not the United States—to deal with him. 

5)        Attempting to democratize a fractured nation like Iraq will lead to civil war, possibly destabilizing the entire region.

6)        The cost of rebuilding and democratizing Iraq will lead to massive deficits and budget cuts, crippling society and the economy.

 

          It’s amazing, and a little frightening, to hear the conviction in people’s voices when they argue about this war.  There’s no good answer to this Iraq situation.  Every course of action has unforeseen and possibly tragic consequences.  How can there be so much conviction and so little compromise?

          I have struggled with these issues—as we all have—for many months, and I have come to this conclusion: Deciding whether this war is right or wrong, whether it is justifiable self-defense or unnecessary murder, depends partly on how you view the veracity of the arguments, more so on what you believe the role of the United States should be, and ultimately on how much you trust the Bush Administration.

 

A TERRORIST THREAT?

 

After 9/11, we had no choice.  We had to trust George Bush.  In those eerie moments when dissent seemed unpatriotic and—at times—almost sacrilegious, Bush had complete control of American politics.  We went where he led us.

          At first that was to Afghanistan.  We understood this phase in the war on terror, for it was Afghanistan—and its Taliban government—that had harbored the terrorists who had attacked us.  We blindly followed the war without question, watching maps of Afghanistan change color from red to blue as the Northern Alliance dislodged the Taliban from power. 

          In time, we forgot Afghanistan.  Some claim they are still dancing in the streets—that women are running around without their burkas on.  The reality is likely different.  Some say that outside of Kabul, there is no law and order—that women still wear their burkas for fear they will be raped.  Of course whatever the truth is, it would be hard to know, because it wasn’t long after the fighting stopped that Bush started talking about the threat Iraq posed to the world.

          Since it’s last war, Iraq has attacked no one—aside from its own people—and doesn’t, at present, seem a threat to its neighbors.  Despite this, Bush argues a war is necessary.  Without a war, he claims, international law will cease to have any legitimacy.  Yet it is clearly not this—but rather the threat of terrorism—that has always been the primary thrust for this war.

          The argument is a simple one.  Iraq has a large cache of biological and chemical weapons.  If these weapons fall into the hands of terrorists, untold destruction could be wrought upon the United States and its allies.  Therefore, he must be disarmed, and probably ought to be thrown out of power just for good measure.

          This raises a couple of questions. 

 

          Does Iraq possess biological and chemical weapons? 

 

          At this point, I think it would be almost impossible for anyone to claim that they didn’t.  Saddam Hussein has spent the last twelve years defying UN resolutions and giving weapons inspectors the runaround.  After all the gamesmanship, it’s impossible to think he doesn’t have something.  After all, if he didn’t have something to hide, why would he be trying so hard to hide it?

           

          If Iraq does have these weapons, then what is the likelihood that they will end up in the hands of terrorists? 

 

          The Bush Administration has consistently argued that there is a direct link between Saddam Hussein and terrorist organizations.  This link, they say, means that the threat is extremely high.  The trouble is, there is no proof of any direct link between the Iraq regime and terrorist organizations.  That became abundantly clear upon the release of the last bin Laden tape. 

          With all the tapes that had come before, the government had always whisked them away for analysis before releasing them to the press, just to make sure bin Laden wasn’t sending covert commands to terrorist cells.  This time, despite the fact that the authenticity of the tape was in doubt, it was released immediately.  Translations of the tape were quickly broadcast all over the world.  While bin Laden expressed support for the Iraqi people, urging attacks against the United States in the event of war, he blasted Saddam Hussein and called him an infidel. 

          Colin Powell then preceded to disgrace himself by claiming the tape proved there was a direct link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.  Opponents had long argued the Administration was trying to manipulate evidence in order to increase support for the war, and in this case, it became abundantly clear they were doing it.

          The tape didn’t prove a direct link, and no other evidence has been presented thus far to suggest that any such a link exists.  I find it very hard to believe that that such evidence would not be released if it existed, especially given the world’s opinion of the war.

          But the fact that there is no link to terrorism does not defeat the Administration’s argument entirely.  After all, they have argued from the beginning that this strike is preemptive.  It doesn’t matter if there is a direct link between Hussein and bin Laden, or any other terrorist group.  It only matters that there could be; that these weapons of mass destruction exist and might fall into the hands of terrorists.

          This point has some merit.  While it might be unlikely—today—that Saddam Hussein would give his weapons to terrorists, it is not impossible to think he wouldn’t do it at some point in the future.  And given that he is an inhumane, greedy, and immoral person, it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility that he would sell those weapons to terrorists.  Even if you don’t think Hussein would do it, what is to stop some lower-level Iraqi official from doing it?  In my mind, if you want an answer to the question of “could those weapons end up in the hands of terrorists,” the answer is yes, they most certainly could.

          With this in mind, the Bush Administration tells us the only course is to oust Saddam.  Some questions quickly arise:

 

          Is war the only way to disarm Iraq?

 

          Personally, I think an entirely peaceful disarmament of Iraq is impossible.  Clearly the Iraqi authorities have no interest in disarming.  In twelve years they have given us no reason to think they will ever comply with UN resolutions, and their duplicitous stabs at compliance this year have done little to change my mind.  At the very least, it seems that some kind of military presence inside of Iraq is required.  President Bush argues that it isn’t the job of inspectors to disarm Iraq.  Even if it was, I don’t believe they could do that without a strong military presence.  In the past, when Iraq has refused entry into a suspected site, the inspectors have had limited power to force their way in.  I don’t see how that could change without persistent military presence and the threat of immediate and devastating force the moment there is any resistance.

          Yet given the history, there is little reason to believe that even this mix of soldiers and inspectors could disarm Iraq.  When the inspectors first entered Iraq after the Gulf War, they had far more support from the Security Council than they have had of late.  When problems arose, the Security Council solved them.  Despite this, the inspectors weren’t finding many weapons, and after awhile they were beginning to believe that Iraq was coming into compliance.  But when an Iraqi defector confirmed that there were tons of biological and chemical weapons the inspectors weren’t aware of, it became clear they had been making little progress.

          I believe there is a serious question as to whether or not weapons inspections can ever be successful in locating all or even most of a nation’s weapons.  As loathe as I am to align my opinion with those of flag-waving, freedom-fry eating warmongers, I don’t see how any extension of weapons inspections is going to completely disarm Iraq.  Clearly, the Iraqi’s have shown an ability to hide their weapons.  Without true compliance, and without a real willingness to disarm, I don’t see how inspections can be effective.

          So if you ask me the question, “Can Iraq only be disarmed by force,” I think the answer is yes.

 

THE SENSE OF DISARMAMENT

 

There are, however, some very troubling questions that arise when you take this kind of stance.  Sure, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and even without a terrorist link, it is not outside the realm of reason to think those weapons might fall into the hands of terrorists.  The trouble is, Iraq isn’t alone.  There are several other nations that possess chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, and many of these nations either have links to terrorists or have previously shown distaste for the United States.  North Korea and Pakistan are two nuclear powers that quickly come to mind, but be assured there are dozens of other nations that have the means and motive to give weapons to terrorists.

          So if the answer to Iraq is to disarm it for the sake of our safety, then is that also the answer for all these other nations?  Must we disarm Pakistan, North Korea, and half a dozen other Middle East nations that harbor and/or aid terrorists?  Given our stance on Iraq, it’s hard to see how we couldn’t.

          The trouble with a “war on terrorism” is that terrorism is a worldwide threat, and it exists at least in part because the United States is perceived to be an imperial power.  Now even if you don’t believe it is one, if you’re worried about terrorism then you should be worried about how America is perceived around the world.  One thing we ought to know by now is that terrorists can come from anywhere and be funded by anyone, and that no amount of military force can completely stop them all.  President Bush said recently that the world will be safer the moment Iraq is disarmed.  I don’t question that.  But I don’t believe we have fully considered the dangers of prosecuting this war on terror.

          It doesn’t matter what our intentions are.  So long as we are perceived to be imperialists, terrorist organizations will find it easy to recruit new members.  Sure, we don’t want to be blackmailed by the rest of the world, but the question is this: At what point will our actions engender so much anti-American sentiment that we will have actually done more to increase the threat of terrorism than we have done to decrease it?

          Colin Powell gave the entire country the willies when he went before the UN with his vial of anthrax.  As he said, in the wrong hands, that small container has the potential to do incredible destruction.  But what capacity does the UN, or the United States military, or any other body have to track down and destroy every last one of those vials?  Going to war with the entire world might get rid of ninety or even ninety-eight percent of them, but it won’t stop some nut somewhere from gathering up the ones that are left and dropping them on American cities.

          Besides, terrorism is cheap.  Sure, you can do it with dirty bombs and weapons-grade anthrax, but killing people is a hell of a lot easier than all that.  Like it or not, terrorism will continue to be a threat so long as people have access to hardware stores and rental trucks.  Tim McVeigh proved in 1995 that with a little brainpower and a whole lot of fertilizer you can do something pretty damned devastating.

          So to me, there’s a serious question as to whether or not this “war on terrorism”—at least as it relates to sustained military action against rouge states—doesn’t do us more harm than good.  Part of the reason terrorists hate us is that they believe we are an imperialist power that does whatever it wants and answers to no one.  Now that we’ve forsaken the United Nations, doesn’t that make their point?

          Personally, I think the Bush Administration knows this, and I don’t think we’re going to be in a continuous state of war.  We’re not going to destroy all the weapons of mass destruction in all the nations who might conceivably give them to terrorists.  It is far more likely that we will selectively disarm certain nations and rely on diplomacy to resolve conflicts with others.

          Doing so, however, will seriously harm the reputation of the United States.  Selectively targeting some nations for military action while negotiating with others will inevitably cause people to question our motives.  It may not be justified, but this is already a problem and it will only get worse.  The terrorists believe we attacked Afghanistan in order to build an oil pipeline across it, and they are going to believe we attacked Iraq because it’s full of oil and Muslims.  The sad fact is, if we don’t invade North Korea, we’re not going to be able to prove them wrong.

          And what of our safety?  If we negotiate with North Korea—with a dictator at least as cruel as Saddam Hussein—what chance is there that he will abide by those accords?  If Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Egypt, and dozens of other nations that support or harbor terrorists—or who posses dangerous weapons—are not stopped, then will we really have made America safer?

          Total war will almost guarantee further terrorist attacks.  A limited war against Iraq and a few other nations will—at best—only marginally increase the overall safety of Americans.  With these two realities being what they are, it becomes hard to believe that stopping terrorism is a primary motivation for this war.  In fact, were stopping terrorism our primary motivation, we would immediately withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia, drop our support for Israel, and cease all attempts to globalize the economy.  That’s a defeatist philosophy, perhaps, but it makes sense: If all you want to do is stop terrorism, then you should stop doing whatever it is that makes the terrorists mad.

          At the very least, the Bush Administration should stop arguing that this war will make America significantly safer.  While I have no doubt that it will make the region, and thus the world, safer, it will only nominally reduce the chance that terrorists will be able to use weapons of mass destruction against us.

          So if security isn’t the justification, then what is?

THE LEGITIMACY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

 

George Bush and Tony Blair have argued repeatedly that Saddam Hussein is in violation of UN resolutions, and that if international law is to mean anything, those resolutions must be enforced.  Opponents see this as some kind of ploy, but actually it’s one of their strongest arguments in favor of the war.

          It’s cold and legal, but it makes sense.  Many American’s have a problem with the idea of policing the world, but that’s exactly what the United Nations was set up to do.  By design, the UN is supposed to meet and deal with rouge states and rouge dictators before they gain too much power.  It was created as a response to World War II, which most historians agree could have been averted—or at least substantially minimized—had action been taken against Adolph Hitler earlier.

          By itself, this concept doesn’t justify preemptive strikes against nations that could—but have not yet—become a threat.  Opponents to war often argue that Iraq is not currently a threat to its neighbors or even to the United States, but that’s beside the point.  As a matter of international law, the Persian Gulf War never ended.

          When Iraq invaded Kuwait, they did so to acquire territory and recourses—particularly Kuwaiti oil, which they thought was keeping the overall price of oil too low.  It was little different from the land grabs Germany had made under Hitler.  Clearly, Saddam Hussein’s intention was to increase his nation’s power.  Were Hussein allowed to take control of too much oil, he would have been in the position to blackmail the rest of the world with it.  You may not think much of fighting a war over the world’s oil prices, but it was exactly the kind of war the United Nations was designed to fight.  In the Middle East, oil is power, and Saddam Hussein with power is a frightening prospect.  He had to be kicked out of Kuwait.

          That was the stated purpose of the Persian Gulf War, and the President Bush then in power was sure not to go beyond it.  Nonetheless, at the end of the war Iraq agreed to disarm all of its weapons and to account for all of its weapons programs.  In doing so, they signed a legally binding contract with the rest of the world.  They had to disarm.

          To assure they complied, the UN sent in weapons inspectors.  We all know the rest of the story: Iraq started dancing, refused to disarm, and eventually kicked the inspectors out.  Clearly, the Iraqi’s had violated the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement.  As a purely legal matter, the United Nations was obligated to force their compliance.

          As I said, it’s a cold conclusion, but it still makes sense.  In any legal system there must be punishments for violating agreements.  Iraq agreed to disarm its weapons.  They didn’t do it.  It’s no different than a person agreeing to pay a bill and then refusing to do it.  At some point there have to be repercussions.  And it’s hard to claim we haven’t tried to reason with them.  Twelve years of diplomacy—of begging and pleading for them to live up to their agreements—has done us no good.  When you don’t pay your bills, for a while you get phone calls; but at some point you go to court.  Without the threat of real punishment you have no reason to comply.

          Essentially, this argument doesn’t require Iraq to be a threat.  It doesn’t require Saddam Hussein to be the second coming of Hitler.  It doesn’t really matter if he’s plotting to take over the Middle East.  All that matters is that he agreed to disarm and hasn’t.  As a matter of international law, we’re required to go to war.  Besides, this much makes sense: If we don’t force Iraq’s compliance, why would any other nation ever feel a need to abide by whatever accords they agree to?  The lesson of the Second World War is that we must police the rest of the world—just to make sure nothing like that ever happens again.  But if we don’t require other nations to live up to the agreements they make with the world, what’s the point?

 

Writer’s Comments – June 6^th, 2006

 

You could argue the Legitimacy of International Law argument falls apart if Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction, which they didn’t.  However, it now remains positively the best and perhaps only justification for the war, since Saddam Hussein played too many games with weapons inspectors not to make himself look guilty. 

 

I’m not entirely sure what I would’ve concluded on the basis of my analysis in 2003—I probably didn’t know then and that’s probably why I never wrote one.  Based on what we knew, war seemed risky—although perhaps necessary—and the answer depended largely on how much you trusted the information coming from the Bush Administration.  My trust in them was lacking, so I was always against the war—even if I wasn’t sure how good or bad an idea it was in principle.  My point was—or at least should have been—that we needed to demand more, better, and more honest information from our government so that we could be confident in the choice they were making for us.  Even if you believe the Administration’s mistakes were purely that—mistakes, and not lies, the whole pre-war fiasco made a shambles of American democracy.  Those were not cold, hard facts coming out of the oval office.  Everything about every piece of information, true or not, had been spun to make the case for war—that is not democracy.  That is treachery—that is manipulation.  We deserved better than that as Americans.

 

And as it turns out, I was right not to trust them.  Whether I was wrong to trust their honesty or their competence is a matter of debate, but either way the case for the war was wrong, and millions of Americans bought it because they bought the spin. 

 

But for whatever failures the Administration can be blamed for, it was ultimately our responsibility to demand better information—to insist that their claims were accurate.  We didn’t do that—we were content to be led into war by advertising.  That’s frightening.  It is not for the government to lead us by the hand anywhere they might want us to go.  We, the people, are the first and most important check against our government.  Even if we agree with our leaders, we should question them anyway—we should demand all the facts and demand that they be discussed openly and fairly, without spin and personal opinion.  If we had demanded that, we might’ve seen the case against Iraq as the slice of Swiss cheese it was.  It bothers me to read that list of points against the war—to see that so many of the have turned out to be true.  Now that they are true, and have been true for three years, a majority of Americans are against the war.  It would be too much to say we could’ve saved ourselves the trouble if we’d simply demanded better information and analyzed it more fairly, but you can’t help but wonder.  The fact is, we never gave it a chance.  We allowed ourselves to be led by the hand, and just how much of a price we paid for it will never be fully known.

 

 

 

Home----Essay Index