Posted on 09/14/2002 8:25:58 AM PDT by ppaul
Securing the peace in Afghanistan and the Middle East should be a precondition for starting a third war in Iraq
The Bush administration has asked the United Nations, the US Congress, and the American people to consider taking military action against Iraq. This government's stated policy with respect to Saddam Hussein is simple: regime change. We want Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction out. Sooner rather than later. And few doubt the Bush administration's will or its ability to follow through with whatever action necessary to secure this outcome.
Regime change is one thing. Rebuilding Iraq following the fall of Saddam Hussein is another. And this is where things get very murky, as is well illustrated by events in nearby Afghanistan. There the Taliban regime has been thrown out, and the Karsai regime is in, at least in Kabul. But meanwhile much of the country has reverted to rule by the warlords and the opium producers, the economy lies in ruins, people are hungry and without means of supporting themselves, and the new president is alive only because he is surrounded by US special forces.
In Israel, the same situation confronts us. US policy is much the same: regime change, followed by the creation of a democratic Palestinian state. In this case even regime change eludes us, and the nation building has not even begun. People on both sides of the conflict face terror and misery every day.
When he was campaigning for the presidency, George Bush criticized the Clinton administration for getting involved in "nation building," a task which candidate Bush believed was inappropriate for the United States to take on. He cited US intervention in both Somalia and Haiti as illustrative of actions that he found problematic. He also argued that one should not become embroiled in military engagement around the world without clearly stated objectives, and an equally clear "exit plan."
Today however, the Bush administration has reversed course, supporting not only regime change but rebuilding basic institutions of government is no less than three of the most troubled areas of the world. Palestine. Afghanistan. Iraq. With respect to Palestine the regime change has not yet happened, and the nation building is yet to begin. There is not even a hint of an exit plan in the Middle East. In Afghanistan, we've seen regime change, but most of the nation building lies ahead. Rather than developing an exit plan, it is clear that increased US involvement is required. In both these places the work of creating stable governments, economic development, and freedom from terror and oppression is only just begun. Wouldn't it make sense to see if the task of nation building can be completed successfully in either one of these two difficult situations before taking on the same challenge in Iraq?
Thomas Freidman, one of the most acute observers of world affairs hits the mark when he writes in a New York Times Op-Ed piece:
As I think about President Bush's plans to take out Saddam Hussein and rebuild Iraq into a democracy, one question gnaws at me: Is Iraq the way it is today because Saddam Hussein is the way he is? Or is Saddam Hussein the way he is because Iraq is the way it is? I mean, is Iraq a totalitarian dictatorship under a cruel, iron-fisted man because the country is actually an Arab Yugoslavia — a highly tribalized, artificial state, drawn up by the British, consisting of Shiites in the south, Kurds in the north and Sunnis in the center — whose historical ethnic rivalries can be managed only by a Saddam-like figure? Or, has Iraq, by now, congealed into a real nation?
And once the cruel fist of Saddam is replaced by a more enlightened leadership, Iraq's talented, educated people will slowly produce a federal democracy. The answer is critical, because any U.S. invasion of Iraq will leave the U.S. responsible for nation-building there. Invade Iraq and we own Iraq. And once we own it, we will have to rebuild it, and since that is a huge task, we need to understand what kind of raw material we'll be working with.
The real question that the United Nations, the US Congress, and the American people need to be addressing now is whether we are willing and able, not only to eliminate Saddam Hussein (we surely are), but whether we are prepared to commit the resources necessary to insure that once Saddam Hussein is history, the people of Iraq find their situation actually improved.
Unless we are prepared to answer that question in the affirmative, going to war is difficult to justify. This is particularly true for Christians who must answer, not just to the court of public opinion, or to the requirements of international law, but to a far higher authority. There are a number of very specific questions that must be addressed within the framework of just war theory as worked out over two millennium of thinking about such issues in the church. Before engaging in warfare, there are three essential questions that must be addressed.
1) Just cause. To argue that there is a "just cause" for war requires a real and certain danger, as well as a worthy objective such as protecting innocent life, preserving conditions necessary for decent human existence, or securing basic human rights. One can easily make the case the ridding the world of Saddam Hussein is a just cause.
2) Proportionality. Under the requirement of proportionality, the damage inflicted must not be greater than the damage prevented. Here we enter into an area of greater uncertainty, for who is to measure, in advance, the damage caused in an invasion of Iraq? And how does one balance this against the damage that might be prevented by taking out Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction? If we knew that Saddam Hussein, for example, possessed a thermonuclear weapon and that he intended to use it against Israel, the requirement of proportionality would pretty clearly be satisfied. At this writing, we do not know this.
3) Probability of success. The "probability of success" criterion prohibits resort to force when the desired outcome is unlikely or impossible with the result that waging war will lead to greater harm being done. It is at this point that the case for attacking Iraq is weakest and where conscience requires more evidence than is currently before us. This is because merely removing Saddam Hussein will not improve the situation either for the people of Iraq or for ourselves. Should Saddam be replaced by yet another dictator, or should the destruction of his regime result in a second invasion of Iraq by a now emboldened Iran, it may well be that greater harm would be caused by our action than by our inaction. (Remember, only a few years ago, even as Saddam was using weapons of mass destruction, WE were supporting Saddam in his fight against Iran as we believed that a stable Iraq was vital to our own interests in the region!)
With the results of our prior involvement in the Middle East as well as in Afghanistan still falling far short of success, who is in a position to say that we can succeed in Iraq? Would it not be far preferable to continue with our current policy of containment which has prevented Saddam Hussein from using weapons of mass destruction for nearly twenty years? This we have already succeeded in doing. Having contained the far more malevolent, more powerful force of the Soviet Union for several decades leading up to its collapse, we should understand clearly that such a policy has a far greater probability of success than regime change followed by the far more difficult task of nation building. In the meantime, let's finish the work already begun in the Middle East and Afghanistan. It will take miracles a plenty to finish the work we've barely started in those two places. Asking for yet a third set of miracles in Iraq at this point amounts to nothing less than tempting God.
Link to article HERE.
FReep this POLL:
Should the US go to war against Iraq?
Do you suppose this guy was raised as a "red diaper doper baby"?
Hind sight shows that had we done so, Hitler would have had Atomic weapons log before we did.
Had our "Greatest Generation" followed this advice, the people making it today would not be alive to make it.
How soon, as a nation, we have forgotten!
BTW, I am very thankful that we have troops in Germany and Japan guaranteeing that they don't ever become a threat to us again.
Dear Mr. Henderson:
You seem to have a fine idea there but perhaps you don't realize that taking care of Iraq is just one more battle in the WAR, yes it's the SAME war, on terrorism!
Get it?
When he was campaigning for the presidency, George Bush criticized the Clinton administration for getting involved in "nation building," a task which candidate Bush believed was inappropriate for the United States to take on. He cited US intervention in both Somalia and Haiti as illustrative of actions that he found problematic. He also argued that one should not become embroiled in military engagement around the world without clearly stated objectives, and an equally clear "exit plan."
It just depend on it the nation builder CALLS himself a Democrat or Republican..that will determine the level of support here on FR
| Should the US go to war with Iraq? | |||
| Yes | |||
| 105 votes (50%) | |||
| No | |||
| 98 votes (47%) | |||
| Undecided | |||
| 6 votes (3%) | |||
|
209 people have voted so far |
|||
Nor did you, my friend.
No, I don't get it. Please explain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.