Can We Finish One War Before Starting Another? [BARF ALERT] (with Poll to FReep)

about.com ^ | 9/14/02 | Charles Henderson

[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?

[Nick Danger]

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.

Bullsh*t. We are not on a mission to improve the lives of Iraqi citizens. That might happen, but if it does it will be a pleasant accident.

This guy talks like the objective here is to remove Saddam Hussein so we can send in the Department of Health and Human Services to bring those poor, downtrodden Iraqis the same benefits enjoyed by our own citizens in Cabrini Green.

Well, no it's not. If we go in there to take out Saddam, it will be because we have concluded that his policy set includes developing nuclear and biological weapons, and using them on us... either directly or through his friends in terrorist places.

We do not need a plan for turning Iraq into paradise in order to justify defending ourselves from nuclear or biological attack. What rubbish that argument is.

[stimulate]

Similar argument was made in WW 2 by pacifists:why go to war with Germany instead of killing the madman Adolph Hitler?

Then again how do you kill the leader of a country without invasion? Sneak a few snipers in?
Yeah, that will work, sure.Starring Ben Afflack

[traditionalist]

This sounds like the argument in WWII that Japan attacked us. There was no reason to get into a war with Hitler until we had conquered Japan.

False analogy. Japan and Germany had a formal alliance, so declaring war on Japan meant that we automatically were at War with Germany. True, we declared war on Germany seperately, but that was not strictly speaking necessary.

[traditionalist]

You should think more before you write. Has it ever occured to you what the consequences would be if we simply entered Iraq, took out Saddam and destroyed the WMD, and then just left, leaving the country in total anarchy?

[Howlin]

Bumped and voted.

[Bigun]

No, I don't get it. Please explain.

Be happy to!

You DO recall the president of the United States, George W. Bush, telling us that we would pursue international terrorist, their organizations, and those who harbor and give them sucor WHEREVER they happen to be in the world don't you? Well he did that and was sustained by BOTH HOUSES of congress in so doing.

That leads us to Iraq which is ONE of the nations on this earth which has done ALL of those things in spades and we WILL deal with them as a part of the war on terror!

NOW do you get it?

[ppaul]

This guy talks like the objective here is to remove Saddam Hussein so we can send in the Department of Health and Human Services to bring those poor, downtrodden Iraqis the same benefits enjoyed by our own citizens in Cabrini Green.

Yep.

[Oregon W.oman]

"Can we finish one war before starting another?"

Yes. And the war we should finish is the Gulf War. That is the war which was suspended after Saddam agreed to abide by a series of UN resolutions in exchange for his life and the continuance of his regime.

Since he has not met the terms of even one of those UN resolutions, it is long past time for the Gulf War to resume and BE FINISHED by finally and permanently removing Saddam and all who are loyal to him.

[Gone_Postal]

Keep fishing.

Not only should the US walk in a take over Iraq
I believe to the Victors goes the spoils....

and cheap gas for everyone....

[ppaul]

Japan and Germany had a formal alliance, so declaring war on Japan meant that we automatically were at War with Germany.

So you are implying that the Islamic wackos are not allied with Iraq?

[traditionalist]

That leads us to Iraq which is ONE of the nations on this earth which has done ALL of those things in spades

Not according to what information I have seen. Iraq aids Palestinian terrorism, but these are not international terrorist groups. There are Al Qeada forces in Iraq, but in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurds and not Saddam, and I have not seen any reports that Saddam is aiding them. If you have information to the contrary, I would be happy to see it.

[traditionalist]

Exactly.

[CIB-173RDABN]

"False analogy. Japan and Germany had a formal alliance..."

The key word for you then is "formal", but how do we know what secret "formal" alliances Saddam and Osama may have had?

There is a group over in the area of the world that would like to see all of us dead.

Some were in control of govnernment such as in Afghanistan, and others only recieve support from governments such as Iraq.

I am in no mode for playing word games. Saddam and his administration is going to cease to exist. Now, if the people of Iraq are lucky, they may get a better government, but the truth is, I don't care. The only thing I care about is that they stop supporting those that wish to kill us.

Now, I have not refuted any of your point, but I don't care about that either.

[Bigun]

There are Al Qeada forces in Iraq, but in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurds and not Saddam, and I have not seen any reports that Saddam is aiding them.

So YOU say!

I don't have access to classified information and DOUBT that you do either. The president, on the other hand DOES and said just the opposite the other day while speaking to the UN.

Nothing personal, but I THINK I'll take his word over yours if you don't mind!

[traditionalist]

I don't have access to classified information and DOUBT that you do either. The president, on the other hand DOES and said just the opposite the other day while speaking to the UN.

No he did not. He said they're in Iraq, which is well known. He did not assert that they were in areas under Saddam's control.

Now perhaps there is classified evidence of Al Qeada being in parts of Iraq under Saddam's control. But since it is classified, you don't know it either, and hence I cannot see how you can possibly justify an invasion of Iraq as being part of the war on terrorism.

[traditionalist]

The key word for you then is "formal", but how do we know what secret "formal" alliances Saddam and Osama may have had?

We don't. But that's precisely the point. The burden of proof is on those who wish to go to war. If you cannot show a link between Saddam and Al Qeada, then you cannot justify a war with Iraq.

[Nick Danger]

Has it ever occured to you what the consequences would be if we simply entered Iraq, took out Saddam and destroyed the WMD, and then just left, leaving the country in total anarchy?

Has it occurred to you what the consequences would be if Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weaponry and slips a half-dozen atom bombs to his friends in Al Qa'ida for deployment in the United States?

The Iraqis have their problems, we have ours. If our choice is between finding out what 'total anarchy' looks like in Iraq, or mourning 2 or 3 million dead in the U.S., I say we go with the anarchy option.

[M Kehoe]

His (Henderson's) premise is false. We haven't started a war yet. So everything else he says is bovine fecal material.

Oh, but we will finish a war.

We are coming.

5.56mm

[traditionalist]

Has it occurred to you what the consequences would be if Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weaponry and slips a half-dozen atom bombs to his friends in Al Qa'ida for deployment in the United States?

First of all, Al Qaeda are not his friends. They might share a few goals, but Al Qaeda seeks the overthrow of secular regimes likes Saddam's. Hence Saddam would be an idiot to give nukes to them because most likely they'd turn around and use them on him once they're through with us.

Second of all, there are plenty of other potential sources of nukes, so taking out Saddam isn't going to eliminate or even substantially reduce this threat.

Third, Saddam's not suicidal, and he knows we're watching him like a hawk. If he slipped such a weapon to Al Qeada, we'd probably know about it, and he'd be toast.

Fourth, I suggest you think about the implication for US interests of an anarchical Iraq. You can start by thinking about this question: given recent history, what kind of regime typically emerges after a Moslem country falls into a state of anarchy?

[desertcry]

I did not know that a war with iraq is a separate war against terrorism. Saddam is after all the biggist terrorist of all, is he not?