Posted on 09/24/2002 11:51:53 AM PDT by Protagoras
Don’t Start the Second Gulf War
The case against war with Iraq.
By Doug Bandow
August 12, 2002, 9:00 a.m.
President George W. Bush says that he hasn't made up his mind about "any of our policies in regard to Iraq," but he obviously has. To not attack after spending months talking about the need for regime change is inconceivable. Unfortunately, war is not likely to be the simple and certain procedure that he and many others seem to think.
Lots of arguments have been offered on behalf of striking Baghdad that are not reasons at all. For instance, that Saddam Hussein is an evil man who has brutalized his own people.
Certainly true. But the world is full of brutal regimes that have murdered their own people. Indeed, Washington ally Turkey's treatment of its Kurds is scarcely more gentle than Iraq's Kurdish policies.
Moreover, the U.S. warmly supports the royal kleptocracy next door in Saudi Arabia, fully as totalitarian, if not quite as violent, as Saddam's government. Any non-Muslim and most women would probably prefer living in Iraq.
Also cited is Baghdad's conquest of Kuwait a dozen years ago. It is a bit late to drag that out as a justification for invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam. He is far weaker today and has remained firmly contained.
Richard Butler, former head of the U.N. Commission on Iraq, complained to the Senate Foreign Relations that Iraq had violated international law by tossing out arms inspectors. In fact, there are often as many reasons to flout as to obey U.N. rules. Washington shouldn't go to war in some abstract pursuit of "international law."
Slightly more plausible, at least, is the argument that creating a democratic system in Iraq would provide a useful model for the rest of the Mideast. But that presupposes democracy can be easily planted, and that it can survive once the U.S. departs.
Iraq suffers from significant internal stresses. Convenient professions of unity in pursuit of democracy from an opposition once dismissed by Mideast special envoy and retired Gen. Anthony Zinni as "silk-suited, Rolex-wearing guys in London" offer little comfort and are likely to last no longer than have similar promises in Afghanistan.
Also problematic are Kurdish demands for autonomy and Shiite Muslim resistance to the central government. One defense official told the Washington Post: "I think it is almost a certainty that we'd wind up doing a campaign against the Kurds and Shiites." Wouldn't that be pretty? <
There are external threats as well. Particularly worrisome would be covert and possibly overt action by Iran, with which Baghdad fought a decade-long war and which might see intervention against a weakened Iraq as an antidote to serious political unrest at home.
Indeed, the U.S. backed Baghdad in its conflict with Iran and decided not to depose Saddam in 1991, in part out of fear of Iranian aggression throughout the Gulf should Iraq no longer provide a blocking role. Keeping the Iraqi Humpty Dumpty together after a war might not be easy.
Moreover, while Americans might see America's war on Iraq as a war for democracy, most Arabs would likely see it as a war for Washington. If the U.S. deposes Saddam, but leaves in place friendly but despotic regimes elsewhere — such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia — few Arabs would take America's democracy rhetoric seriously. Nor should they. Yet to go to war against everyone, including presumably Iran, Syria, and maybe others, would have incalculable consequences.
Saddam's complicity in September 11 would present a good argument for devastating retaliation for an act of war, but there's no evidence that he was involved. All that exists is a disputed meeting, which might not have occurred, in the Czech Republic between hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi official.
Certainly Saddam shed no tears over the thousands who died on that tragic day, but he has never been known to promote groups which he does not control. In contrast to Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein is no Muslim fanatic looking forward to his heavenly rewards; moreover, he heads a government and nation against which retaliation is simple.
Probably the best, at least the most fearsome, argument for overthrowing Saddam is the prospect of Baghdad developing weapons of mass destruction. Yet if nonproliferation should be enforced by war, Washington will be very busy in the coming years.
The problem is not just countries like Iran and North Korea, which seem to have or have had serious interest in developing atomic weapons. It is China, which could use them in any conflict with the U.S. over, say, Taiwan. And India, Pakistan, and Russia, which face unpredictable nationalist and theological currents, enjoy governments of varying instability, and offer uncertain security over technical know-how as well as weapons.
Potentially most dangerous is Pakistan's arsenal. The government of Pervez Musharraf is none too steady; Islamabad long supported the Taliban and its military and intelligence forces almost certainly contain al Qaeda sympathizers. It is easy to imagine nuclear technology falling into terrorist hands.
An Iraqi nuclear capability seems less frightening in comparison. Saddam would not use them against America, since to do so would guarantee his incineration. Israel possesses a similarly overbearing deterrent.
Would Baghdad turn atomic weapons over to al Qaeda or similarly motivated terrorists? Not likely.
First, it would be extraordinary for Saddam to give up a technology purchased at such a high price. Second, Baghdad would be the immediate suspect and likely target of retaliation should any terrorist deploy nuclear weapons, and Saddam knows this.
Third, Saddam would be risking his own life. Al Qaeda holds secular Arab dictators in contempt and would not be above attempting to destroy them as well as America.
Of course, the world would be a better place without Saddam's dictatorship. But there are a lot of regimes that should, and eventually will, end up in history's dustbin. That's not a good reason to initiate war against a state which poses no direct, ongoing threat.
Especially since war often creates unpredictable consequences. Without domestic opposition military forces to do America's dirty work, Washington will have to bear most of the burden. The task will be more difficult and expensive without European support and Saudi staging grounds.
If Iraq's forces don't quickly crumble, the U.S. might find itself involved in urban conflict that will be costly in human and political terms. If Baghdad possesses any weapons of mass destruction, Saddam will have an incentive to use them — against America, Israel, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia — since Washington would be dedicated to his overthrow.
Further, the U.S. would be sloshing gasoline over a combustible political situation in friendly but undemocratic Arab regimes stretching from North Africa to Southeast Asia. Israelis and Palestinians are at war, America continues to fight Taliban and al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan as the pro-western government teeters on chaos, fundamentalist Muslims rule western Pakistan, and Muslim extremists are active a dozen other countries. Yet the administration wants to invade Iraq. Riots in Egypt, a fundamentalist rising in Pakistan, a spurt of sectarian violence in Indonesia, and who knows what else could pose a high price for any success in Iraq.
War is a serious business. Making war on a country which does not threaten the U.S. is particularly serious. Even if the optimists who think a campaign against Iraq would be easy are right, and we can only hope they are, war should be a last resort. As House Majority Leader Richard Armey warned, an unprovoked attack "would not be consistent with what we have been as a nation or what we should be as a nation."
There's certainly no hurry to go to war. Nothing is different today from September 10, 2001, or any time since Iraq was ousted from Kuwait. Observes Jim Cornette, formerly an expert in biological warfare with the Air Force: "We've bottled [Saddam] up for 11 years, so we're doing okay."
There are times when Washington has no choice but to fight. Iraq is not such a place and now is not such a time.
— Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan.
Strawman. The Turks never used poison gas on their Kurds.
Ouch!!!Next time please use extra gel!!!
1. The claim that Iraq has no ICBM's is technically true, since ICBM stands for Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. HOWEVER, Blair said this morning that Iraq has a new class of missile (which they have illegally developed) which has a range of 1000 km. That allows a whole lot of mischief in the Mideast and Eastern Europe.
2. Claims that the President and Prime Minister have no further evidence are simply false. President Bush said this morning that they had additional evidence, but it would not be released because of desiring to keep their sources viable. Blair said much the same thing in his speech.
It seems to me that this comes down to common sense and trust. Common sense says that if we had connected the dots before 9/11, we should have done everything we could to stop it. Now we are connecting dots about Iraq, and many of the same people want to ignore it.
Trust is something that we place in all elected leaders, because they are given responsibilities and information that the electorate cannot have. So the question eventually becomes: do you trust George Bush? If your children were in danger, would he help them or ignore them? Does he care more about his career or American lives?
I trust the man. I trust him to do what is right. Some people are apparently unable to trust him. I can't help that, but that doesn't make them superior or inferior to me. Just different.
HOWEVER, their inability to trust is not sufficient argumemnt to negate American policy.
Your comments and this article are old Cold War rhetoric. If you and the author haven't figured out that Sadaam has all his biological weapons stored so inspectors would not find them not to mention he is out looking for more uranium for his nuclear bomb (doesn't have to be a huge one to do damage), then nothing we can say on here is going to make one bit of difference to you.
BTW, I rate this Article and your comments a "5"!
I'm just speechless ...
Well Gosh Golly Gee Mr. Bandow .. when should be the right time .. before or after Saddam passes on his little bag of goodies to kill more americans???
The writer of this article presupposes that the Administration's fighting stance is wrong to begin with, and discounts any further statements that support how they've planted their feet. But after the evidence that has been presented in multiple forums, most recent being the Blair Dossier that was presented to the House of Commons this morning, as I said, at the very least some of it must have some measure of truth about it.
Saddam Hussain has demonstrated that he not only desires to acquire WMD, but that he has no qualms over using said weapons on his own people, as well as on others. He has stated publicly that he supports the terrorist activities of Palestinian militant organizations who have been responsible for terrorist attacks in Israel, and has gone as far as to provide fiscal support to the families of suicide bombers in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.
Given that fact, it is not a far supposition to expect that Saddam would at least consider the use of WMD against Israel.
He has already gassed his own citizens, there's no reason not to expect it again.
Multiple sources point to evidence of complicity with Al Qaeda forces tied to WTC'01, and to ongoing efforts by Al Qaeda to spread their brand of radical terror across the globe.
I'm sure that there is additional evidence that is not in the public purview, simply because the Adminstration does not wish to provide intel to any enemy forces by way of the reporting mechanism of the press.
In an attempt to stave off any efforts by the US in terms of a pre-emptive strike, Saddam fired off a letter to the UN claiming to be ready to allow "unfettered access" to weapons inspectors. Ah, but then comes word of limitations on what these inspectors can inspect, and where they can inspect them. So much for "unfettered access," yes?
At this juncture, given all of the supporting evidence, I would much rather eliminate Saddam's WMD apparatus, and while we're at it, remove him from power. I would dare say that he has more than a bottle-rocket with a handful of anthrax on it now, and if we leave him to his own devices, he'll have something pretty soon with a hell of a much bigger punch than the handful of bottle rockets that he's got.
Contrary to the belief of some here, this is not simply a matter of any sort of usurping of the power of the Constitution. This is a matter of our very survival. I would much rather be here arguing the merits of this at this point next year, rather than driving as a refugee because Saddam has found a way to drop a crude nuke into downtown Atlanta or Birmingham during rush hour. And if that means throwing our weight around this fragile china shop, so be it. We can sweep up when we're done.
Oh yeah, everything's definitely all settled and hunkie dunkie in Afghanistan.
Be real.
The reasoning that this article tries to sell is that because they don't have the ability to strike the US, we should let them be. And my point is that we thought the same thing about OBL. It seems more and more obvious that some would rather trust Saddam Hussein over our own President.
The people that post these threads don't WANT facts or truth. They want to post the crap they find in order to trash GW. They have no facts or info to back up their claims and deny what is given them. Saddam could phone their house and give them the info, and they still would cling to thier pile of lies.
My information is that that rumor was started by a report from a teenaged Arab boy (for reward) and is not substantiated by any credible party. If you have any evidence to the contrary please provide it.
I thought you would say that. I honestly can't fathom a worse answer.
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.