Don't Start the Second Gulf War

National Review Online ^ | 8-12-02 | Doug Bandow

[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.

[jjm2111]

I almost puked on my computer w/ that pic.

[Nick Danger]

Guy is in the closing stages of buying a new car. The salesman comes in and says, "I talked to the manager. I told him I really like you folks and I want to get you into that car today. So he gave me a really sweet deal. Here ya go... $2200 down and $425 a month."

"Well, I don't know. That's a lot of car for us, and I'm not sure I like the color. Maybe if you lopped another $1,000 off the price, but...."

Salesman says, "I don't think we can do that. We're not making any money on this car. I got you all I could on your trade."

"I'm going to have to go think it over. I think I'll just go home for tonight, and maybe come back tomorrow."

Salesman says to wait right here. He's going to go talk to the manager one more time.

Salesman comes back, he got another $500 off the car.

"Well, you know, I really need it to be a thousand off. My old car still has a lot of good miles left in it. And the kids need new shoes. I think I'll just head home."

Excuse me.

"Who the Hell are you?"

I'm Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute, and a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan. Are you aware that this salesman is offering you a wonderful deal here? That is about as low a price on that car as I've ever seen. You really ought take that deal right now.

"Will you shut the Hell up, I almost had the guy down the whole thousand!"

[rintense]

All true, MM. We've seen the writing on the wall. Some would rather see it written in blood first.

[iconoclast]

girls can go to school, women can go to work, men can shave their faces

And the "President" can't stick his head out of the door.

Take off your rose-colored glasses ... it's a slightly better smelling cesspool.

[rmvh]

Re your # 31

...my trust in governments in light of the past, is less certain than yours. Once we "trust" them about secret information which cannot be diviluged for reasons unexplained, it would be difficult to ask questions in the future.

It seems critical and self evident that government have higly secret information which is not made available for public consumption.....particularly during times of great threat and war.

I wouldn;t want our militray strategy to be run via town hall....or after Peter Jennings gets the rabble aroused.....or by AlGore as he is attempting to now do.

I think the major point is that there has to be great trust in our leaders in time of immense threat.....such as the present.....and I don't think any sane person can assume that the frequently demonstrated Islamic desire and effectiveness in killing us without mercy.... as has been ongoing for the past fifteen years....is not not a clear indication of the immense danger to all of us here in America.

[anniegetyourgun]

And where do you think all three of those men would be if presented with the same evidence our president has now?

[iconoclast]

What form of gov't do you suggest ?

I'll take the one we have, though it was a lot better when it was a constitutional republic. Even then, I wouldn't have trusted politicians.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Right, a pre-emptive strike on a country that borders China."

Learn to read, bubbah. Note that I did NOT say that North Korea met the necessary criteria, as despite having WOMD, Kim Il Jong is NOT sufficiently insane as to use them. Actually, now that I think on it, the "order of nutballness" among national leaders is probably Saddam Hussein (has the finances, the means and the nutballness), Moammar Qaddaffi (has the finances, but AFAIK, is NOT pursuing acquisition of WOMD, but IS second in nutballness), and THEN Kim Il Jong.

Right now, Saddam Hussein is unique among the globes national leaders.

[rintense]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[RedBloodedAmerican]

[RedBloodedAmerican]

LOL!!!!

[agrace]

I give up, you win. Have a good afternoon.

[Libloather]

But the world is full of brutal regimes that have murdered their own people.

During the *Crinton administration, it was called "ethnic cleansing."

(Heard a Liberteen whining on Hannity today. Is Harry Browne now giving out instructions on how to turn into weenies?)

[Protagoras]

Personal attacks are no substitute for discussion, please return to the threads where you will feel more at home.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

[gop4me]

You said: "Actually classic Bush would be to let his opposistion get as bold as they can before delivering them the knock out punch. The first time he did this was over the flack about the damage done to the WH. The Rats questioned that there was any proof. Not until the Rats had seen blood and were on the attack did Bush release the proof. The Rats wrongly assumed that of Bush didn't put it forward at the outset that he didn't have it."

If this is an example of waiting to bring out the proof then we are really screwed. The GAO official report said there wasn't any damage other than that "consistant with the changing of the guard." Our side was made to look like fools on that one. I hope we fare better on this. Trust a politician hoping to get a political advantage? Never! Not their side, not ours either. If we should ever give our complete trust to any politician, then bend over and kiss your a** goodbye.

[iconoclast]

Iraq's training of al Qaeda leadership in Iraq. There are plenty of articles on this just on FR.

Iraq's CURRENT harboring of al Qaeda refugees from Afghanistan. The President of the US said this. That's good enough for me.

All the reports I can find, either inside FR or out, indicate heavy al Qaeda presence in NORTHERN Iraq.

That's the KURDISH portion of Iraq, folks, not the Saddam part. They and Saddam are mortal enemies!

If things don't work out according to GWB's scenario, they might even wind up overruning our new puppet president.

Do you folks ever read beyond the headlines?

[The Other Harry]

The reasons for posting crap are what?

[The Other Harry]

The reasons for posting crap are what?

[The Other Harry]

The reasons for posting crap are what?