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.
The thing that bothers me about this entire thread is that numerous people here have accused Rightwing2 of posting classified information on FR. This could not be further from the truth. What's more, they went to great lengths to intimidate Rightwing2 into silence, by threatening his career and reputation. Fortunately, these claims were laughed off by everyone who was approached with them, for not only were they outlandish, they were completely false.
Anyone who has done even a little bit of in-depth reading in security concerns and strategic paradigms in the Middle East understands that Iran is a much greater threat to the United States and her interests, than Iraq ever has been. No one needs access to classified documents to understand this simple fact.
Iran has and continues to pursue an wide array of WMD capabilities, which includes biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. We already know that they have MRBM and have been conducted a number of extensive offensively oriented combined arms exercies in the Gulf. It is obvious that Iran desires to be the great regional power of the Middle East and counter-balance Israeli nuclear capabilities. This should cause great pause among Americans, especially since we are not sure if Iran will continue down the path of an fundamentalist elimination of the separation of church and state or to a more secularized government. Many experts in Middle East foreign policy have thrown around the idea of an intense regional struggle for nuclear balance or dominantion between Iran and Israel in the next 20 years or so, similiar to the conflict between India and Pakistan. Another question that people should consider is whether or not the GCC states will seek to accomodate a powerful and domineering Iran.
Either way, Middle East foreign policy will probably begin to revolve around Iran, Iraq, and Irael.
And whether Americans realize it or not, Iran has been trying to fully control the Strait of Hormuz, which could allow them to deny access to the Gulf. The implications of this is still up for debate.
Apparently that includes original cogent thought.
Semper Fi
Iran is ready to be overthrown, from within. Iran's ruling government ( if you can call it that ) has a VERY tenuous grasp on power. The vast bulk of its people, especially the younger ones, have protested, without being shot / taken away / harmed lately, against their own government. Iran will fall even more quickly, than Iraq will, with the tiniest help. These are stone cold, hard facts ; something you don't know any of.
When I put my mind to it, I can write.
But the facts behind my opinion is from some of my profs. and from reading rightwing's posts.
Also, you might also want to consider that Iran already has an industrial base that enables them to manufacture their own missiles, including MRBM.
One question that I believe the Bush Administration should be considering is if this is merely a move for the sake of self-sufficiency or of aggression.
Also, you might also want to consider that Iran has the ability to totally cut off the Gulf region from the rest of the world.
This guy is so naive, it's incredible. Laughable.
This war isn't about Iraq, or even countries in general. It's a war on the infrastructure of Islamic terrorism in particular, and Islamic fundamentalism in general. In order to conduct the war, the infrastructure needs to be destroyed piecemeal, in order to minimize American casualties while killing as many of the enemy as possible. The Taliban happened to be the first target; Arabfat and Hussein personally are two more, the Palistupidians are another target. We'll even get around to Indonesia eventually. The fact that Hussein happens to be ensconced at the head of a dictatorship and that we therefore need to destroy his country in order to get at him makes no difference. The people of Iraq need to either get rid of Hussein, get out of the way, or get ready to die as collateral damage. There will be American puppet governments all over the Middle East before this is over (as long as the Demoncrats don't get control of the country again before Bush can finish the job properly).
By spreading their vicious, poisonous Weltanschauung around the world, and finally by destroying our buildings, the *infrastructure* of Islamic fundamentalism has forfeited its right to coexist with our Empire, and again, the particular nature of any one of its components - individuals, "sovereign" nations, slimy multinational terrorist organizations, banks, businesses, mosques, you name it - is irrelevant. All must be destroyed, without debate, without hesitation, without mercy, and without regret. Not to do so is to ignore some of the most obvious lessons which history has to teach, and to ensure our own eventual destruction.
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.