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.
Anyone, who sides with the anti-war movement, gives them aid and comfort. That includes those you hold in high esteem for agreeing with your position. They are wrong. You are wrong.
Invading Cuba, would be nice ; however, though Fidel's hands are covered in the blood of many nations' people, he isn't as high onm the list as Iraq must be. I too, want the Panama Canal retaken ; however, we don't have any LEGAL grounds to do so. WE can't , yet, send force against N. Korea; however, that may also be on the docket.
Assuming that I am, in any way, a proponent of anti-war sentiment, is patently ridiculous. I am bellicosity, itself, when it comes to the protection of this nation and fighting Communism / Socialism, in all of its poermutations ; have been since I was a small child.
How about we just invade and destroy all the nations that don't agree with us?
Some people here are war-hawk meatheads and wouldn't know how to logically problem solve, if they were given the opportunity.
Like the following
These are only questions I've been asking of you....
Oh yes, I see, it's just an Op-Ed piece, slamming what the president has proposed. It has absolutely NOTHING, whatsoever, to do with anti-war sentiment. Yep, I understand now, it's just the same as all of the previously written pieces, about every other REPUBLICAN proposed stab at stopping a lunatic who has WMDs. Funny, isn't it, that these same people had little to say about X42s nonresponses / bombing aspirin factories, in the name of defense, isn't it ?
Huh???? Ah, do you live under a rock, or perhaps my previous summation applies. There has been reasonable conclusive evidence released that implicates the Iraqis in the events leading up to 9/11. If you think that the intelligence community is going to a "full disclosure" of what they know to the public, then you are even more naiventhen I had initially suspected. If you think that this is some kind of plot....well, then you should don the tin foil chapeau and join the rest of the conspiracy crowd.
Having spent a day or two in the military intelligence community, be assured that if there was any...ANY! dissenting evidence, it would have been leaked by the lilly-livered popinjays that Xlinton skillfully placed in the military. If anything, it is WORSE than your worst nightmare. Only something that extreme would merit the extreme silence from the "perfumed princes of the pentagon". There is great hay being made by people who are "out-of-the-loop" FORMER this and that'rs who get the EXACTLY same data that you and I get and yearn for their 15 seconds of fame as a sound-byte on CNN. No, the ones who HAVE the data are being strangly silent.
Methinks that they are scared $hitless that Saddam is going to do something unless he is stopped. But, the thought of war as a deterrent is so unthinkable that they are in a quandry. But he has to be stopped.
Given the recent spate of malfeasance on the part of our ostensible "unbiased" press, I already view these writings skeptically. I am relativly certain that, if I fostered the appropriate anti-war, anti-GOP administration comments, I would quickly find myself being referred to as a "well-placed source". So desparate is the press to find someone, anyone, with a hint of credability who is opposed to any sembalance of war, that they are resurrecting the dinosaurs of the cold-war for comments.
Yeah, I REALLY believe that they are briefed on world status (From CNN Headline news maybe!). Until a credible source on the INSIDE comes forward and says differently, I fear that we have only been told enough to prevent an outright panic and provide the basis of understanding for what our government, which I currently trust, is doing. If you can't handle that, then, I recommend Zimbabwe. A realator named Mugabe can get you a deal on a hobby farm
Semper Fi
For a change, try reading factual sources; not just those whom you are beguiled by / agree with your uneducated positions. You just might learn something , for a change.
I will just ignore her from now on.
China ? China is a vast nation, which is not only tyrannically lead, but Communist. They have and are attempting to arm and influence many nations; especially those in Africa . They have their very own " MUSLIM PROBLEM ". That doesn't stop them, any more than it has stopped Germany, from selling arms to their own foes. Unlike Iraq, the Taliban, N.Korea, and Cuba, China is still active in " diplomatic " circles. This precludes your childish hypotheticals. You simply don't know enough, nor even understand what tiny facts you've been exposed to, to make a rational judgement, nor to assume that you can bait me / get me to reply in a juvenile , ill informed, emotional manner.
You have been given the oppertunity to expose just how incompitant you are. Congratulations, you've succeeded beyond your wildest imaginings.
How would you define a personal attack?
Gives who aid and comfort? What do you mean by aid? I can see that agreement might make someone feel validated, but what aid does siding with anyone provide?
I have made my case; you chose to ignore it ... as usual. What's the point ? You don't pay attention to anything, that doesn't mesh with your preconceived opinion. Still and all, you haven't managed to make one point, against this military incursion ; not one.
And knows more than all of you anti-war pansies put together!!
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.