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.
To: ThomasJefferson
The problem with this war, as in the last, is that the only one that's going to get hurt is the regular Joe Habib and his family, not the real bad guys.
16 posted on 9/24/02 3:08 PM Eastern by stuartcr
To: rintense
Except for the innocent ones that got killed. (referring to the Afghans whom rintense suggested are happy the Taliban is gone).
27 posted on 9/24/02 3:17 PM Eastern by stuartcr
To: ExpandNATO
I would suggest that you ask those living under the Taliban if they would rather be dead.
40 posted on 9/24/02 3:31 PM Eastern by stuartcr
You suggest that the results of our action in Afghanistan aren't worth any innocent loss of life. Either you prefer inaction, or a different approach. So tell me, what would you have done instead?
Am I wrong? I see the same arguments in virtually the same sequence. That's not a smear. It's a fact. As for Dick Armey, that's a guy who has never had my trust. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that he too was advancing specious arguments.
I am sorry this thread didn't turn out the way you wanted. I hadn't noticed because I wasn't following it beyong comments directed to me. There are ways to have a discussion if your aim is simply to stimulate discussion. Try this: Post an article in favor of the President's policy. Take the President's side of the argument, and force others to make the case against. It can be a fruitful exercise. It forces you to re-examine your own position, it forces you to see the strongest points on the other side, and you get to hear good arguments from others without getting flamed. I hope I am not talking down to you. It's just a suggestion. I suppose it's too late at this point, though.
Which illustrates that people on opposite sides of the political spectrum can agree on some issues. It seems to me that this issue should cross all political lines. The left and right both agreed on the need for WW2 as an example.
I cited an example. We disagree somehow on the interpretation, but it seems to me both Jesse and this author share the same concerns;
No problem with that, I only question the relevance of the comparison. They both may like pizza as well. Hell, you and I agree on some issues, but we are not of the same ideology.
Namely, that attacking Iraq will destabilize the region, that it will incite more attacks on the US, that it amounts to world rule, and that Iraq poses no immediate threat.
I haven't seen Bandow make the "world rule" argument as Jackson has done. As to the other points, you disagree with him. All well and good. It's his opinion, not fact. He is trying to convince people of his argument. You are unconvinced. No problem.
As for Dick Armey, that's a guy who has never had my trust. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that he too was advancing specious arguments.
I guess they can be characterized as specious by those who disagree with them. I either agree or disagree if I think they have been advanced in good faith.
I am sorry this thread didn't turn out the way you wanted.
I knew it wouldn't turn out otherwise. I am happy to have it illustrate the problem this site has encountered lately.
There are ways to have a discussion if your aim is simply to stimulate discussion.
My method worked well, over 600 posts. Posting articles which the majority already agrees with usually only produces cheerleaders. We have enough of them IMO.
Try this: Post an article in favor of the President's policy. Take the President's side of the argument, and force others to make the case against.
I have taken no side in this thread and see no reason why it would do anything except increase the attacks by the children.
It can be a fruitful exercise. It forces you to re-examine your own position, it forces you to see the strongest points on the other side,
I have had no trouble doing these things.
and you get to hear good arguments from others without getting flamed.
That is a pipe dream IMO. Good arguments can be heard, but as long as management encourages poor behavior, it will occur. Disruptors are only discouraged here if they are liberal. Those posing as conservatives are given free reign. Not my site, not my call, just an observation.
I hope I am not talking down to you. It's just a suggestion. I suppose it's too late at this point, though.
It's probably too late for the site. It is well on its way to becoming a glorified chat room.
I advocate an "ignore" feature be added to the software. People could ignore me if they thought I was a crackpot, and the children would be ignored by those of us who are here for adult discourse.
So would the thousands the Taliban killed. I'd say, on balance, the Afghan people are far ahead in the score.
You, stupidly, post for the world to see that you have "access to classified information," then complain when FReepers want to know if your inside knowledge is being revealed on this forum. In fact, you're threatening to sue a FReeper because he called you on your possible use of "classified information."
Revealing that you can view classified information in the way you did ought to get you fired. And, if I knew who you were, I'd report you.
You ought to choke on those words. Neither CWO nor texasforever revealed that they had access to classified information, thereby endangering national security.
If you'll crack under the pressure of an Internet forum, you can't be trusted to be anywhere near classified information.
HUH?
Pal, you don't stretch the bounds of credibility, you blow 'em sky high!
Is there any conservative you won't throw overboard in your insane, zealous support of GWB?
Having to call in your back up for support I see again.
For the time being.......I agree with you.
LOL. First, I don't consider my support of the President's position on Iraq as insane. Second, Dick Armey went on TV and lied to the camera about amnesty for illegals. I didn't want to believe it, but it's true. It opened my eyes. Mr. Armey accomplished some good things while in Congress, but I have seen him lie. That doesn't mean I would throw him overboard. It just means I can't take him at his word without double-checking. That was my point.
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.