War Drums
The United States stands at a crossroads of history. Today, we are a democracy that goes to war only reluctantly, to protect well-defined interests. On the day when President Bush unleashes our armies on Iraq without the sanction of international law, we become then and forever an aggressive, conquering power, likely to be viewed with alarm and suspicion by enemies and putative allies alike. We may well accomplish our objectives in Iraq. But the cost will not be simply the thousands of lives and billions of dollars it will take to win the war. This action will permanently tarnish both the reputation of the United States and many cherished notions about the inherent benefits of democracy to peace and world order. If we are truly under mortal threat, perhaps this sacrifice is justified. But if we’re not, it’s a terrible, tragic waste that we as a people will likely regret for the rest of the century.
Given those stakes, it is shocking how narrow our debate has become on this key issue. The ostensible reason for attacking Iraq without immediate and direct provocation is to prevent a ruthless dictator from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, because, it is argued, he would use them on us as he once used them on his internal Kurdish enemies. Let’s think about this.
Stalin, whose historical evil makes Saddam look like a choirboy, had nuclear weapons and far worse. He never used them. Neither did Mao, a man with the blood of millions on his hands. We even know that Hitler – the guy who wrote the book on committing atrocities “against his own people” (or, more accurately, against a defenseless civilian population under his control, as with Saddam) – possessed stockpiles of chemical weapons and poison gas that he did not deploy even in defense of the German homeland in the last days of the war. And why not? Were Stalin, Hitler and Mao less ruthless than Saddam? Less implacable in their hatred of the United States and what we stand for? More determined to hang onto their own power?
In fact, the only country to ever deploy a weapon of mass destruction is the United States. And we did it against not one but two civilian targets. The decision went through the chain of command, and issued from our elected president, on grounds that were justified by the circumstances. Given the ghastly outcome, even the most dire dictators of the last century were deterred from deploying these types of weapons against the US or its allies.
Saddam Hussein is many bad things, but he is the head of state of the sovereign country of Iraq – a post he has clung to fiercely for over 30 years. His has been the calculated aggression of a bully toward defenseless foes, not the irrational rage of a suicidal maniac. Though he behaves as barbarically toward his people as Stalin or Mao, he feels a paternalistic responsibility for the preservation of Iraqi culture. Yes, it would be better for him to be disarmed. But it is far from clear that if he possessed weapons of mass destruction, he would use them on the United States or its allies, given the sure consequences he, his people and his state would face.
But, the argument follows, if he possessed these weapons, would he perhaps share them with terrorists who do not have even his twisted sense of responsibility? Iraq’s connection to Al-Quaida – the only terrorist organization that actually mounted an attack on the United States – is tenuous and unproven. But Pakistan actually has nuclear weapons, and it was the Pakistani intelligence service that created and sustained the Taliban in power. Despite the personal steadfastness of Musharif, there are certainly plenty of people in the Pakistani government with close proximity to these weapons whose love for America is no greater than Saddam’s. Shouldn’t this actual threat worry our leaders more than the unproven possibility of Iraq’s capabilities and direct involvement in the attack on the US? Yet there is no talk of invading and disarming Pakistan.
The administration’s case against Iraq fails so clearly in terms of logic that one must look for other motivations – political, economic or personal. I personally do not believe Bush would put the lives of American servicemen at risk for his own political future. He is a stupid, incurious man but he does not seem unprincipled. I also don’t buy the line that this is all about “avenging” the elder Bush, or, more to the point, cleaning up his leftover mess. This seems especially unlikely given how Bush senior, through his sock puppets, is the only articulate voice urging restraint right now. Even the economic argument seems strained. Yes, the administration is controlled by interests who would benefit greatly from increased US hegemony in the Persian Guf. But the outcome of any action against Iraq is highly uncertain, and those interests hate uncertainty above all else.
No, the underlying motivation is something far more profound. There are people in this country who yearn for a United States that is not only pre-eminent in the world, but in effect supreme in the world. As our economic and cultural power has risen, they chafe at what they see as the artificial restraints on our military might, and at the false humility of a foreign policy that defers to allies and international organizations. Their urge is to tear up treaties, condescend to international bodies, patronize and lecture allies and basically reject the entire conception of a global community in favor of the rights of the strong, the rich and the blessed.
The regime in Iraq in and of itself is small potatoes. But staging a unilateral act of aggression on slim provocation establishes an important precedent: that the US won’t be bound by international law in the use of military force against any perceived enemy. Once this has been historically established, all arguments for restraint and cooperation, both from within America and outside it, will be pushed to the margins of the debate, superceded by the realities of a new international order. The effect will be the aggrandizement of naked American power – at the expense of our principles, our reputation, the trust of the world, and the reputation of democracy itself as a peaceful, stable and reasonable form of government.
9:56:44 AM 
|
|
