Pita soup, or to war to war, to war we go to war (Insh’allah)
By way of introduction I want to direct the attention of the reader to the title of this Blog -- Reflections and Perspective. Nowhere does it say "Resolutions" or "Conclusions."
The news is filled with analyses and puff pieces about our impending altercation with the mustachioed dictator de jour (the really evil ones are never completely clean shaven. People of the world take notice, if your fearless leader is cultivating facial hair, you may be in danger; if your leader is innocuous but still has whisker fetish he will shave his upper lip, like Lincoln). I am attempting to put my arms around the arguments. No conclusions, mind you, just some ruminations.
What are the arguments for attacking Iraq? We are told that Iraq’s leadership is evil, repressive, and poses a direct threat to the United States through its acquisition and buildup of weapons of mass destruction. I think the first part of the argument is beyond dispute (if any one thinks this is disputable, please post a comment!). The second part is open to questioning, and the administration is busy proving to Congress and to the world that Iraq has been stockpiling chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Now, Maureen Dowd made an excellent case a couple of weeks ago for attacking Saudi Arabia for the very same reasons we are thinking of attacking Iraq – it is a repressive regime that discriminates against women and is veritably medieval in its forms of punishment – dismemberment is not uncommon. The one difference is the fact that, as far as we know, Saudi Arabia does not posses nuclear weapons. At the same time, it is a documented fact that Saudi Arabia has financially supported the most extreme terrorist organizations. The argument implicit in Dowd’s piece is that if we are going to use a moral argument for attacking a rogue country, we should either attack all countries which are guilty of the kind of moral transgressions we find reprehensible, or attack no one if we are going to be selective.
Keeping Dowd’s argument in the back of our minds for a second, let’s try to consider the situation at hand, the specific situation with its recent historical backdrop. America fought Iraq in ’91, and by Middle Eastern standards did not finish the job – Sadam Hussein remained in power. For better or worse, we are a world power with some very distinct interests in that corner of the world. In the crudest way, one could view the defeat of Sadam Hussein as proving to the local powers that be that when we say something, we mean business. While it is horrifying to think of the death and turmoil that will be caused were a war with Iraq to be pursued, a victory will make the point very clearly and forcefully. Whether this particular end makes the means for its achievement worthwhile is a different question.
Today’s New York Times published an excerpt from an early draft of the administration’s policy document. Among other statements, the administration is indicating its intention to be engaged in an active pursuit of deterrence of terrorist activities, whether sponsored by regimes or not. In essence, through this policy we are giving ourselves the license to attack whomever we deem as being potentially responsible for terrorist activity, not only in the past but in the future as well. The idea is that we will act unilaterally if necessary to protect ourselves from future terrorist attacks. Cooperation with other countries is fine and good, but if the choice is between “Going at it alone” versus suffering yet another terrorist attack due to lack of cooperation from others, we would go at it alone.
I am not clear yet as to whether the arguments add up for an attack. It would be criminal to waste a single American life (or an Iraqi life, for that matter), if an actual threat does not exist. In that sense, I am very curious to see what incontrovertible proof we have as to the existence of WMD in Iraq. At the same time, if there is an extensive terrorist network that is being supported by a large number of regimes (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Latvia, whatever), it is neither reasonable nor practical to go at them all at the same time. As for the moral issue, I am sure there are other regimes that deserve our moral condemnation. Saudi Arabia is one, and probably most Arab countries as well as China, and the list goes on and on. What do we do about them?
How about the following doctrine, a completely pragmatic approach to butchery that makes us feel good about the sanguine business – It is our moral right to topple regimes that violate human rights and abuse their citizenry. It is our practical obligation to topple such regimes if they pose a direct threat to our security.
Remember, no resolutions here? Does Iraq have WMD? That is the crux of the matter. Any moral consideration does not compel us to attack – there are plenty of misery in the world, and there is not way we can bring it about through ousting every two bit dictator around this callipygian globe of ours.
2:51:15 PM 
|
|
