Milo:
I think there are at least a couple of strong arguments for declaring war on Iraq. I’m not sure that they’re compelling arguments, but I admit that they have some weight.
-
We should overthrow Saddam Hussein on humanitarian grounds. The gist of this claim is that the repression and human rights violations of the Iraqi regime morally compel us to act against him. The argument is often couched in a “how can you defend that butcher” kind of rhetoric.
-
- We should overthrow SH because of he may have weapons of mass destruction*. The gist of this claim is that an Iraqi regime equipped with nuclear weapons could have, and probably would have, a profoundly destabilizing affect on the balance of power within the entire region.
Like I said, both of these arguments have some merit, but they are far from compelling. For example, with regard to argument 1: we could ask ourselves, why just Iraq? There are scores of countries with repressive governments, led by petty dictators. The US considers many of these regimes to be allies. Need I mention Saudi Arabia in this context?
Aside from that, there exists a profound conflict between our humanitarian aspirations, on the one hand, and the rules governing international relations, on the other. One of the primary guidelines in international relations, as you probably know, is the principle of national sovereignty. This principle guarantees a state complete power within the territory it claims as its own, and is recognized as belonging to it by the international community; it is, in effect, the basis for our current international system. The US government claims sovereignty over the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii, for example, and would rightly regard any incursion in that territory by another nation as an act of war. But it is hypocritical for the US to insist upon this right for itself, while gratuitously denying it to other states simply because we do not like their domestic (or foreign) policies.
The crux of this dilemma, then, is that our humanitarian concerns often come into conflict with the rules of international law. That’s part of the reason why the UN is so circumspect when it comes to sanctioning unprovoked, unilateral (or even multilateral) intervention on such grounds, and does so only in times of direst need. The international community does not want to set a precedent of that kind, naturally, since it’s hard to see where it might lead; if Saudi Arabia votes in favor of action against Iraq on those grounds, for example, well – it might be next. Or to take a different example: if a majority of the countries in the UN decided to send a peace-keeping force to the US after the chaos of the last elections, would you consider it an invasion? To be honest, I don’t have a solution to this dilemma; I’m not sure there is a way of balancing these two principles against each other. But I think there is a kind of logic in the process of international relations that leads most states to follow the dictum, “Leave well enough alone.”
Then there is the problem, of course, of the US and Western Europe running around and imposing its secular, humanitarian values on areas of the world that might have different value systems. And of course, there’s the question of whether or not we really do have a duty to sacrifice our soldiers for the sake of people who live half a globe away, to solve a problem we never created in the first place.
The second argument, regarding the potentially destabilizing effect of nuclear weapons on the balance of power in the Middle East, also needs to be considered seriously. Even though I don’t think Saddam has WMD, nor do I believe that he is even close to being able to construct them, I have to ask myself – what if I’m wrong? Am I really willing to take that risk?
Naturally, an Iraqi regime backed with nuclear arms takes the whole scenario to an entirely different level, and I’m guessing that’s what has the administration so worried. It would be difficult indeed to continue enforcing a “no-fly zone” over a country armed with nukes. We would be forced to the negotiating table. And what if Saddam decides, for example, to retake Kuwait, this time with a nuclear missile pointed at, say, Tel Aviv?
But of course, those sorts of concerns backfire as well, really. We don’t know how close Iraq is to achieving nuclear weapons capacity, but I suspect that despite Saddam’s aggressive research programs, they are still quite a long way away. And I feel that if they were close, we would have significantly more substantial evidence of it. In addition, a unilateral US intervention could also be destabilizing, possibly in an unforeseeable manner. What do we do if the Kurds revolt and establish their own state in northern Iraq? And finally, as wring points out, we really are launching an unprovoked attack, because even if Iraq has these weapons, they haven’t done anything with them to us. No one has the right to invade the US because of its WMD, regardless of how idiotic (or insane) our leaders might sometimes appear to be; so we have to ask ourselves what gives us the right, unilaterally, to invade other countries for this reason.
This brings us to the question of Iraq’s refusal to comply with UN Security Resolutions. This is perhaps the most hypocritical argument of all. Let be that the US gratuitously ignores the UN whenever it pleases; the fact is, if failure to abide by UN resolutions is a good justification for invading a country, then we might as well saddle up and ride into Israel as well. Right? Or is it, rather, “okay” to ignore UN resolutions as long as you’re an ally, but grounds for invasion when you’re an official enemy?
The Bush administration has indicated that it would act unilaterally if the UN failed to back its war policies. If the US decides to invade Iraq, and the UN issues a resolution against such an invasion, then would your position be that it is incumbent upon the US to follow that resolution? Or should it go ahead and ignore it? If the US chooses to ignore the resolution, should it then afterwards invade itself for refusing to follow UN resolutions?
Or is it possible that we’re just trying find an excuse to invade Iraq?
Anyway, none of the above has much to do with Bush’s lame attempts to spin, lie, and exaggerate, which is what really gets my goat. Seriously, it takes a stretch of the imagination indeed to transform an impoverish Iraqi weapons program into a direct threat to the US, one that needs to be dealt with by force. But if the rest of the UN member states, on the other hand, come around to agreeing with the US position, then I would probably agree, too.
