MysteriousFaith

Reflections on the Iraqi War

Regardless of what your perspective is on the war in Iraq, it is one of the divisive issues not only in America but in the entire world. The opponents of this war are not limited to our shores - we see strong resistance to the invasion of Iraq in countries around the world. What has made this war so opposed? Is it, as some have suggested, opposed because some countries no longer understand that good must combat evil? Are those against the war against it because they believe pacification is always a better option than war - not believing any war can or should be justified? Can we make the case that those against the war are simply immoral and weak, contrasted to those who support the war who are thus moral and strong?

Why I Am Against the War in Iraq

It seems to me that too much of our public discussion on the war in Iraq is focused on the wrong things. People wrap themselves up in justifications for going to war - reasonable fears over the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and state sponsorship of terror. Resistors to these justifications point to options ranging from the never-accepted pacifism to blind faith in the value of UN intervention. People who loathe the war often times vilify the Bush Administration - charging it with being willing to sacrifice innocent American and Iraqi lives at the hands of the bloodthirsty military-industrial complex and for the objectives of the oil and gas industry.

As Americans have been duped into engaging over these red herrings, we are missing a discussion over much more critical issues like what the doctrine of pre-emption means and how it will be applied in the future relative to other states that constitute as clear and as immediate a threat as did Iraq. Where government and media collaborate to get Americans talking over sound bites, the citizenry misses a much more important discussion over why invading Iraq made sense, but invading Iran has not. Such a dialogue is immensely more important than pointless blather over whether or not WMD labs will be found at a turkey farm in Basra.

Regardless of what your perspective is on the war in Iraq, it is one of the divisive issues not only in America but in the entire world. The opponents of this war are not limited to our shores - we see strong resistance to the invasion of Iraq in countries around the world. What has made this war so opposed? Is it, as some have suggested, opposed because some countries no longer understand that good must combat evil? Are those against the war against it because they believe pacification is always a better option than war - not believing any war can or should be justified? Can we make the case that those against the war are simply immoral and weak, contrasted to those who support the war who are thus moral and strong?

Such simple reductions bother me immensely. I hope I am a balanced enough analyst to appreciate that opposition rarely exists for vapid or unintelligible reasons. Are you willing to concede that same point? Are you willing to be open minded and pursue a detailed analysis of the causes behind our war in Iraq? If you are, then let me share with you my reasons for being against the war. Due to the complexity of the justification for this war, any reasonable analysis must include a point-by-point deconstruction of the “logic” argued for America going to war in Iraq.

The Doctrine of Pre-Emption

Not since the Monroe Doctrine has a foreign policy debate carried such a predominant place as our current national debate over the doctrine of pre-emption. This doctrine, also known as “anticipatory self-defense” has been an ideological part of America’s foreign policy for many years. However, it has remained properly positioned as a tool of last resort, to be used only when obviously necessary, due to the potential for this doctrine’s abuse (Source: Foreign Affairs - September/October 2003 - page 4). To argue, as this administration has done, that America will strike anywhere we see a gathering storm is incredibly dangerous. This is why not finding WMD capacity in Iraq will be incredibly dangerous to the peace of the world: if America does not find a recently augmented infrastructure to make WMD’s, other nation-states will rightly assume that America justified its war in Iraq for political reasons. Such a realization fundamentally changes the security concerns of all nations - making already unstable republics, polarized democracies, and megalomaniac dictators that much more unstable. Nothing about a misapplied doctrine of pre-emption makes the world safer. Even in reasonably tolerant Middle East countries like Egypt your counterparts - the citizens of Egypt who get up every morning and work to better their lives just as you do - fear an America that pre-emptively acts with such little justification. If ultimately no WMD capacity is found, if the links to terrorism are weak at best, America will reap the whirlwind of its unilateral action in Iraq. It is in such a world that America will be seen, in fact already is seen, as an aggressor. The world is immensely less safe with a superpower like America acting in ways that are interpreted as being only for the preservation and extension of its own safety and power - a power that is second to none in the world and a level of security no other country in the world, perhaps even in all of history, has known.

David Fromkin’s recent book, Europe’s Last Summer, details how World War I started during the summer of 1914. Those that read this book will be struck by how the justification on the part of Germany to attack Russia is similar in construct as the justification for America invading Iraq. In the case of Germany’s justification in 1914, it was believed that in a couple of years the Russian military and economic capabilities would outstrip those of Germany. Since German war planners feared a Russia stronger than they - let us say they feared the “gathering storm” of Russian power - an offensive war was justified on the basis of defensive arguments. America’s justification of its invasion of Iraq is a similar offensive attack cloaked in defensive terms.

During the beginning of the war in Iraq, some marginal discussion took place within the conventional media concerning the fact that this war would mark the first time America acted with naked offensive action; in past conflicts America has been able to justify its military action behind defensive or retaliatory statements. Make no mistake about it, using the doctrine of pre-emption was a water-shed moment for the United States. There is no turning back from this moment in time, and there is nothing that can now be done to not face the consequences of a world destabilized by the use of such tactics. We now live in a more dangerous world - a world where action has created fear, an emotion extremists will be able to use to mobilize moderates.

The Very Dicey Issue of How to Handle State-Sponsored Terrorism

Currently, the U.S. State Department identifies seven governments as state sponsors of terrorism: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria and Sudan. These are violent, repressive regimes that rightly deserve to be man-handled by the global community. They represent the worst atrocities our world will offer to the annals of history. They are profoundly bad, they are implicitly evil, and only one of the seven has seen the doctrine of pre-emption applied to it. A reasonable person must ask “why?” this is.

Such a question is fraught with danger: to make even a pretense of defending any of these nations is unquestionably wrong. But to genuinely seek to understand why the United States would assert itself in Iraq but not in North Korea is a meaningful question. For intellectuals, such an understanding is necessary to form and defend foreign policy positions. For the global citizen, such an understanding allows them to see where and why the world will be at war. It is important for the lay-person to grasp why invading Iraq made sense, but North Korea did not; after all, it will be the lay-person, not the leader or intellectual that will bear the burden of marching to orders and sacrificing their lives.

The US press completely missed its opportunity to clarify this point during the recent Presidential press conference. Rather than attempt to get President Bush to apologize for 9/11 - a heinous and empty-headed request as he clearly had nothing to do with allowing such an atrocity to happen - it would have served Americans and the world community much better to get President Bush to clearly articulate to the world why Iraq made sense and North Korea or Iran did not. I hope my heart is sincere in saying that I would have made every effort to listen to such a response; but rather than ask such a probative question, the press corps sought to troll for the easy bite, the hopeful snippet of sound that would provide solace to the wounded and ammunition to the angry.

President Bush and his war cabinet’s standard answer to this line of questioning is that Iraq represented a gathering storm; post-9/11 this administration would not allow potential threats to gather force until it was too late for action. Understood. But once again; why Iraq when the intelligence related to Iran and North Korea is much more specific and “actionable”? Where these type of questions go obviously unaddressed, it leaves people such as myself in a position where I am forced to believe a secondary motive - probably ideological - is behind the Iraqi war.

During the now-pointed political roundtable discussions on MSNBC’s Hardball or Tim Russert’s Meet the Press questions about the ideology behind invading Iraq are now being asked. The template answer from administration officials is that “this conflict is all a part of the same global fight against terrorism.” To make such an argument and to be unable to specifically support clear linkages between Iraq and state-sponsored terrorism is damning. Strong connections between Iraq and state-sponsored terrorism must be made for the Iraqi war to be justified as the doctrine of pre-emption has been explained to us thus far.

The issue of Iraq’s association to terrorism has frequently been brought up as a defense of America’s invasion. The US State Department identifies seven international terrorist organizations that the Bush Administration believes has strong support by the Iraqi government. Of these, five (the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, HAMAS, The Palestinian Liberation Front, the Arab Liberation Front, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad) represent groups active in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This article is the wrong place to debate the morality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; however, it is the right place to present the argument that such Iraqi support was a recent phenomenon on the part of Saddam Hussein for obvious political reasons.

Iraqi support for Palestinian suicide bombers is not a tenuous association: the links can not be disputed. What can be disputed is the motivation for the support on the part of Hussein. One resource presents the case for the linkages, but only presents dates going back to 2000. The preponderance of the evidence points to accelerating payments by Iraq in 2002. Some have reasonably suggested that these payments increased in frequency and visibility as Hussein attempted to rally the Muslim nations around his cause - believing that he could buy loyalty from those who he had not been able to bully into submission.

Increasing the likelihood that Hussein’s motives can be seriously questioned is the fact that Hussein’s track record shows that his embracing of religion is a fairly recent phenomenon, designed to obtain political power over mistrusting Muslims in other Arab countries. One such example of his questionable faith is his mosque building frenzy - buildings in lieu of belief if you will. Understanding any articulation of Hussein within the strict construct of political opportunism makes much more sense than a dubious attempt to relate his beliefs to the same objectives the global terror network espouses.

Hussein and Bin Laden are not compatriots. Only people with a poor understanding of the motivations of a fundamentalist religious extremist like Bin Laden would suggest that a political animal like Hussein would have much in common with Bin Laden. True, they may share a mutual worldview where the US needs to be taken down a peg, but such conceptual agreement in no way justifies making them part of the same conflict. But here again we see the line of reasoning that “you are either with us or you are against us.” I challenge those that are comfortable with such hyperbole to ask themselves what the world looks like when the US chooses to pre-emptively engage any country that disagrees with us. That is a much more dangerous world - a world where escalating violence can be wholly guaranteed.

Links between terrorism and Iraq have not been limited to the Palestinian cause. Two other terrorist organizations also exist within Iraq: the Iranian Mujahedin-e Khalq, and Abu Nidal. Further investigation of these two organizations reinforces the nagging suspicion that Hussein’s Iraq was a politically motivated environment without clear ideological foundations.

The Iranian Mujahedin-e Khalq (MKO) is an organization whose sponsorship by Iraq is an obvious outgrowth of the Iran-Iraq war. This organization exists for the purposes of overthrowing the current Iranian state. “The group turned against the new government and continues to wage an armed struggle against the Iranian state from Iraq, which provides the group with financial and logistical support and military equipment. The MKO remains the most powerful opponent of the Islamic Republic, attacking targets in Iran and assassinating Iranian officials. It is generally believed to have 15 to 20 bases in Iraq.” It would be interesting to ask most people if that description is of the CIA or the MKO - both the MKO and the US have had active insurgency campaigns in Iran in the hopes of overthrowing the Iranian government. The MKO should only be used as a justification of Iraq’s state sponsorship of terror if the US is also willing to claim the countless number of insurgencies we sponsor around the world with similar motives. The MKO’s obvious political objectives are specific to Iran and have nothing to do with the US concerns over domestic terrorism.

The Abu Nidal organization has been pointed to by many sympathizers of the war in Iraq as justification for our invasion. But here again the connection is dubious. To begin with, The International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) agency does not even list Abu Nidal as an active terrorist group - for good reason: Abu Nidal himself was executed on the orders of Hussein in 2002. It should also be noted that ICT’s list of fifty-four international terrorist organizations identifies only one organization as being affiliated nationally with Iraq - that of the MKO.

Abu Nidal has been sponsored by three states: Syria, Libya and Iraq. We know the story in Iraq, and frankly, the story in Libya is on the side of the hawks from within the Bush Administration. Qadhafi no doubt figured out from the situation in Iraq that now would not be a good time to be perceived as being hostile to the doctrines of American supremacy. We should then, based on the global war on terror, anticipate an invasion in the near future of Syria if Abu Nidal is the justification for going to war. By the time the Iraqi war started, the Abu Nidal organization did not warrant the attention of most of the world’s terrorist agencies; minus of course the US State Department - who needed every such vapid association to justify an unjustifiable war in Iraq.

Two final points of discussion should be evaluated in the interests of fairness: the presence of al-Qaida in Iraq and the capture of Abu Abbas - the Palestinian terrorist who was behind the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship the Achille Lauro. The US State Department has attempted to link Hussein to al-Qaida on numerous occasions. While the presence of al-Qaida in Iraq is a point of fact both sides can agree on, the timing of their arrival seems oddly parallel to the support Iraq extended to the families of Palestinians. Linkages between al-Qaida and Iraq prior to 9/11 do not meet sufficient burden of proof as to be offered as evidence of any ties between Iraq and al-Qaida. It is important to remember that Hussein’s view of Islam was through the lens of political opportunism - Bin Laden viewed Hussein dimly, saying in a taped comment on February 11, 2003 that Saddam was an “infidel” and that “Muslims should support the Iraqi people rather than the country’s government.” Any presence of al-Qaida in Iraq is a recent phenomenon due to the destabilization of the Iraqi borders and the last-minute attempts on the part of Hussein to ally himself with extremists.

The capture of Abu Abbas is the final fact that is sometimes shown as evidence of Iraq’s association to terrorism. It is important to keep in mind that to justify pre-emptive war, America must be confident not simply of the safe harbor of terrorists but most importantly the state-sponsorship of the terrorist network itself. Otherwise we should be at war with the countries that harbored Nazi criminals from World War II or the number of countries around the world where terrorists are harbored at this present moment.

Abbas was yesterday’s news - a terrorist confined to a wheelchair who had little bite left in him. To suggest he was a meaningful capture is simply ridiculous - Israel had allowed Abbas to travel in and out of Gaza several years ago. Israel recognized three things: they could not arrest Abbas due to the Oslo Accord, he had given up violence and he was no longer a contemporary of the Islamic fundamentalist extremists like al-Qaida. The cause Abbas originally supported - the nation-state of Palestine being free from Israel - was no longer the predominant theme within the community of Islamic terrorists. Now, the terrorist camps sought to establish Islamic fundamentalist rule across the Middle East - a goal Abbas did not share.

As if these facts were not enough, it should be noted that the arrest of Abu Abbas violated two international laws that the US had agreed to abide by: the Oslo Accord (which stipulated that no member of the PLO would be arrested or brought to court for any action prior to September 13, 1993) and the expirations of the US indictments themselves (the indictments for piracy, hostage-taking and conspiracy had expired). These gray areas may not have been the only questionable tactic in the prosecution of Abbas as he died in US custody. As Paul Reynolds of the BBC stated when Abbas was captured, “he was not quite the big catch … the Americans were seeking for their ‘war on terror.’”

If Iraq represented a “gathering storm” and a “safe-haven for terrorists” to such an extent that it was reasonable to use it as an object lesson for the doctrine of pre-emption, then our doctrine has serious flaws in it. If this war was justified on the basis of terrorism, we have badly misapplied the standard by which we will go to war. Again the point must be made to properly emasculate the doctrine of pre-emption: if Iraq why not Syria? Detailed analysis of the connections between Iraq and state sponsorship of terrorism can be shown to be dubious at best. As George Soros says in his book The Bubble of American Supremacy, “War is a false and misleading metaphor in the context of combating terrorism. Treating the attacks of September 11 as crimes against humanity would have been more appropriate. Crimes require police work, not military action. To protect against terrorism, you need precautionary measures, awareness, and intelligence gathering … Military action requires an identifiable target, preferably a state. As a result, the war on terrorism has been directed primarily against states harboring terrorists.” (pages 18-19) It should surprise no American that the justification for the next awful attack on our shores will be predicated on a similar abuse of language and ideology - for such obvious disconnects have colored the attempt by the Bush administration to inter-relate non related situations.

Learning from Afghanistan

No educated discussion over the conflict in Iraq should take place without a detailed analysis of the goings-on in Afghanistan. Unlike Iraq, the global community stood behind America as we acted in Afghanistan. Here, the linkage to state sponsored terrorism is without doubt. No tenuous claim of the inter-relationship between the Taliban and al-Qaida exists. It serves everyone’s objectives to review what has transpired in Afghanistan thus far as we can no doubt glean meaningful insights into the mid-term outworking of our Iraqi strategy.

About eighteen months ago 60 Minutes did a story with Leslie Stahl in Kabul, Afghanistan. As she and the general in charge drove down a street in down-town Kabul the camera slowly panned up one of the buildings. The building looked eerily similar to the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City after the McVeigh bombing. Half the building had been demolished by bombs. As the camera stopped mid-way through the apex of its shot, it focused in on a child standing precariously near the edge of his family’s apartment. Half of it was gone. The mangled rebar snarled out, reinforcing the image of destruction and utter devastation. As the camera fixed in on the child I wondered: does he view the occupying forces now through the same eyes as his father viewed the Russians? Have we given birth to the hate that will create within Afghanistan a new Mujahedin? Such questions are rarely seriously analyzed within the community of those who whole-heartedly supported the war. Short and mid-term history will no doubt remain conflicted over the value of our policies in Afghanistan.

What can be stated with confidence is that the level of control the US has in Afghanistan is not good. Reports suggest that outside of Kabul, the support for Karzai’s government is weak. The Northern Alliance, a group of warlords that may prove to be little better than the Taliban, is giving the US and the new Afghani government problems. Have lessons been learned during the Afghani conflict in how to introduce democratic government into previously totalitarian states? We will certainly find out as the June 30th deadline to hand over power to the Iraqi governing council approaches. Afghanistan has a unified past - they even have a deposed monarchy that many remember. Iraq has no such unified past - neither in its recent past nor in its history.

The difficulties with the Northern Alliance have recently become more problematic as the US forces in Afghanistan have begun to encounter increasing resistance from pockets of fighters sympathetic to the Taliban. The point here is by no means to justify the Taliban’s resistance, but rather to point out that some two and a half years after our invasion we still do not have a stable situation where we can safely say the Afghani country is under control. In point of fact, the Afghani level of control has been said to exist not farther than select neighborhoods in Kabul - beyond these neighborhoods our level of control is sporadic.

Most troubling of all is the impact our invasion of Afghanistan is having on the average Afghani. The UN estimates that “some 7-8 million are at risk of imminent starvation. The New York Times reports in a small item (September 25) that nearly six million Afghans depend on food aid from the UN, as well as 3.5 million in refugee camps outside, many of whom fled just before the borders were sealed.” (Source - 9/11 by Noam Chomsky)

Make no mistake about it: Afghanistan will be the canary in the mine relative to the doctrine of American supremacy. Where lessons can be learned from our involvement in Afghanistan they must be - for the good of the Afghans, the Iraqis and the world. The world will be a much less safe place if the situation in Afghanistan falls into regional fighting, sporadic acts of terror and wide spread starvation. Nothing good will come of an Afghani situation that leaves the country fractured, emasculated, and eviscerated.

You Are Either With Us Or Against Us - The Policy of American Supremacy

I am not convinced this war is necessarily a war entirely predicated on the doctrine of pre-emption. The more I study the ideologies of those behind the war, I am led to believe this conflict is a natural, even engineered, outgrowth from the belief in the absolute morality of American supremacy.

Let me suggest that two books are absolutely essential in understanding the doctrines of pre-emption and the belief in American supremacy: George Soros’ The Bubble of American Supremacy: Correcting the Misuse of American Power and James Mann’s Rise of the Vulcans: the History of Bush’s War Cabinet. The latter especially details the development of the neo-conservative movement, tracing each Bush cabinet member’s development from ideology to action. The book is well written and very well balanced - stopping short of making personal or political comments that other authors would have made.

The doctrine of American supremacy has three primary problems with it: it is not a policy that a truly open society would espouse, it is unachievable, and it illustrates a basic problem with the American way - the blind belief in the morality of consumerism.

The doctrine of American supremacy has been stated in various ways by various members of the Bush Administration. President Bush has said it best: “you are either with us or you are against us.” Taken in concert with the application of the doctrine of pre-emption, this places other countries in a tenuous position. What if, dare I say it, America is wrong? To disagree with us means that you are “against us.” As the doctrine of pre-emption is being applied by the Bush Administration, that means we are soon to be at war soon again with many others - does it not? And what of those people, like myself, within America that strongly disagree with this policy? Am I to be treated as an enemy combatant - someone who is “against us”?

The Bush Administration has shown difficulty choosing the right words when articulating policy. The use of the word “war” after 9/11 was a mistake. It cheapens the word immensely. 9/11 should have been treated as a criminal event - requiring responses from police and intelligence agencies. As my wife and I sat in our home watching the aftermath of 9/11, I was chilled when President Bush chose to use the word “war” in his press conference. This word carries with it meaning - it requires an enemy to attack with our military infrastructure. Worse, it gave Americans still reeling from the pain of 9/11 the belief that we would get our revenge within the constructs of war. Such an expectation can not be backed away from once the average person has fixated on the type of revenge only a war can offer.

Just as the choice of the word “war” was a mistake, so too was the use of the phrase “you are either with us or you are against us.” Granted it reduces our foreign policy to a very simple framework, but the reduced framework is a dangerous one. No society that values dialogue as much as we say we do would articulate a foreign policy that reduced opposing voices to the status of enemy. If we claim to be an open society, but do not allow dissent from within and without, we are no freer than the people who we are supposedly liberating. Freedom must be acted on and encouraged in order to exist - it does not exist simply because its privilege is established.

The doctrine of American supremacy is unachievable. This belief is that America can and morally should be the most powerful country in the world. It is the belief that when we choose to act, everyone else should follow with us. Keep in mind that we have already established that dissent is an act of the enemy. If we then follow that American supremacy is a must for the world to be safe, are we not marching towards a situation where it could rightly be argued that absolute power will corrupt absolutely?

Take, as just one example, the shocking belief from Vice President Cheney’s now Chief of Staff (Scooter Libby) who argued in an early 1990’s Pentagon planning paper known as the Defense Planning Guidance project that “The main point shouldn’t be to block rival powers, but rather for the United States to become so militarily strong, so overwhelming that no country would dream of ever becoming a rival … Thus the United States would be the world’s lone superpower not just today or ten years from now but permanently.” (Source - The Rise of the Vulcans by James Mann - page 212) This is frighteningly simple minded - it assumes such a static world view that it is striking someone with such a limited grasp of the world, the means by which technology can fundamentally change the basis of global power, and the implications of absolute power corrupting, could be in such an important position.

My last resistance to the doctrine of American supremacy is based on what many will disagree with at face value. Many will read my comments on American supremacy and argue that we are right to close debate on such issues and that supremacy is achievable. To those people I suggest you skip to the next section of the article. I firmly believe that the doctrine of supremacy is rooted in the normative belief within America that anything that threatens my ability to consume, anything that requires I not be free to maximize my pleasure is a threat. As rogue states and terrorist organizations threaten my ability to project power, acquire assets and live as I wish, they must be dealt with harshly. We fear less the loss of American lives, we fear the loss of the standard of living in America.

What is the doctrine of American supremacy ultimately based on? I fear that the current Bush Administration’s policy is based on two primal concerns: that the US could not afford to look vulnerable post-9/11 and the profound implications of a once-powerful society living in fear. In neither case does the world become safer by a scared hyper-power flexing its muscles around the globe. If our actions were not pure we have much to fear over the next several years.

Mixed Motives

Various commentators, hawks and administration officials have repeatedly justified the war in Iraq based on a relationship between 9/11, the global war on terrorism and WMD’s. My belief that any such terrorism relationship is tenuous at best has been addressed earlier. If we assume that no such connection existed, we are forced to ask ourselves what the motivations were for linking these disparate situations. It is my contention that these mixed motives have wrongly constituted the majority of our discussion about the Iraqi war.

Too much blather has been regurgitated from the world’s media outlets relative to the WMD controversy. Perhaps never has more been said with so little meaning than the vociferous thrust and parry that has taken place between opposing camps on this issue. I care little as to how the WMD debate ultimately resolves itself. Did Iraq have WMD capability? Clearly they did at one time - Hussein’s use of them against the Kurds in the 1980’s is one example. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute completed a paper named “Chemical Warfare in the Iraq-Iran War” in May of 1984. This report suggested that at least 49 instances of Iraqi chemical warfare could be identified during the seven year conflict in the 1980’s. I have shown a picture below of one dead child in Halabja so as to remind everyone - myself included - that any discussion on WMD’s is deadly serious. We do the world no favors when we forget the destructive potential of these weapons.

And so we must seriously entertain the fact that rogue states who seek to possess WMD capacity do so with no one’s best interests in mind. I do not believe, as some do, that nation states always seek them out for purely defensive reasons - more than likely the pursuit of such weapons is done for two additional reasons. First, to reinforce the megalomania of the totalitarian dictator and second, to scare or position regional neighbors through the threat of force. Where the possession or simple pursuit of WMD’s alone is sufficient cause for military invasion, the proponents of pre-emption must again explain why Iraq and not North Korea, Iran or for that matter China, India or Pakistan. To believe that non-proliferation can exist in a world where many states rightly fear the misuse of American power is unsustainable. While we should not accept the carte-blanche proliferation of WMD capacity, we should also recognize that chemical weapons were used in WWI, in Afghanistan by the Russians, in Vietnam by Americans and in Iran by Iraq. We must manage the threat - an attempt to wholly destroy it only ensures that the treatment will be worse than the original disease.

For those who would suggest that such a position is risking too much I would suggest they more seriously consider the predominant policy of nuclear engagement that was used by Cold War planners - the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). This principle was the basis upon which American political and intellectual leaders argued that as long as a certain level of nuclear capability and readiness was maintained, it would deter any offensive nuclear attack by Russia. Why? Because Russia would recognize that even if they struck first, they could not destroy sufficient amounts of America’s nuclear capacity as to minimize our strike-back potential. The current Bush Administration’s policy of pre-emption would require us to have attacked each ICBM silo as it was being constructed, each attempt to mine radioactive material, and each missile factory in Russia. Obviously such a position was not achievable. Why is it now? That is precisely why applying the justification of our invasion of Iraq is so destabilizing to a world where WMD capacity is proliferating into countries like Iran, North Korea, India and Pakistan. We must construct an ideology like that of MAD that affords a meaningful stand-off; if we do not, we are guaranteed escalating violence and perpetual war.

Is oil at the bottom of the Iraqi war? Much has been written on this topic and frankly, I have little to offer. My best guess is that it was an advantage, but not the primary or perhaps even secondary motivation for our invasion. I caution those who strongly disagree with any linkage between the invasion of Iraq and America’s selfish motives for oil to reflect upon the fact that history will probably judge harshly that the current President and Vice-President both have strong personal histories in the oil industry. This fact will not go un-noticed in historical reflections yet to come.

It is my personal belief that two primary motivations existed for the invasion of Iraq: first, that Iraq represented an opportunity to engineer the political future of the Middle East and second, to illustrate to the world the doctrine of American pre-emption and American supremacy. Since we have earlier dissected the doctrine of pre-emption and supremacy, it is worthwhile to focus on the question of whether or not the invasion of Iraq was cover for the US to construct our version of a political future for the Middle East.

America’s involvement in the Middle East is the most recent in a long line of Western powers who have sought to project their power into this oil-rich region of the world. For anyone to believe that the motives of America and its allies are ever pure when interacting with these oil-laden countries is childish. Two primary drivers existed for American ideologues to argue that invading Iraq made sense. First, the establishment of a democracy in Iraq would be meaningful as it would afford America a large state within which we could project our power more clearly in the Persian Gulf. Second, significant fears exist currently as to the fate of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi royal family is coming under increasing pressure from Islamic extremists within its own country. The recent terrorist attacks in Riyadh are shocking reminders of what a tenuous grasp on power the Saudi royal family has. Increasing unemployment and decreasing social entitlements are combining with fervent Islamic militants to make the future of a pro-America Saudi Arabia questionable. Thinkers within American policy institutions have no doubt recognized this threat and see eerie similarities between the current situation in Saudi Arabia and the Shah’s Iran. Given the likelihood that Saudi Arabia could turn on America and become a militant Islamic state, no longer receptive or willing to whore itself in the US oil markets, it has become important for America to secure an oil producing ally in the region. What was doable? Again, the finger points reasonably to Iraq.

Let me identify one final concern over the question of our motives in invading Iraq. Even if we were to assume, as I strenuously do not, that the war was justifiable, we must ask the question of what is the best means of obtaining the outcome we desire. If our desire was to see Hussein toppled and a democratic government established, we could hardly have chosen a more inappropriate technique. At the most foundational level, our invasion violated the tenet of self-determination. Lenin has been credited as saying that any revolution not begun from within by the citizens is doomed to failure. Where the people have not initiated and led the revolution, the pain of change is too easily blamed on “others.” When this blame has been successfully deflected, the opportunity for social change deflates, leaving behind a power vacuum ripe for exploitation. In the case of Iraq, we can already hear rumblings of people who, although hating Hussein, argue that life with Hussein was better than life in a now destabilized and violent Iraq. Bush administration officials argued that we would be welcomed with open arms for freeing the Iraqi people - that has not happened and will not as this is not a revolution they were ready for. Had they been ready for it, the human desire for freedom from oppression would have reached up and swept Hussein out of office. We chose to step in for them, not realizing that socially, culturally, politically and developmentally, this was a step they were not ready to take. I find it very interesting how conservatives, so against domestic programs that encourage social engineering, are so eager to engineer entire foreign societies they know little about.

Conclusion

During even the friendliest of discussions with those who disagree with me on the Iraqi conflict, inevitably the question of “ok - what would you have done?” comes up. Let me suggest three basic responses to this question. The first is, without question, the most important: the question itself is a straw man - invading Iraq was not necessary - it was deemed “doable” by some very assertive ideologues and it was “done.” A conflict with Iraq would have only made sense in the most strident of multi-lateral situations where the world had agreed on the need to police the globe in an effort to remove WMD’s and despot dictators. No such discussion or agreement was presented.

Secondly, any reasonable discussion about the war on terror must take into account the anger felt within the Middle East for the United State’s unflinching support of Israel. Even within the Jewish community itself much social dialogue is taking place over the morality of Israel’s use of collective punishment as a means for punishing all Palestinians for suicide bombings. Israel has over-reached on numerous occasions and is conducting itself in a way in Palestine that is unforgivable. The world would be a safer place if the issue of a Palestinian state was settled in a way that did not involve a Palestinian holocaust. I am not naïve enough to believe that all those who hate us would simply disappear in the advent of such a peace; however, it would become much easier for stable Middle East governments to repress extremists in light of the Palestinian plight being resolved.

Third, I would have used the post-9/11 environment to open up meaningful dialogue over the role of the UN. The UN badly needs reform on a global scale. It has become corrupt, powerless and a playground for pretend statesmanship. The original goal of the UN, even if it now seems quaint or unattainable, was for a global community where dialogue could take place in the interests of avoiding mass bloodshed and enforcing commonly held values on freedom and personal liberty. The UN is so far away from this role that today its very presence cheapens important issues.

Were I to believe that our invasion of Iraq was based on pure motives - specifically the genuine desire to free an oppressed people from the grips of a ruthless and violent dictator, I would be more likely to support our actions. But I can find no such solace in the motivations for our invasion.

When I step back and gain a proper perspective on the policies that have led America into this conflict, I see too many changing motives and alternating stories. Where once the motive was to locate WMD’s, it has now changed to combating terrorism. When the forum will not support such a tenuous association, the cause of freedom and democracy is lifted high. Those that support the invasion see in these responses a flexibility that can only be afforded when you are on the side of right - when so many things add up to make action unconscionable. For me, so many different responses - each of which I find dubious, inconsistent and insincere - suggests something more ominous - specifically the outworking of a doctrine of American supremacy.

Such a position is not really a stretch; after all, it was President George Bush who said “you are either with us or you are against us.” I question whether people who hold such a position have fully thought through the implications to a world where we are war - not simply at odds - with any state that disagrees with our foreign policy. Such a world is dangerous and will claim the lives of many innocents before more sane leaders find their way to the helm of their countries’ policies.

previous post: Of Divine Origins, But Cultural In Authorship
next post: Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity

• Posted in Politics
• no comments
• Trackback
• June 23, 2004

• Bookmark on del.icio.us
• Bookmark on Digg

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website