Ishbadiddle: Iraq

Iraq

So I've posted a number of readings and essays about Iraq -- both pro- and anti-invasion -- but have not as of yet written anything myself. So here goes:

* It's illogical to assume that invasion and appeasement are the only options.

For 50 years, we've permitted the continued existence of various despots and dictators. We've permitted other countries to possess nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. We've been able to do this because of our military superiority, and our nuclear arsenal. Generally put, most nations would not think of attacking us (or our formal allies) for fear that we would lay waste to their country. To do so would be suicide for a non-nuclear state, and mutually assured destruction for a nuclear state.

This is why, although North Korea is also part of the "Axis of Evil" club, we're not going to be invading them any time soon: they've got the bomb. See this article in Stratfor: Rumsfeld Indicates Nuclear Status Key to Pre-Emption Policy.

Rather than decry any non-invasion option as "appeasement", we should take a hard look at our policy of containment and deterrence. Why, in the case of Iraq, won't it work? And, if we want to force Iraq to disarm, is invasion the only option?

* "But the September 11th attacks change everything."

Well, no they don't. In the case of an attack by a foreign state, the response is quite simple: we go to war. We attack their military, bomb their capitol, etc. A terrorist attack is different because there's no target for us to hit. After 9/11, attacking the Taliban, as the sponsor of bin Laden, was our best military option. (That's leaving aside intelligence/police options and diplomatic options.) But we were not attacked by Iraq. Nor is there any evidence that they were behind the September 11th attacks. (Other than a hatred of the United States, bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have very different goals. I'm sure bin Laden (if he's still alive, that is) would like very much to see Hussein overthrown and a fundamentalist regime put in his place.)

* A war on Iraq is not a war against terrorism.

Let me be clear: Iraq has supported terrorists -- SH gives money to the families of Palestinian terrorists after they've murdered Israeli civilians. But attacking Iraq won't help us in our fight against Al Qaeda. If we were really going to fight a war on terrorism with conventional warfare, we would invade that fundamentalist, despotic regime that we actually know supported Al Qaeda. No, I don't mean Iran, I'm talking about our "ally" Saudi Arabia.

Again and again, the Bush Administration has tried to link Iraq to 9/11. Take what Dick Cheney said on "Meet the Press":

You know, this will take some time, but it's important for us, as I mentioned earlier, to remember that the world has changed. . . . What we found on September 11 is that the danger now is an attack that's launched from within the United States itself, not from some foreign territory, as happened with respect to the hijackers on 9/11. Also that, in this particular case, it was backed up by a cell, terrorist cell, operating in Hamburg, Germany. You have to completely recalibrate your thinking in terms of how you deal with that. Now, if you start with that as background, then you deal with Saddam Hussein and his 11 years, now, since 1991, since the end of the war, his refusal to comply with the U.N. Security Council resolutions. If you look at the extent to which he has aggressively sought to acquire chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, over the years, the fact that he has previously used them-he used chemical weapons both against the Kurds and against the Iranians during the 1980s-the fact that he has twice invaded his neighbors. He's launched ballistic missiles against four of his neighbors over the years. There's a pattern and a track record there that one has to be concerned about.

If you read the whole of it, you'll see that Cheney juxtaposes "9/11", "WMD," and "Iraq", without saying there's a causal link. It plays on our fears pretty effectively. "We're at risk of terrorist attack -- a chemical / biological attack would be awful -- Iraq has chemical weapons -- therefore Iraq will launch a terrorist attack against us using WMD." It's that last step that doesn't make sense. Because SH knows that if he attacks us, we'll level Bagdahd. Thos. Friedman recently argued in the Times that Hussein is deterrable because he loves life more than he hates us, but that Friedman really fears those who hate us more than they love life. A fanatic is undeterrable.

* "But Saddam is a despot and a menace to his own people."

Forgive me if I sound like an isolationist. I'm not a Kurd, or a Kuwaiti, or an Iraqi. Saddam Hussein doesn't make me lose sleep at night. Terrorists do. Perhaps it's different for those of us who lived through the attacks, who live with the very real possibility that it could happen, here, again. Frankly, if war on Iraq somehow keeps us from catching these guys -- because we're focused on toppling Hussein instead of uncovering the terrorist threat -- or worse, if an invasion encourages more fanatics to attack us, then I'm dead set against it.

Quite simply, I believe that Bush's people have planned to hit Iraq from the day he took office. Here's an article from CBS News:

[On 9/11/01], with the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." - meaning Saddam Hussein - "at same time. Not only UBL" - the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.
Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

Now we are faced with a war we don't know how to fight, the war against terrorism. How much easier it is for W and Co. to focus on a good old-fashioned war.

* Why it's stupid to announce "regime change" as your policy.

We may seriously wish for Saddam to go away. We may want a moderate goverment, or one we control, in place. But to announce "regime change" as our policy is strategically dumb. Why? Because it means that Saddam has nothing to lose. If he believes that we're going after him personally, then why the hell not attack us, or Israel or Turkey or any of our allies? Even if we take him down, well, he was going down anyway.

(I think we made the same mistake with Arafat, as ruthless and untrustworthy as he is, but that's another topic.)

That's why a UN resolution makes sense. In effect, we are saying, "Do X, Y, and Z, or you're going into the dustbin of history." A policy of regime change says, "We don't care what you do; we're going to kill you no matter what." Under sufficent threat, Saddam will toe the line. Which would we rather have: a cowed dictator who disarms under the threat of our military, or a dictator who thinks he's got nothing to lose and wants to be seen as a hero to the Arab world? The only way "regime change" makes sense as an announced policy is if we use it as a signal to anti-Hussein factions within Iraq. This is wishful thinking. (Read the following piece from Stratfor: Iraqi Overthrow of Hussein Attractive for U.S., but Unrealistic.)

So do we really want a disarmed Iraq? Then I repeat what Prof. Watkins wrote:

Why doesn't it make sense to run with Iraq's capitulation to unconditional inspections and put them to the test? Precisely why is it necessary to get a new resolution? If the inspectors go in and are blocked in any way, what more justification for international action could possibly be required?

* If Bush is smart, he won't have to invade.

I'm half-hoping that Bush & Co. are engaging in some clever gunboat diplomacy; that the buildup of armies, the war rhetoric and saber rattling, are really there to convince Saddam that we mean business, this time. For this to work, though, we'd need the UN to play "good cop" to our "bad cop". ("You really don't want to mess with my buddy George over there -- he's had it in for you ever since your fight with his pappy. Why not co-operate with me and make it easy on yourself?") I'm not sure if this will come to pass. The question is, are we boxed into a corner where the only option is to invade? And is Iraq boxed into a corner where their only option is to attack?

I suggest you read this post over at William Burton's blog, which is far more thought out than mine (found on Objectionable Content; see also Jim's response there). Also of note, this piece over at the Libertarian Samizdata, which doesn't really bolster my position, but which sums up the strategic conundrum rather nicely:

"Wait and the threat will grow; strike and the threat may be used."

Comments