In response to M_____' recent challenge to the "War Opponents" to come up with better arguments than those expressed at protests, I started re-reading my thoughts on Iraq I wrote back in September. And, I realized that nothing in the events of the last six months has really changed my opinion. Which you can read as either a failure on Team Bush's part to make the case for war, or just my own stubborn refusal to change my mind. Anyhow, since the questions of the proper methods of crowd estimations, and the larger meaning of poll numbers have been adequately addressed in the comments to his post, I thought I would get to the meat of the matter: why shouldn't we invade Iraq? So, here's the cut-and-paste (although not cut-and-dried) post on Iraq:
* 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 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.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."
Update: An interesting article on why more New Yorkers oppose the war than the rest of the country (is it because we're liberal -- or because we believe that invading Iraq means more terrorism right here at home? Probably both, but I'd say more #2 than #1 personally.) Also: why more Americans now believe that Saddam was behind 9/11.
* 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?
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, anyone?
| War | George W. Bush | WMD | US Foreign Policy |
Alright, I'll open with this from a Spring Breaker:
"I think the war and stuff affects our generation a lot less than our parents," said Nikki Saviano, a 19-year-old University of Florida freshman who was in Panama City. "We're in school and so insulated. We don't even hear that much. Like, our lives go on. We're still looking to party."
Like, I'll get back to you later and stuff.
Mike -
Here is the fundamental problem with your argument:
The counter argument is "Iraq sux!!!"
The counter argument is far superior in that it is easier to read, fits on a sign, is infinitely shorter, and basically resonates as true.
When you talk about the "failure of Team Bush to make the case for war," you have to include the essential qualifer: "to you." He's pretty much got everyone else on board just fine. The newest CNN poll numbers? 64% are now pro-ground war in Iraq, up 5% from earlier in March. And climbing.
The Bush Administration will never convince the readers of Isbadiddle of anything. Just like Bill Clinton was never able to convince the listeners of Rush Limbaugh of anything. The problem you face: he doesn't care to even try to convince you - the beauty of Democracy is that as long as two-thirds of the nation is pleased to be marching off to war, the other third has to wait fo the next election.
I'm not saying don't keep protesting. I'm saying the time for white-paper analysis is past. Stick to arguments that can be conveyed on signs, like "Blood for Oil." May not be true, but it is what you are down to at this late date . . . .
Oh, it's already too late.
Actually, Jim, that's exactly what I meant (sorry if it wasn't clear) -- this is what I posted six months ago, and the fact of the matter is, Bush has presented no evidence that's changed my mind about the need to invade Iraq. Could such evidence exist? Would I ever believe that invasion was justified? Well, I like to think of myself as a rational person, so, yes.
And I know that the poll numbers are going for war -- but since M----- asked for some white-paper analysis, and not slogans, on why war isn't a sound strategic option, I've reproduced my original post here. For what it's worth.
Notwithstanding the futility, I appreciated this cogent and thoughtful rationale. God knows there's not much of that coming from either side at this point (I include my fellow lefties in that parade of partisan rhetoric; I mean, I don't want war, but "Go, France"? I'm not getting on that bandwagon).
Thanks, Mike.
Nothing like discussing an issue as discussion becomes moot. At risk of sounding like some professor in an elbow patch blazer, swirling a snifter by the fire, IÂ'll offer my singular opinion that you make a strong and substantive argument. I also agree with Jimpy: Bush faces a the toughest of rooms at Club Ish. Or Club New York. CanÂ't wait for the Republican convention in Midtown. Might look like a crude slick on WaldenÂ's Pond.
IÂ'll ac-cen-tu-ate the (for me) positive in your argument:
Â"We should take a hard look at our policy of containment and deterrenceÂ" Â- While I think weÂ've been doing just that, it is essential to constantly weigh C&D against the (largely unknown) costs of war.
Â"Attacking Iraq won't help us in our fight against Al QaedaÂ" Â- Very possible, but IÂ'd scratch Â"wonÂ'tÂ" for Â"may or may not.Â" This depends on the success of the Bush strategic vision.
Â"To announce "regime change" as our policy is strategically dumb.Â" Â- It does seem announcing the end game too early not only let SH know he has nothing to lose, it gave him Â- and the French - plenty of time to devise a survival strategy.
Â"I'm not a Kurd, or a Kuwaiti, or an Iraqi.Â" Â- And IÂ'm not Rawandan, Somali or Punjabi. Not only do I only minimally care if mass brutality is practiced in 3rd World armpits (unless we abet it), the chaos inherent to most of those places makes intervention military folly. But then, Somalia proved that.
Â"Are we boxed into a corner where the only option is to invade?Â" Â- Why, no...
2...
Not to disappoint, hereÂ's my other side of positive:
"Wait and the threat will grow; strike and the threat may be used." Â- One could invent new yoga positions considering this conundrum philosophically. I think of it strategically. What we have is an Administration unusually predisposed to bold action, and comparatively inconsiderate to the political risks to itself. In other words, right or wrong, they are menÂ's men (including Condi). IÂ'm down with their take on the conundrum: Â"Strike before the threat grows bigger; be prepared for it to be used.Â"
Â"...or just my own stubborn refusal to change my mind.Â" Â- DonÂ't know about that, but what I see in poll numbers is the Â"no-warÂ" minority roughly matching BushÂ's core disapproval numbers (30-40%). The quantitative Poli Scientist says, Â"You donÂ't like Bush, you donÂ't like this war.Â" Basically what Jimpy said. This also fully explains your NYC poll numbers, for NYÂ'ers donÂ't love Bush but they are certainly not pussies. And the notion that we shouldnÂ't attack because we fear attacks on us is the most craven acquiescence there is. It is how the powerful decline and fall. ItÂ's strategically incorrect, and unworthy of a nation that continues Â- right up to this minute - to be a beacon of hope to the rest of the world.
Jimpy is also correct when he implies that, if you ask the People, it is the anti-war crowd that has failed to make its case while Bush has made his.
Â"If we want to force Iraq to disarm, is invasion the only option?Â" Â- To paraphrase a popular liberal-activist bumper sticker: Â"If thatÂ's not obvious, youÂ're not paying attention.Â" We should go on to the next question, Â"Is it in our imperative national interest to force disarmament?Â"
4...
Â"...the September 11th attacks change everything. Well, no they don't.Â" Â- Almost everything in foreign policy. WhatÂ's new is the Bush doctrine to attack countries that host terrorists. While itÂ's unevenly applied and does not directly bear on Iraq, itÂ's a ballsy, no-wimps doctrine for which I especially high-five W. The doctrine goes on to create a global ripple in that some Â"alliesÂ" (I shanÂ't name names) will oppose us. This is the biggest 9/11 change. Â"TraditionalÂ" alliances Â- some dating back all of 50 years Â- are not traditional anymore. The New York Times may screech about BushÂ's Â"failedÂ" diplomacy, but they donÂ't grasp that 9/11 vastly altered our (albeit debatable) national interests, and put in sharp relief the distinction between ours and othersÂ'. But then when someone blows up the Eiffel Tower Â- per existing plans Â- the French will beg us to wage war in the Middle East (while resenting that only we can do it).
Â"A terrorist attack is different because there's no target for us to hit.Â" Â- Ask cave dwellers in Tora Bora if thatÂ's true - oh wait, theyÂ're dead. Besides being factually incorrect, this articulates perfectly the difference between, on one hand, defeatism and strategic acquiescence, and on the other the Bush doctrine. One side insists we have to live with the menace, the other says we have to try and kill it where it lives. As long as we have the physical capability to reach out and at least try to kill it, why should we accept living with it?
Â"Leaving aside intelligence/police options and diplomatic options (in dealing with the Taliban in Â'01).Â" Â- This reminds me of letters the NYT prints, wherein people youÂ're glad are not running our foreign policy tell us how our foreign policy should be run. I remember one Fall Â'01 letter said, Â"If Gore were President, surely heÂ's find a more humane way than war.Â" Oh, jeez. Thank God the Â"humaneÂ" crowd is not in charge. And yes, there were Â"intel optionsÂ" aplenty, but you have the sequence of police and military options reversed. First you pound Â'em into submission, then you police the shit out of Â'em.
5...
Â"If war on Iraq somehow keeps us from catching these guys...Â" Â- Not the case, so far. And you should pause to express admiration that the U.S. continues to kill and capture high-level terrorists while this Iraq stuff unfolds and people kick hacky sacks in the streets. And, as noted before, a U.S. presence in Iraq may well prove to facilitate the capture of terrorists outside Iraq - the Â"beachheadÂ" concept, at the core of BushÂ's strategic vision, may be validated. WeÂ'll see.
Â"A war on Iraq is not a war against terrorism.Â" Â- If youÂ're going to argue this you must attack BushÂ's strategic vision, which argues the opposite. WhereÂ's your mention of it?
Â"...ever since (SaddamÂ's) fight with (BushÂ's) pappy.Â" Â- (Okay, sensitive readers cover your ears.) Not to link your words to her, but as an aside... This Â"41/43Â" or Â"Bush pereÂ" stuff is the inane domain of Maureen Dowd, the most noxious, elitist, myopic, naïve c*** with a column out there. Neither funny nor Â"ironicÂ" nor Â"insightfulÂ", she is triteness incarnate. SheÂ's the definition of Â"ChatteratiÂ", able to turn life-and-death issues into no-content cliches and evidence-free mis-observations. She speaks to an effete gaggle of lightheaded chicks and pandering boys who somehow find meaning in her uniquely NY-style superficiality, wherein analysis is not required, for youÂ're a New Yorker! You already know better than the red-state Lumpenproles Â"out thereÂ"! Okay, I wonÂ't even get into what her presence says about the nationÂ's most wildly overrated newspaper. Her linkage of W to his dad might set Chatterati fans giggling, but with Condi Rice as her polar opposite, Dowd gives listening to white women on foreign policy a very bad name.
6...
Â"I believe that Bush's people have planned to hit Iraq from the day he took office.Â" Â- Your CBS evidence is interesting, but itÂ's not a case. If it were proved, I donÂ't see where it would undermine arguments for war.
Â"Are we boxed into a corner where the only option is to invade?Â" Â- Why, no. We could continue to haggle with France as rogue states rearm. We could pass UN resolutions and then go kick hacky sacks on Hammarskjold Plaza. We could be like Nero fiddling, or New Yorkers who voted for Dinkins over Guiliani as the city flirted with total chaos.
Missing from your argument is an answer to precisely how the world should enforce UN resolutions, and why a failure to militarily enforce does not make the UN as pointless as the League of Nations turned out to be.
Even without mentioning the Bush strategic vision, your argument is still a rigorous test of the case for war. But IÂ'm starting fear to some people donÂ't like to think Bush capable of strategic vision. ThatÂ's where they take themselves out of the game (you listening, protesters?). Bush is right in that without effective enforcement of UN resolutions, there is only chaos. Much as without an aggressive NYPD presence in the Bronx, there is chaos. Even after 9/11, the acquiescing among us - anti-war and Diallo demonstrators - still do not grasp that without violent enforcement the natural tendency of things is toward chaos. Your dictators, Enron chieftains and Bronx street thugs ultimately understand only two things: death and jail.
While BushÂ's campaign has been sometimes scattershot, he is putting his legacy Â- and peopleÂ's lives - at great risk for a vision of global order. Possibly misguided, maybe deluded, these are menÂ's men, stepping up to history. Jarred by 9/11, they prefer action to inaction. They donÂ't fear failure so much as they fear living with the knowledge they didnÂ't try. History will judge them as bold and visionary Â- and either right or wrong. The verdict is unknowable. Nobody can predict it, and nobody should pretend they can predict it.
Similarly, the anti-war crowd should prepare themselves for the strong possibility they will be recorded by history as weak and foolish.
