The Red Perspective
With the war drums pounding, the rhetoric rising, and the testosterone boiling, let us take a step off of the brink and examine what we are about to do in Iraq. We should take a look at our actions using greater hindsight to achieve better foresight. We are about to go to war, and I believe in the era of computers, much of America sees this decision as somewhat trivial. They are apt to go along with Bush, satisfied with the President’s labeling of Saddam as evil. So let us look deeper into the situation, and I hope to illustrate the dire state of American diplomacy. I will grant to the advocates of war, for the time being, that we are poised to invade Iraq not for oil (read Bill’s UN), but rather for the two reasons given by Bush. First, and most importantly, Iraq must be disarmed. Secondly and much more infrequently noted, Saddam is an evil dictator, and we must liberate the nation. Let us look at these reasons. Iraq poses no imminent threat on the United States or any other country. Links to Al-Qaeda are extremely weak, if they exist at all. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Husein would probably kill each other if they were in the same room. Osama has frequently called the secular Hussein an “infidel.” Not only do they ideologically stand opposed, but furthermore, Saddam, who by all accounts is a somewhat intelligent guy, would be utterly stupid to try to make connections with any terrorists. He knows that the day he is concretely connected to a terrorist attack on American soil is the day he not only loses all his luxurious palaces but also is the day he is blown to smithereens. He knows he cannot use any of his biological and chemical weapons for terrorism, because American intelligence could easily track it back to him. Yes, I admit he does have biological and chemical weapons. We gave them to him, back when he was our ally, back when we helped him, when it was politically convenient to support this dictator. Currently, Saddam is isolated and weakened militarily. He shows no sign of invading another country. Even Bush acknowledged in his State of the Union that he did not pose an imminent threat. Rather, Bush sees the need for a pre-emptive strike. I am not sure though whether most Americans understand the gravity of those words. The United States has never gone into war pre-emotively. We have always justified our acts by claiming that we, or some other innocents, were attacked first. The War of 1812 was justified by, among other things, the impressment of American sailors by the British. The Mexican War was justified by leading American troops into disputed territory, where they were attacked by the Mexicans. The Spanish-American War was justified through the sinking of the Maine Battleship in Havana. The First World War was justified by the belligerent acts of Germany, including the sinking of the cruise ship Lusitania. The Second World War was justified by Pearl Harbor. The Korean War was justified by the invasion of South Korea. The Vietnam War was justified by the Gulf of Tonkin incident. No matter how much these justifications obscured the real causes of the war, the defensive justifications were still present. Indeed, they were needed to quench the moral questions of the American public. Not so presently with Iraq. The President, and some advocates for war, have argued that it is a different world, and the United States must act first, even if it never has before. If it has changed, is war the answer to this change? We had planes that could have been hijacked and flown into buildings thirty years ago. Yet, it did not happen. Why? There was not such a burning desire, or the resources, to do so amongst terrorists. What changed that? Actually, I’m glad you asked. It was the first Gulf War that pushed Osama over the ledge. He was so angered by the stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia, that he got up and left, taking his millions to aid in a new terrorist war against America. Saddam has had biological and chemical weapons for years now. The last time he used them in a belligerent act? During the Gulf War. I believe a pattern might be emerging. As stated above, Saddam currently lies castrated. Even if he wanted to smuggle some weapons to Al-Qaeda, he could not, because he is not self-destructive. With regard to terrorism, the only thing this war guarantees is in fact more of it. If we do invade Iraq, Saddam will make allies out of necessity with all enemies of the United States. This means aiding terrorists. Moreover, when we invade Iraq we threaten to make a martyr out of Saddam for the entire Arab world. Previously disliked by most fundamentalist Arabs as a secular dictator, he is fast becoming a hero for standing against the Americans. The war would also be destructive in the conventional, non-terrorist, sense. If we do invade Iraq, it will destabilize the whole region, sending refugees everywhere. Those civilians who will not be killed by American bombs will wallow in disease-ridden refugee camps. Furthermore, if Saddam knows he will be destroyed by America, might not he send an anthrax laden scud missile into Tel-Aviv, or somehow attempt to stir up Arab support in Palestine and Syria against Israel. And then what is stopping Israel from becoming involved in a war with Syria, Palestine, and Iraq, not to mention the people of Egypt and Jordan who may threaten to rise up against their more Western-friendly leaders? The Third World War might become reality. Much of this is probably more unlikely than likely, but why risk it? The point is that we see war as such a clean thing, which it will never be. The Middle-East, especially, is not a place to make war lightly. This said, I do not support Saddam Hussein as the leader of Iraq. I might even be willing to listen to plans for war if I thought liberating the people of Iraq was of top priority. After the war the Iraqi people will be as quickly forgotten as the Afghani people were. Unless we are willing to invest billions of dollars into creating an egalitarian society, the way did after the Second World War in Europe and Japan, the Iraqi people will be no better off under a Western-friendly regime. Just look at one of Iraq’s neighbors Saudi Arabia, where the gap between rich and poor is astounding and where, despite (maybe a better word is because of), the pro-American government, Al-Qaeda finds many willing recruits. Most of the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis and Egyptians, countries with pro-American governments. None were Iraqi. If we go to war, the next 9/11 will most probably involve Iraqis. Make no mistake, this war has nothing to do with the Iraqi people. After the war, the benefits of oil production will not go to them, for in none of the Western-friendly oil-producing countries do oil riches go to the people (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela). I believe the war has everything to do with satisfying the American appetite for oil, but even if it does not, even if it is about the cause most oft repeated by our President, to rid the world of the evil Saddam Hussein with his evil weapons, we are at a turning point in American diplomacy, one that historians will certainly look back at with dismay. It will be the day testosterone-bursting war hawks will no longer need the veil of an imminent threat to satisfy their craving for blood.
- Anthony
On why we should know better than to say this war is for the Iraqi people: From The Boston Review
The Red Perspective is a column exploring current events and issues as they relate to the pursuit of the Socialist ideal. It is almost always written by Anthony Ross, although sometimes by others. Past installments can be viewed here.