Where I Stand
Some of my posts on the Iraq situation have generated significant comment and some (understandable) confusion about my position on the issue. I have, I’ll admit, an instinctive distrust for this Administration and for Bush in general. He’s not my kind of guy, his mind works in scary ways, he sees things very differently than I do. A lot of my opposition to the Administration’s actions is based on this distrust and my own inability to take their stated motivations at face value.
In a recent post called The Feudal Presidency, I argued that one of the most objectionable aspects of this debate is that Bush seemed to be taking a fixed position irrespective of the facts and finding whatever justifications he needed to rationalize his emotional response. This is a bad way to operate because it precludes the possibility of having one’s mind changed by changing circumstances and finding truth outside the boundaries of one’s prejudices. A reasonable position, by contrast, is one that allows for the possibility that it can be proven false if certain conditions are or are not met.
Given some of the criticism I received on that post, I began to wonder if I was guilty of the same thing I was accusing Bush of: starting with a premise (in my case, that Bush is necessarily wrong about everything) and finding reasons to dispute his arguments based on my prejudice. People on both sides of the argument assumed that my opposition to Bush was categorical, and read into that stance whatever ideological views they wanted, even if they turned out to be contrary to the positions I actually hold.
By systematically cataloguing the issues at stake, I find that I am actually in basic agreement with many of the premises of the Administration. Some readers may find that disappointing, but if you look at the list below, I hope you can understand some of my thinking. My world view actually permits supporting action against Iraq if certain conditions are met. My problem is that I am, so far, unconvinced that they have been met. If my assumptions are proven false by substantive evidence (and forgive me if I have a fairly high standard for evidence in this case), I am prepared to change my position. So, in case you’re interested, here’s where I stand.
I agree with the Administration on these premises:
- The U.S. faces a direct and serious threat from terrorists: regrettably, I think we have all the proof we need on that count.
- Protecting the U.S. from attacks is the primary responsibility of the government: Democrats who say the economy is more important are way off base. Markets go up and down. Confronting the terrorist threat is the primary test of our principles. The President is right to focus on this issue above all others.
- The only way to effectively deal with terrorists is through force. I’m not a violent person, but I’m not an uncritical pacifist either. The nature of our enemies is such that negotiation is not only futile, it’s suicidal. These people want us dead. As Woody Allen says, the best way to handle a fascist is with a baseball bat.
- It is unacceptable for terrorists to gain access to weapons of mass destruction. Nuff said.
- States that harbor, train and encourage the terrorists who attacked us are as bad as the terrorists themselves. For this reason, I supported the war in Afghanistan, and would support military action in Sudan, Somalia, and other cesspool states that breed Al-Qaida fanatics and their ilk. Iraq, Syria, Libya, et al. may train terrorists, but not ones who have attacked the US.
- Saddam Hussein is a vicious tyrant, guilty of terrible atrocities against humanity, and the world would be better off without him. The record speaks for itself. There are a few other world leaders in the same kettle, however. This by itself is not sufficient justification for unilateral aggression against a sovereign state.
- The fact that the US once backed and armed Saddam is beside the point in the current situation. As Christopher Hitchens says, this doubles our obligation to get rid of him if we have the chance.
- Removing Saddam from power is a surefire way to prevent him from getting and using weapons of mass destruction. Arms inspections won’t do the job as well as “regime change.” Gotta agree with Dubya on this one. The only benefit to arms inspections is that they don’t incur the same risks, costs and damages as war.
- Military action, unilateral if necessary, is justified against states with a proven connection to the terrorists who attacked this country. This is self-defense, pure and simple. The sticky bit is the “proven connection.” Since we’re talking about war here, the proof better be pretty damned convincing.
- Pre-emptive military action, unilateral if necessary, is justified against terrorist entities and states where there is a credible reason to believe weapons of mass destruction exist and will be deployed against the US or its allies. Note the compound premise here. We need both credible proof that the weapons exist and a credible reason to believe they will be used against us. Al-Qaida would use them for sure if they had them. Would Saddam? Has he ever acted aggressively against an evenly-matched opponent without the tacit support of stronger allies?
- Oil, revenge for the Bush I assassination attempt, or other self-interested motives are not sufficient justifications to go to war with Iraq. Whatever role these motives play in the Administration’s calculations, they know better than to talk about them in public.
- Loss of innocent life in the pursuit of these objectives is regrettable but inevitable. All Americans stand to be innocent victims of terrorists unless they are stopped. We should make every effort to target our enemies precisely, but we cannot allow over-caution to stop us from taking action when it is justified.
- The underlying problem will only be solved by a liberalization of regimes across the Middle East and South Asia. Easier said than done, of course.
I disagree with the Administration on these points:
- All terrorists are equally dangerous. This is what Bush, and certainly Sharon, seem to be saying. IMO, religious fanatics are far scarier than groups like the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, whose motivations are at least somewhat intelligible.
- All countries that support terror and oppose the US are “different sides of the same evil coin.” This oversimplification does a disservice to the search for real solutions. The Middle East is a complex place, and lots of parties have similar objectives and tactics, but wildly different motivations. This complexity can work to our advantage if we’re smart about it. Saddam hates Islamists and vice versa. Saddam hates and distrusts any party he can’t control – such as Abu Nidal. The Iran government hates the US, but they hate practically everyone. No one would be happier than Iran to see Saddam fall.
- Capturing, killing or confirming the deaths of Bin Laden, Omar and their lieutenants is not a primary objective. I think the Bushies are saying this because they can’t find either of them. They must be found, not just because they continue to pose a threat to the US, but also for the example it would set.
- Saddam’s prior record of atrocities is in itself a sufficient cause to go to war, absent an international mandate. The bill of particulars against Saddam – gassing the Kurds, attacking Iran and Kuwait, committing brutal crimes against his internal enemies – all happened under the indifferent watch of previous U.S. governments. That’s not an excuse, of course, but it weakens this argument as a point of principle. The Administration seems to realize that and is not pushing this line very hard. However, if there is international consensus that Saddam must go – as there was with Milosovic, for example – that’s a different matter.
- Saddam’s violation of UN resolutions is in itself a sufficient cause to go to war, absent an international mandate. Lots of countries, including America and Israel, are in ongoing violation of UN resolutions. This is only a credibility issue for the UN to the extent that Bush is making it one. Bush doesn’t seem to have much faith in the UN as an institution in any case, so this line of attack seems disingenuous. But again, if the UN decides to enforce its resolutions, that would be legitimate.
- Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. Osama Bin Laden thinks the Saudi government is too liberal and secular. What must he think of Saddam? There are so many good reasons that these two would never collaborate on anything that it would take a great deal of evidence to prove otherwise. So where is it? All the Administration has provided so far is speculation and accusation. However, if this involvement can be proved, it would, in my view, constitute sufficient cause for hostilities.
- Saddam would share WMDs with terrorists. This would be scary if there were any chance of it being true. But every scrap of information I’ve seen about Saddam shows that it’s just not in his nature to share the power and the attention. If the Administration thinks this is a credible threat, they need to tell us why. So far, the case is not convincing (at least not to me).
- Saddam is prepared to use chemical or biological weapons aggressively rather than as a last-ditch self defense. Saddam used his WMDs against defenseless victims and against Iran, which could not retaliate in kind. Did he send the anthrax letters? If so, let’s see the proof. And incidentally, if he has them and would use them if attacked, we are exposing our troops (and possibly US and Israeli civilians) to a horrifying situation in the event of an invasion. Why aren’t we discussing that?
- Saddam is anywhere near having nuclear capabilities. If he did, it would be solid grounds for attack. So where’s the proof? It’s pretty sketchy, and a lot of it has already fallen apart. Wouldn’t it be better to put inspectors on the ground to get evidence first, then come back and make this case?
- Regardless of WMDs and terrorist ties, Saddam poses a clear and present threat to the US and its interests. How so? His state is weakened and impoverished, his people are terrified and hungry, his army is fragile, and he is regarded with suspicion and hostility by everyone in the region. The evidence is not with Bush on this one, no matter how loudly he repeats this point.
- Even if Saddam does not pose an immediate threat, it is important to confront him now. Why? It’s pretty clear that if we had the slightest indication that there was any urgency, we’d tell the world about it. We have other fish to fry – in Afghanistan and wherever else Al-Qaida is holed up. We’ve served notice that we’re serious about Iraq, but, taken at face value (e.g., absent inevitable political calculations), this is the Administration’s most serious lapse of judgment.
- The US must act alone if it cannot muster international support. I’ve argued earlier that I think the entire Iraq situation is a pretext for establishing this point as a precedent in US foreign policy. The Bushies are unilateralists. I disagree with that approach in the strongest terms, because it will come back to bite us in the ass sooner or later.
- Any new regime in Iraq would be preferable to Saddam’s. Um, a Shi’ite state aligned with Iran? A bunch of warlords, as in Afghanistan and Somolia? A Kurdish state stirring up trouble with Turkey? A “reformed” Ba’ath party state aligned with Syria? These are the real possibilities. What do we do if that’s what emerges rather than this so-called “liberated, democratic Iraq”?
- The US can deal with other terrorist threats at the same time it is managing a war against Iraq. Maybe, but I’d rather see the priority put on running down the bastards who did the damage first.
3:10:25 PM 
|
|
