The War Against Iraq – Part I

by Kevin

Gallons of ink and millions of pixels have been spilled on the issue of what to do with Iraq. A great many options have been tossed around: invade, sanction, contain, withdraw, assassinate, overthrow, etc. I have been struggling with this issue for some time and have had a hard time coming to a conclusion.

Many of the arguments, if they may be called such, out there on the subject are unpersuasive; full of emotion and accusations but light on facts and logic. Another problem, is that much of the discussion is based a poor or ridiculous historical analogies. So let me state up front: this is not “like” Japan or Germany or Vietnam or Korea or Afghanistan or even Iraq the first time around. What we are dealing with is a question of an aggressive first strike against a nation when there has been no clear cut Causes Beli. I don’t mean there are not good reasons to attack, just that there has been no overt aggression that is usually the obvious trigger for war.

It is important to note, however, that Iraq is not really a sovereign nation either. They were defeated in the first Gulf War but have yet to fully comply with the strictures imposed on them at the time. They are in an awkward state, wanting to be sovereign but unwilling to play nice in order to get back in the club.

So, what to do in Iraq: go to war or continue containment? The underlying issue is one of risk reward – how much potential reward for the risk taken. Rather than undergo a massive analysis of the pros and cons of each side, debunking the faulty logic and bad historical analogies of each, I will simple present what I think are the strongest arguments for both sides.

I think the strongest argument for war with Iraq is the old fashioned one of the balance of power. The US has been undergoing a slow weakening of our power base in the region. A sizable chunk of the international community is simply unwilling to fully acknowledge the threat of terrorism or to think clearly about it. Europe continues to fail at constructing an intelligent and useful foreign policy strategy other than “Americans are too big for their britches” or “we need more meetings.” Support for our ally Israel is under attack across the globe. Our original Gulf War ally Saudi Arabia is deeply enmeshed in Islamic terrorism and has been backing away from support of US policies while kissing up to its despotic neighbors. The Muslim nations seem unwilling to risk a single iota of prestige among their brethren in order to deal with the US strategically. This is not the type environment in which US is likely to succeed in furthering its national interests. Given that Saddam Hussein is at the very least capable of plotting and attempting great harm against our citizens and our interests, we must consider changing that environment. You don’t want a gun pointed at your back if everyone around you is taking a step back, leaving you the sole target.

A plan that would allow the US to defeat and remove Saddam from power would certainly strengthen our position in the region; simply by having removed our strongest enemy. I think claiming that this would result in the creation of a liberal democracy in Iraq; the downfall of Arafat, and the severing of our ties with Saudi Arabia is a stretch of the imagination. I am not arguing that defeating Saddam would accomplish those things and I personally think anyone that does is describing flights of fancy rather than concrete strategy. Defeating Iraq might be a necessary first step towards those goals but it does not make them likely. The argument is that our position is slowly being sapped and that a decisive victory over our strongest opponent is likely to extend our direct safety in the short term and, if used effectively, help us reassert our strength and influence in the near to long term. If we could be confident – not perfectly confident but reasonable confident – that in place of the menacing Saddam we could deal with a moderate regime willing to focus on the interests of its people rather than aggression and saber rattling we should act. This would even the balance of power in the region and at the same time send a message to our enemies that it does not pay to threaten us and to our allies that it pays to work with us.