Figure 1.--

The Wesern Europeans and a not inconsiderable number of Americans make a number of arguments in their opposition to the War with Iraq. The major comtentions are that war is evil and America just wants to control Iraq's oil. There are, however, a variety of other compalaints. Many of the sihns and much of the sentiment at the mass demonstrations are directed at President Bush personally. Perhaps the most powerful argument is the potential for adverse unitended consequences. Europeans also insist that there are other evil regimes in the world, apparently believing inaction that a failure to contront all dictators is an argument against confronting one. Others point out the secukar nature of the Bathuist regime which provides opportunities to women unheard of in some of the Arab states friendly to the United States like Saudi Arabia.

The Oil

Some argue that the WMD are an excuse for the War and that America's real concern is the oil. Most commonly there is no serious argument here, but slogans like "No war for oil". Iraq does have some of the world's most important proven oil reserves. We believe that the threat to Saudi oil was a major factor in President George H. Bush in mobilizing America for war after Saddam' invasion of Kuwait. The oil certainly can not be dismissed as a factor in the current crisis over Iraq. It seems a much less important part of America's motivtion in the curent crisis. Charges that it is the oil is a charge leveled against virtually every action America takes in the Middle East. (Similar chages can be leveled at France oroposing wa because of their oil interests ith the current Irai regime.) The fact that America intervened in Afghanistan is a clear indication that oil is not always the major factor in American Middle Eastern policy--Afganistan of course has no significant oil fields. Even more striking is that President Bush and the Republicans were strong critics of what they preceived as over extension of the American military abroad. There was strong criticism of President Clinton's very limited response to the bombings of American embassies in East Africa. Bush and the Republicans during the 2000 presidential campaign talked about the need to scale back foreign military deployments--not expanding them. Thus it is clear that President Bush's change of policy, his intervention in Afganistan and rsolution on Iraq is proimarily a response to 911 and heightened realization of the dangers posed by Iraq's WMD program and not an attempt to gain control of Iraqi oilfields.

War is Evil

Pacifism is of course an appealing philosophy. HBC finds pacifism moraly appealing--although often not based on hard reality. We wish the whole world had the same pascifist views. But it doesn't. We note that often people who are no pacifists use pacifist arguments to argue against an American invasion of Iraq. It is of course not the suffering or the civilian casulaties that such people really object to, many are quite willing to accept such consequences in the pursuit of their goals. It is the invasion itself that they object to. In our modern world, pacifism has cost the lives of millions. Because the Dutch and other Europeans (especially France) were so horrified with World War I they did not effectively deal with Hitler and many millions lost their lives. Of course there was great interest in America making war then. Iraq is not Germany, but WMD would give Sadam an unpresidented potential to kill millions. He has already demonstrated a willingness to use chemical weapons agianst both foreign and domestic opponents. The results of military weakeness was made maifest in Bosnia when Dutch peace keepers had to step aside and allow the Serbs to murder thousands. (I don't blame the Dutch soldiers involved, but rather the UN for not supporing them adequately.) I'm curious how Dutch pacifists deal with that incident. Actually I would have liked to have seen America intervene in Bosnia earlier, but the American people were unwilling for such a commitment--here Bush and the other Republicans led the opposition to expanded involvement. Of course 911 has changed their minds about foreign military operations. If America had gone into Afganistan before 911 to prevent such an attack--I can imagine what would have been said in Europe.

Belicose American Foreign Policy

Many Europeans compalain that America and specifically the Bush administration conducts a belicose foreign policy. Some categorize it as a Rambo foreign policy. A HBC reader writes complaining that Bush wants to start a war in the Middle East. HBC does not believe that it is fair to say that he wants to start a war on Iraq. It is Saddam who has decided on war as a element of national policy. Sadam has evidenced this with two of his neighbors--Iran (1980) and Kuwait (1990). If he had not been stopped by Desert Storm, only the most naive observer would think that more neighboring countries would have not have been added to the list if the United States and Britain had not led an internatioanl coalition to stop him. We believe that it is unfair to accuse President Bush of desiring to start a war. There are several reasons that we believe this. First Bush and the Republicams objected to the very limited actions initiated by Clinton. Second, Bush during the 2000 election campaign advocated a reduction of American military commitments to NATO, Bosnia, Kosovo, Korea, and other areas. Third, it is not Iraq that he wants to target--it is Saddam. The same could be said about Afganistan and Inheard a lot of wailing in the Arab world and Europe. But I saw a lot of people dancing in the streets in Kabul when the Taliban was evicted. Fourth, I can think of no other current country that has persued War as a national policy more than Iraq. It strikes me that a regime which uses chemical and biological weapons and invades neighbors (the war with Iran cost mllions of lives) and now wants atomic can hardly claim to be a peace loving nation threatened with American imperialism.

Unintended Consequences

Although not generally a part if the retoric of the mass demonstrations, thoughtful European and American analysts are concerned about the unintended consequences that often accompamy any war. Here the major concern is a weakened Iraq which could lead to Kurdish and Shiite separtist movements and domesti disorder in Iraq for decadeds. Othersare concerned that a desperate Saddam might hand over WMD to terrorists.

Other Evil Regimes

One Dutch reader writes, "All I want to say is that Saddam is only part of the problem. In case he gets killed or captured the trouble will start somewhere else. These fanatic Muslims never stop since they have seen how successful their attack on the World Trade Center was. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are not the only villains in the world. What about the Chinese who destroyed the culture of Tibet? Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and other African dictators who killed millions. Remember Papa Doc in Haiti? Compared to those Castro is a saint. By the way, I do blame the Dutch troups who watched how thousands of men and boys in Srebrenica were murdered under their "protection". The Dutch also have their black pages in the history books (Indonesia)!!" HBC agrees with our Dutch reader that Saddam is only part of the problem. But we do not believe tghat this argues against action. Just as Afgahnistan was only part of the problem, thw world is safer today because Al Quida can not operate freely in the country. Mind you NOT safe, but safer. By the same token, the world will be safter once Sadam is disarmed or dwposed--not safe, but safer.

Iraqi Secularism

Many writers decribe the secular nature of the Iraqi state. This is in many ways correct. Iraq using oil revenues began building a modern secular state, significantly expanding public education. Iraq has made considerable strides in improving the condition for women. Access to education in particular has been a major achievement and compare favorably in comparison with U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia. Here we quite agree with the beneficial social programs. Iraq's ability to fund such program's, however, have been seriously compormised by massive military spending and his choice of usung war (Iran and Kuwait invasions) as tool of national policy. Also secularism in itself is not an excuse for aggression or an assurance of moral behavior. The two most evil states of the 20th century were the two most secular states (Soviet Communism and NAZI Germany).

Timing

Some have questioned the timing of the American campaign against Sadam. The argument is why not continue contaiment and the U.N. inspection system. The answer is very simple. Sadam has permitted the current U.N. inspection program only after the United states and Britain began assemblying an invasion force. And he will continue to allow the inspection program only while ther is a creditable invasion force in the field. That force is not, however sustainable indefinitly. The personnel involved can not be expected to be separated from their family for an extended period. Nor can the United States afford the huge cost of maintaining the asembled force for an extended period. Here Hussein's age and the fact that his sons (as evil as the father) are likely successors and that the Iraquis thus would be likely to continue their MD programs for at least 30 years. It is clear that contaiment could notbe maintained over that time frame. Some have argued that the United States should have kept the focus on Al Quida for another year before addressing Iraq. This is an open question. But that the saftey of America and Western Europe require an end to Iraq's WMD program is clear. [Pollock]

Sources

Adelman, Ken. "Saddam's Terror State: The Next Battle," Defense Policy Board, August 28, 2001.

Pollock, Kenneth. The Threatening Storm.

Created: March 26, 2003
Last updated: March 26, 2003