Figure 1.--.

A third war resulted with U.S. President George W. Bush demanding that Saddam end programs to develop and deploy WMD. This has resulted in an impassioned debate, especially in Europe and the Arab world. Unfortunatlkey Presiden't Bush and his right wing Republican coharts have taken a unilateralist appraoch to 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. Pacifism is of course an appealing philosophy. HBC finds pacifism moraly appealing--although not always based on hard reality. We wish the whole world had the same pascifist views. But it doesn't. In our modern world, pacifism has cost the lives of millions. As regards Iraq, HBC believes that it is unfair to criticise America for preparing to act against Sadam. Of course the only reason the weapons inspectors are now in Iraq is that Sadam sees that Bush is serious. And this is the only reason there will be any cooperation at all. Do European pacifists really believe that they could have convinced Sadam to let in inspectors by the force of their moral arguments? One Dutch reader writes, "All I want to say is that Saddam is only part of the problem." 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.

President Bush and Europe

Unfortunatley Presiden't Bush and his right wing Republican coharts have taken a unilateralist appraoch to foreign policy. This was particularly in ecidence during the first year of his presidency. The curt rejection of the Kyoto Accords was the most telling example, but there were many others such as the International Court of Justice, the Land Mind Treaty, and other issues. Here wecare not just speaking about the Administration's decission. There was, for example, no possiblity of the Kyoto Treary being ratified by the Senate what ever the Administration's attitude. It was the domissive way in wich the Afdministration handled the issue. A European reader has provided us a long list of Administration actions which have so powefully affected European public opinion. As a result of the 9-11 attack, he has been forced to temper this approach. A great deal of damage was done, however, especially in Europe. This has increased the intensity of the anti-American reaction in Europe and has made it more difficult to forege an effective coalition as his father did in the 1990 Persian Gulf Crisis resulting from Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

The Europeans

We have prepared a synthesis of the European and American views on Iraq duing the year leading up to the 2003 war.

A European View

There are of course in Europe, as in the United States, a wide range of views on Iraq and the American response. We do not wnt in HBC to persue this debate in great detail. We do, however, want to present a general idea on the European view. A European reader provides a summary of a prevalent European view. "I have read with interest this discussion and would like to add some comments here about the "anti-americanism" which develops in this side of the ocean. I'd just like to explain some of the European reactions on the Iraq case. The reader complaining about Bush is really aiming at Bush, not at America. In Europe there are to be found from us the little elder brother some hints of jealousy of the rich big younger brother, although there still remains the recognition of all those young American lives lost to fight NAZIism during World War II. But as far as Bush is concerned, we still believe he has stolen the presidency from Gore. And the more than arrogant way Bush is acting on the international scene, starting his presidency by denouncing the Kyoto Protocol will certainly not enlarge his popularity. The United States refused to ratify the anti-personal mines treaty, the 1998 Rome Treaty (Intrnational penal court), the Convention against biological arms (The New York Times recently revealed that CIA and Pentagone had resumed searches on biological arms), and the Convention on chemical arms. This appears to be anything that might even slightly impact U.S. industry. A well known U.S. media's commentator has replied to the question how can we qualify Bush's presidency by these words "OIL AND ARMY". And the links between oil or the Carlyle Group and Bush's family are well known. Is therefore the oil and other factors mentioned above not the real problem in the Iraq case, before Saddam Hussein? That guy is the Hitler of our days and simply deserves death, but not the Iraqi people. What Europe and other Asia or Africa fear is the hegemony of one nation. The United States should not play the role of Earth policeman when the United Nations and Security council are there for that role. What we fear is the U.S. type globalisation with the examples of the two richest men on Earth: Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Larry Ellison (Oracle) who have built their fortune with a single rule: possess the market and kill the concurrency. The U.S. example with still such incredible poverty."

American response

HBC does not want to povide a detailed response here, especially the issues that do not pertain to Iraq. We infact agree with many of these concerns, especially the strong streak of unilateralism held by both President Bush and the right-wing of the Republican Party. President Bush can not, however, be blamed entirely for this unilateralism--there is considerable support for it in America. This is in the tradition of American isolationism, the same world view that kept America out of World War II until attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. The Kyoto Treaty had no chance of ratification long before Bush was elected. He can be faulted, however, for the cavilier way in which his administration handeled it. We note in much of the European debate over America and th Iraq, many of the same argumentss used when America under Regan and Bush vigorouly persued Soviet Communism. There was a huge call for disarmament throughout Europe at the time. Yet today Communism and the nucclear threat is gone from urope and Germany in again unified. Is was not goodwill, the United Nations, pacificism, the Greens or the disarmament movement that achieved that, it was American military and economic power that achieved that, driving the Soviet system to the breaking point. Many Europeand disliked President Ronald Reagan just as they do Bush and ther is a general failure to recognized just what transfored Europe. Sophisticated Eurpeans like to see the implosion of the Soviet system was preordanined and object to crediting Reagan who they like to see as a simple cowboy. The issue of America as the world's policema, interestingly was also persued by Governor Bush and the right-wing Republicans. It is intersting that Europeans AND Bush shared that point of view. Of course 911 changed Bush's policies here. Here the 911 attack just as Pear Harbor changed the attitudes of Americans as regards American policy. The other issue which needs to be discussed is the United Nations. We do not believe it is reasonable to say that it is the U.N.'s role to serve as the world's policeman. The U.N. is clearly incapable of serving as the world's policeman. The many failed U.N. operations are a testimant to this. The Dutch U.N. peace keepers failure to protect Serbernica is the most glaring examples of this as are the resulting mass graves of the people of Serbernica murdered by the Serbs. Here the European insistance that the United States act in Iraq within the authority of the United Nations makes far more sence. The final issue we used to address is the statement, "That guy is the Hitler of our days and simply deserves death, but not the Iraqi people." Of course we do not disagree here. This of course is what was said about Afghanistan. We remember, however, seeing a lot of Afghans dancing in the street when the Taliban pulled out of Kabul. Also if the concern is Iraqi lives, who is resposible for the deaths of huge numbers of Iraqis as a result of terrible acts of domestic suppression and the waging of two wars with neighboring states? It is of course Saddam. A major concern with the European attitude about Sadam is the attitude among many Europeans that if they are wrong about the dangers that the Americans will in the end take the necessary steps. The fact that many more Americans will die in a future action against an Iraq that has had time to further develop their eapons does not seem to bother the Europeans.

Europe and America

Since President Roosevelt and Primeminister Churchill met on board the Prince of Wales in 1941 to enunciate the Atlantic Charter, the United States and Europe have been united in a common shared vision of democratic socities. First under threat from the NAZIs and then Soviet Communism, America and Europe were united by a common threat. There was never total unity, but the great majority of people on both sides of the Atlantic were united in a common effort. The disolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War have changed the dynamic of the American-European relationship. The 2003 demonstrations throughout Europe against the American-British war in Iraq can not be viewed in isolation. They are part of a long-term divergence between America and Europe on a range of issues and world outlook. The long term consequences of this trend has yet to be seen and are difficult to acurately assess at this time. Some in America believe that when weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq and when the Iraqi people demonstrate that the American-British military action was indeed a liberation that European opinions will change. HBC is not at all convinced at this. We believe that the intensity of the demonstrations in Europe are only in part a rejection of war in Iraq. A major part of these motivation for these demonstarions are the diverging world view of America and Europe.

European Criticisms

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.

American Position

American actions in Iraq are premised on several concerns.

Danger of a terrorist state

Many believe that the relative strength of the case against Iraq is far greater than that against al Qaeda. A terrorist network like al Qaeda clarly poses a sugnificant danger. A terrorist nation is potentially much worse--especially a country like Iraq with sustantial financial and technical resources. The economic, scientific and military assets of a state provide a much greater threat than than the more limited assets of radical terror groups. One observer argues, "Terrorist states can thrive without terrorist networks. But terrorist networks can barely exist without terrorist states. They must reside somewhere, and have real trouble operating if being hunted down furiously--like Osama bin Laden now (if he's still alive). And they must rely upon sophisticated institutions to move their money and agents around the globe." [Adelman] Saddam is not restricted to hiding in dank caves like bin Laden. Saddam has an entire nation at his disposal. Iraq before Sadam invaded Iran was a prosperous, well educated nation, one of the most sophisticated in the Middle East. Even after the Iranian War and Desert Storm, Saddam controls billions of dollars in state oil earnings, a substantial amount he diverts into weapons programs. He commands hundreds of thousands of troops, numerous scientific laboratories of all descriptions. There are many chemical manufacturing plants capable of being quickly converted into producing both chemical and biological weapons.

Weapons of WMD

HBC believes that it is unfair to criticise America for preparing to act against Sadam and his WMD programs. American action has already enduced Sadam to readmit U.N. inspectors. Of course the only reason the weapons inspectors are now in Iraq is that Sadam sees that Bush is serious. And this is the only reason there will be any cooperation at all. Do European pacifists really believe that they could have convinced Sadam to let in inspectors by the force of their moral arguments? It is easy for those who do not have to put their lives on the line to say--there is no proof. Of course the only real proof is the actual weapons. Dealing with Iraq once the Iraqis have them will mean that a lot more Americans will lose their lives. Some are surprised that theinspectors in 2003 have failed to find more evidence. It should rememberd that until Hussein's son-in-law Hussein Kemel defected, U.N. inspectors found very little evidence of the biolgical weapons program. As Secretary Powell has pointed out, the Iraqis have become very skilled at hiding their programs. In the end, we will know the answer to this question. Our general attitude is that it will make little difference to those ho oppose the war. In fact, there is no serious observer who has studied Iraq that doubts Iraq has a WMD program.

Furor in Europe

In the weeks leading up to the American-British invasion of Iraq there were mass demonstrations in Europe. Some were the largest demonstrations in recent memory. For the most part these demonstrations ocurred in Western Europe. The Eastern European recently freed from the Soviet yoke, largely through American containment and persistent pressure on the Soviet system, do not for the most part share in the Western European crticism of American action. The Western European objections are detailed above. Ameicans have been struck by the entensity of the feeling in Western Europe among people in democratic nations whom they have over the past half century viewed as trusted allies. Especially mistifying to Americans are vitriol being directed at President Bush. Given the crimes attributed to Saddam Hussein, many Americans cannot understand the ardour of the Western Europeans passions being directed at Bush and America. Perhaps the Europeans are morraly superior and correct in their assertions, but it is also possible that the Europeans are deluding themselves and suffering from moral hypocracy.

American Invasion (2003)

The Iraq War began with the american led invasion (March-April 2003). The air phase began (March 19) abd the Ground pjase began (March 20). The fighting took place a little over a month. There were 26 days of heavy combat. The conbat force consisted of American, British, Australian, and Polish units. Americasn forces after the 6 day battke of Baghdad entrered the Iraqi capital 22 days after the invasion began. (April 9). The initial phase of the War was over (May 1). President George W. Bush declared the 'end of major combat operations" --Missuin accomplished'. The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) was established as the first of several successive transitional governments. This culmintred with first Iraqi parliamentary election (January 2005). American military forces remained in Iraq until Presuden Obzma swithdrew them (2011).

Comments on the 2003 War

Some HBC readers have submitted their comments and opinions on the 2003 war with Iraq. While we have some reservations about some of these comments, HBC promotes and open debate and will post these comments to present a forum for discussion. Many of the issues raised involve subjects taht are beyond the range of issues that HBC focuses on, but some do touch on issues we have addressed on our website.

Sources

Adelman, Ken. "Saddam's Terror State: The Next Battle," Defense Policy Board, August 28, 2001.T

Pollock, Kenneth. The Threatening Stotrm.

Created: October 22, 2002
Last updated: 6:56 AM 1/18/2023