MY CROSS-BLOG IRAQ DEBATE ANSWERS: See more pro-war responses at NZ Bear's blog; for the anti-war response, take a look at Stand Down.
I want to preface that while I am in favor of US military action should it be necessary in order to disarm Saddam Hussein, I believe that every reasonable peaceful measure should be taken beforehand, up to and including serious attempts at a deal for Saddam to go into exile. For purposes of this debate my position may be considered "pro-war," though I certainly do not consider myself "in favor of" war in any case.
1. Attacking Iraq has been publicly called a "preemption" of a threat from Saddam Hussein's regime, whose sins include launching regional wars of aggression. Do you think there is a clear and reliable difference between preemptive and aggressive warfare, and if so, what is it?
Preemptive warfare is conducted in order to prevent catastrophic events from occurring that otherwise would be unpreventable. Whereas aggression (whether the Nazis or Saddam himself in 1990) is done for no purpose other than financial, military, or geopolitical gain for the aggressive country. I believe that since the main aim (though not the only aim) of a military campaign in Iraq is the disarmament of that country, this particular intervention falls into the former category.
2. What do you feel are the prospects that an invasion of Iraq will succeed in a) maintaining it as a stable entity and b) in turning it into a democracy? Are there any precedents in the past 50 years that influence your answer?
Since Iraq is itself essentially a made-up hodgepodge of ethnic and religious groups that only came into being as a result of the carving of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, I don't feel that the eternal survival of the "Iraq" name is necessarily important in the long haul (as the region was of historical and biblical import for millennia, but "Iraq" has existed for less than a century). However, if an immediate goal is to be the creation of a democratic state post-Saddam, I do feel it should remain one country, at least at first. Then the question of Kurdish independence, and other details, can be sorted out at a later time. Though I do consider it necessary for the US and its allies to have a clear, postwar plan in place before intervening.
I believe that if a country as historically unpredictable as Afghanistan can be turned into something resembling a functional democracy in less than a year's time, there's no reason Iraq can't as well. It won't be easy, but I feel it will eventually happen. Other historical examples of US intervention leading to democracy that was at least an improvement over the previous situation include the Balkans, as well as Germany and Japan after World War II. And Israel, of course, likely would not be the successful, surviving democracy it is today without the US' help.
3. How successful do you think the military operations and "regime change" in Afghanistan have been in achieving their stated objectives? Does this example affect your feelings about war in Iraq in any way?
They have not been 100% successful, as evidenced by the continuing influence of ex-Taliban radicals, the regular assassination attempts, and the at-large status of Mullah Muhammad Omar and Osama Bin Laden. However, the mere elimination of the Taliban, all by itself, both dealt a tremendous blow to Al-Qaeda and rescued that country from the grip of the most tyrannical, fascist government on the planet. It is my belief that the overthrow of the Taliban from power in Afghanistan is the greatest act performed by the US government in my lifetime.
Both due to the prevention of terrorist threats and/or mideast nuclear hegemony by Saddam in the future, as well as the possibility of a functional democracy emerging in the Middle East that has the potential (albeit a long shot) to set the dominoes rolling across the entire region, it will be better for the US, better for Iraq, and better for the world at large if Saddam Hussein is removed from power.
4. As a basis for war, the Bush Administration accuses Iraq of trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, nuclear), supporting terrorism, and brutalizing their own people. Since Iraq is not the only country engaged in these actions, under what circumstances should the US go to war with other such nations, in addition to going to war with Iraq?
Yes, Iraq is not the only country doing this, but it is an established enemy of the United States, a direct threat to the United States, and a country that has violated literally dozens of UN resolutions related to its disarmament. Twelve years ago the US fought a war against Iraq, and since Iraq has repeatedly violated the armistice that ended that war, the US would be remiss in failing to address those violations. And the measures taken so far have not been effective.
Geopolitics are complex, and there are dozens of factors that separate, say, the Iraq situation from the North Korea situation. For instance, there is a strong possibility that Kim Jong-Il's bluster is a bluff to gain concessions from the US, whereas all indications are that Saddam is serious about the use of weapons of mass destruction to kill his enemies- after all, he has done so before.
There is also the factor that Iraq is in a region of the globe that is vital to US interests. Now it would be a lie to say that oil plays no ancillary role in the equation, but not for the reasons the anti-war folks say it is (a personal profit motive for oil men Bush and Cheney). Rather, cooperation with a democratic Iraq would help ease Western dependence on Saudi oil, completely alter the balance of mideast power away from the Saudis, and possibly even lead to a wave of democracy throughout the mideast, like the one that swept through Eastern Europe in the late '80s.
5. The Bush Administration has issued numerous allegations about the threat represented by Iraq, many of which have been criticized in some quarters as hearsay, speculation or misstatements. Which of the Administration's allegations do you feel stand up best to those criticisms?
The Bush Administration has never claimed that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of September 11. They may have insinuated that he has ties to Al-Qaeda, or that the two entities have cooperated in operations (which may or may not be true). But no "smoking gun" has been found linking Iraq directly to 9/11- if one had been found, the US would've been justified in invading Iraq in 2001, not in 2003.
A common misconception is that the current administration is "warmongering," in contrast with Clinton and post-Gulf War Bush I. In fact, Clinton bombed Iraq on three separate occasions throughout his presidency (while Bush has yet to a single time), and as Kenneth Pollack's excellent book "The Threatening Storm" illustrates, the "regime change" option was always on the table throughout Clinton's years in office- and always favored by at least some military and intelligent officers. But it never happened, simply because the political will was never there. But after 9/11, when the American public became aware of just how vulnerable they were to terrorism, it suddenly was.
While 9/11 can't be traced directly to Saddam Hussein, a history of terrorism can, as can a serial animosity towards the US and the rest of the democratic western world. The case has been made by the administration (and made even more strongly by Tony Blair) that Iraq is hiding chemical and biological weapons, is attempting to develop nuclear weapons, is jerking around the inspectors, and has no intention of cooperating at any time in the foreseeable future. The longer the problem is put off, the closer he gets to gaining nuclear capability. Clearly, something must be done to stop him first.
Of course, I believe the weakest anti-war argument of them all is that the Bush Administration is "rushing to war." I first heard that statement in regards to Iraq sometime last spring, and now it's nearly a year later- and in that ensuing year the administration has gone to the UN, and made every effort to cooperate with that body, the European Union, and NATO. If this is a "rush to war," how long is a "slow march to war"? 10, 15 years? As journalist Christopher Hitchens has said, this is the longest national discussion leading up to a military conflict at any point in American history.
Which is a discussion that I have been debating and conversing about with people in bars, restaurants, living rooms, and elsewhere for months, and I look forward to taking this debate to the internet. Bravo to NZ Bear and the folks at Stand Down for putting together this little project- what a wonderful, wonderful idea.
Posted by Stephen Silver at February 18, 2003 12:18 PM