Comment Throwing stones from afar (Score 2, Interesting) 8
Now that we've gotten that out of the way...
Don't get me wrong, I oppose this war completely. But the issue of legality is moot. In cases like this, international law is irrelevant, because it is unenforceable. Therefore, the Bush administration's attempts to wrap itself in legal justifications such as UN resolutions are little more than laughable. If the governing body of an institution decides not to enforce its own edicts, it is not up to a clique within it to act independently on behalf of the institution. In this respect, the current US position is akin to vigilante justice in the Old West.
This situation has once again illustrated the ultimate flaw of the UN, especially in the post-Cold War age of unipolar power and also power decentralisation: the UN itself has no power. At its inception, its founders were loath to give it any, and as such the UN is unable to compel countries to undertake desired courses of action. It has no independent military force, and the Security Council is little more than the last vestige of great power politics.
Therefore, let's not talk about whether or not this war is legal, or even whether or not it is moral, for that is an even more subjective question. Rather, I believe that it is more important to judge this war on the question of whether or not it is in the national interest of the United States and its allies (leaving aside for the moment the alleged 'secret allies').
Over the past few months, I have been disheartened to see an endless refrain of justification for this war on the basis that it is in the American national interest.
INTERLUDE: On a side note, as an American living in Australia, I have also been subjected to repeated assertions from the Australian PM that it is Australian national interest as well. For those of you who have read in the last 24 hours or so about how Australia is the US's staunchest ally in this because our PM has committed Australian soldiers to the cause without questioning even as much as Blair, bear in mind that almost the entire population of Australia opposes not only our involvement, but also the war itself. More than a million people around the country have marched in protest, from all walks of life. In a country of only 17 million, that is a hell of a huge chunk of the population. Imagine 15 or 16 MILLION peace protesters marching in the US. It would make 1968 look like little more than a dress rehearsal. I know the Brits have had similar results. In other words, don't forget to read beyond the leaders' statements in gauging a country's opinion, if not its official stance. END INTERLUDE
In my experience, people argue national interest for the following reasons: 1. Saddam supports terrorists and works hand-in-hand with people like Bin Laden. If we don't attack, he might use WMDs on us. 2. US needs to secure the world's energy supplies, a large chunk of which is held hostage by Saddam. 3. Saddam is a bad, bad man who does bad things to his own people, and whom we should therefore stop. 4. America can bring the American way of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (blah blah blah) and build a democratic Iraq, which will be good for its people, etc.
Let me address each of these in turn: 1. First of all, call me cynical, but past experience with world governments has trained me to ask "where's the beef?" when presented with an accusation such as this. The Bush administration has provided nothing more than vague allegations in backing its claims. Indeed, they seem to have bought into the grossly simplistic Huntingtonian paradigm that paints the Islamic world as monolithic, much as early US Cold War policy treated the communist world as monolithic, even going so far as to argue that the Sino-Soviet split was nothing more than a communist ruse!
The fact is, Bin Laden, who is without doubt an evil son-of-a-bitch, is also a devout follower of hard-line Shari'ah Islamic law. This Koranic interpretation, amongst other charming edicts, condemns any attempt to form a secular Muslim government, as the creation of laws is the right of Allah (through the imams, of course) and any attempt to impinge upon that right is seen as a challenge to Allah's divinity. Indeed, those that make such attempts are seen as false Muslims, and are considered much more harshly than people of the book (Jews and Christians) who are just those who have not yet seen the light and must be made to do so (by a variety of means, admittedly).
Saddam Hussein's Tikriti regime, on the other hand, is about as secular a government as exists in the Middle East. Therefore, the allegation that Saddam and Bin Laden are hard and fast allies is rather ludicrous. In addition, Saddam has never shown any indication that he would consider deploying WMDs against the West unless attacked BY the West.
2. Oil is a factor in this war, just as it was in the last one. It is not the only factor, as bleeding hearts would have us believe (in Australia, we tend to refer to them as Chardonnay socialists, a term I rather prefer), but nor is it irrelevant. However, it is important to remember why it is that oil supplies from Iraqi reserves are little more than a trickle. It is not because the Iraqis do not wish to sell to the West. It is due to punitive sanctions imposed after the first conflict. Were we to allow the Iraqis to sell more oil, I have no doubt they would gladly open the proverbial floodgates.
3. No matter what America does vis-à-vis this point, we come off looking like hypocrites. On the one hand, we gladly tolerate massive human rights abuses on the parts of allies of convenience (such as the tacit approval given to both the Russians and Chinese for their anti-separatist campaigns in exchange for support for the war in Afghanistan). On the other, while America's record in this area is far from unblemished, we have made positive strides in attempting to curb such violations (admittedly usually only where such action would not harm our economic or strategic interests).
Here perhaps, lies the American public's greatest hypocrisy: that we are willing to sacrifice others for our ideals, but nor ourselves. Since Vietnam, every conflict in which we have participated has had its strategy dictated by the public's refusal to accept American casualties. Either we engage in proxy war, or limit ourselves (as in Kosovo) to air assaults or a combination of both. Remember, it took the death of only a handful of Americans to provoke such rabid public response that we were forced to pull out of Somalia. The American public overwhelmingly opposed deploying ground troops in Kosovo on the basis that American boys and girls might be killed.
Too many times over the last few months I have read or heard statements that boil down to "one American life is worth (insert large number here) Iraqis/Arabs/Muslims/etc. It is this attitude, this incredible double standard, apart from anything else, that makes us so resented in the developing world.
4. I have often said that it is a triumph of propaganda and indoctrination techniques that the vast majority of Americans are fundamentally unable to understand the concept that not everyone DESIRES the American way of life. Perhaps it is our missionary heritage, but we seem unwilling to accept that fact that, just possibly, every last human being on this planet does not harbour a secret yearning to be an American. In this facet of our belief system, we are little different to radical Islamic extremists, as distasteful an idea as that may be.
Unfortunately, American policy for at least the last half century has been based on this premise. We've never quite worked out that our welcoming receptions in World War Europe were aberrations (and, as history has shown, short-lived). And yet, we consistently assume that as soon as we arrive to check a ruler opposed to us, the population will rise up in joyous revolution and rush to our cause. That worked so well in Cuba, didn't it? Isn't it fun living in fairytale land, Mr.'s President?
Far from engendering gratitude from the Arab world, this war will do little other than increase the resentment already felt towards America by the region's population. While there is obviously no excuse for attacks such as those on the WTC or on Bali (for those Aussies in the audience), it is necessary to acknowledge that American actions did contribute indirectly, by helping to provoke the venom and bile that allow people even to consider such acts of inhumanity.
Finally, it is important to consider what future Iraq is likely to face following a US invasion. As the US State Dept has itself admitted, the prospects for establishing a stable democracy in Iraq are grim indeed, and any serious attempt will require an annual US expenditure of over $20bn in aid, on top of the costs associated with garrisoning around 200,000 US soldiers in the country. And this is assuming a docile, friendly population. All too likely is a more violent repeat of the reaction to US marines occupying the Lebanon (remember Beirut '82, everyone?), which will result in American casualties. This may in turn result in US domestic opinion forcing the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq (what President in the current era would risk losing office over the question of whether to maintain an occupation force?) and the subsequent descent of Iraq into bloody civil war, which all too likely would spread to nearby countries, especially Iran.
In sum, I find it nigh on impossible to justify this war as being in our national interest. As I hope I have successfully conveyed throughout this rant, I do believe that Saddam is an incredible evil man and that his replacement would be highly desirable (even if parallels between him and Hitler are grossly over simplistic). However, I do not believe that the current plan of action is the way to go about such replacement.
For those of you who have put up with me all the way to the end, I just want to say thank you for listening to me vent, and I hope that I haven't bored you all too much.
Cheers
