9/23/02

KUFM / KGPR

T. M. Power

 

Questions to Be Answered Before We Go To War in Iraq

 

            Before Congress is stampeded into giving the President a blank check to invade Iraq, there are some pretty straightforward questions that Congress and the American people must first get answered.[1]

            First, in what sense has the containment policy that the US, its allies, and the UN have been following since the end of the Gulf War failed? We enforce a no-fly zone that has effectively protected minority populations in both the northern and the southern thirds of Iraq. We fly freely over Iraq, gathering detailed intelligence. We regularly bomb any active air defense installations, not to mention any offensive capacity. We impose economic sanctions, technology restraints, and have stationed significant US military forces in the surrounding region. That has effectively blocked Iraqi adventurism for the past ten years and constrained its military capabilities. Iraq, for instance, was not one of the dozens of countries where ben Laden’s terrorists trained and plotted. In short, we have effectively contained any substantial threat for Iraq.

            Second, if we are so obviously right that Iraq is an immediate threat to world peace, why have almost none of our allies or other members of the international community, even those much closer to Iraq and more directly threatened, supported our invasion plans?

            Third, given the Administration’s assertion that Saddam Hussein has purposely concentrated his military assets in urban civilian areas, are we really willing to send our ground troops into the streets of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities to fight street by street, home by home, to capture and occupy those cities.  What are the American casualties expected to be?  If we first try to “soften up” the Iraqi forces with heavy bombing, what are the civilian Iraqi casualties expected to be? Are we and the world willing to accept those losses?

            Fourth, how are we going to cope with the outbreaks of anti-American protest and violence that our attack on Iraq is sure to trigger throughout the Muslim world? What will this do to the cooperation we need from Muslim nations like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Pakistan in our war on terrorism? What will this do to the stability and survival of pro-US governments in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia?  Will it not further inflame Palestinians as Israel uses the invasion as an excuse to even more brutally bear down on them?  In what sense will this add stability to the region?

            Fifth, if we are successful in overthrowing Saddam, who will govern Iraq afterward? Will we leave the country in chaos as, so far, we have done in Afghanistan, with regional warlords seizing control of huge chunks of the nation and ruling lawlessly. If we have leveled their cities and killed thousands of their fellow citizens, will the population support the puppets we install?  What will keep the Kurds in the north and the Sunnis in the south from forming the separate countries that for decades they have been struggling for? Will that disintegration of Iraq add stability to the region?

            Sixth, do we intend to occupy Iraq to assure it does not disintegrate and to assure that our self-chosen puppets remain in power? How many troops will have to stay and for how long?  Fifty thousand? A hundred thousand? Five years? Ten years?

            Seventh, what will such a war do to the fragile American and world economies? It certainly will cause a sharp rise in oil prices that will impose a tremendous economic drag around the world, potentially pitching both the US and the world back into recession.  The federal deficit will also balloon since this time our allies, Germany, Japan, and Saudi Arabia, will not be picking up the tab. The impact will spread beyond the economy to almost all government programs as the rest of the government is squeezed to pay for the war and the economic slow down: Forget about tackling top priority public issues like stabilizing Social Security, solving the problem of prescription drug costs, revitalizing our educational systems, etc.

            Just asking these questions emphasizes the very high risks and very high costs associated with the proposed American attack on Iraq.  What is the objective that justifies these costs?

            The obvious one is getting rid of an evil, nasty man who has done horrible things.  The problem is that for a long time, he was our evil, nasty man.  The Reagan and first Bush Administrations built his military, gave him the makings for biological agents, and enthusiastically supported him because he was fighting Iran.  His criminal nastiness was OK because it was directed against one of our enemies. Even after the invasion of Kuwait and the Gulf War, subsidiaries of American companies helped Saddam rebuild the oil production capacity that currently funds his military program.  Vice-President Cheney’s oil company, Halliburton, acting through its French affiliates, was part of this rebuilding program right up until Cheney resigned to run for Vice-President.  Now he bemoans all the oil money Saddam has to build his military forces: an unseemly sudden conversion to righteousness for a previously amoral CEO. 

            The US in the past and present has found it convenient and productive to work with evil, nasty, dictators. That has rarely been a barrier to our support and almost never led to military action to change regimes.  It isn’t the reason for attacking Iraq now either.

            The real benefit Bush is pursuing with his saber rattling is another opportunity to prove that the US is the only serious military power in the world.  He is looking for another country to beat up to prove again that we are the big kid on the block and everyone else better do as we say, or else!  Bush thinks this will terrify most countries of the world and make them more complacent as he unilaterally pursues what he thinks are our interests around the world.  Coincidentally, it will keep the US on a war footing, with flags waving, patriotic songs playing, and citizens encouraged to given President Bush the wartime privilege of the benefit of the doubt through the next presidential election.

            That may be good for Bush and his Texas vision of “world order,” but it is unlikely to be good for the nation or the rest of the world.


[1] These questions are similar to those raised in the editorial in the September 2, 2002 issue of The Nation.