Editor:
I believe the case for war can, and should, be made on two levels: the legal and the idealistic.
I’ll begin with the legal case. The Bush administration (and our allies, notably Great Britain, Italy, and Spain) has repeatedly pointed out that Iraq has created the current situation by engaging in a series of violations of international law. First, Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 — a blatant, unprovoked, and bloodthirsty campaign. (Of course Iraq claims that it was provoked by Kuwaiti attempts to “steal” Iraqi oil — now there’s a “Blood for Oil” rationale if I’ve ever heard one.) Second, after being soundly defeated by coalition forces during Desert Storm, Iraq sued for peace and was granted it on condition that it relinquish its arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and disband its nuclear program. Iraq failed to comply with the terms of the peace agreement, repeatedly obstructing UN inspectors until finally expelling them in 1998 (a truly “unilateral” course of action). Finally, the UN Security Council issued Resolution 1441, stating that Iraq was in material breach of its prior obligations to disarm and demanding that it take rapid, affirmative steps to do so or face “serious consequences.” Again, as both Hans Blix and Colin Powell have reported to the Security Council, Iraq failed to comply.
So now it’s “serious consequences” time. According to the French (those valiant defenders of freedom) this means doubling and tripling the number of UN inspectors, which I suppose is preferable to their traditional “surrender and collaborate” strategy. According to the United States and Britain, however, “serious consequences” means war. Frankly, I don’t see how any honest and rational person could disagree.
And yet while this legal case is compelling, I believe that the moral case for going to war to remove Saddam Hussein from power is even stronger. The following excerpt is from Amnesty International’s (not exactly a right-wing outfit) report on Iraq:
“Torture victims in Iraq have been blindfolded, stripped of their clothes and suspended from their wrists for long hours. Electric shocks have been used on various parts of their bodies, including the genitals, ears, the tongue and fingers. Victims have … been beaten with canes, whips, hosepipe or metal rods and how they have been suspended for hours from either a rotating fan in the ceiling or from a horizontal pole often in contorted positions as electric shocks were applied repeatedly on their bodies….Other methods of physical torture … include the use of Falaqa (beating on the soles of the feet), extinguishing of cigarettes on various parts of the body, extraction of finger nails and toenails and piercing of the hands with an electric drill. Some have been sexually abused and others have had objects, including broken bottles, forced into their anus. In addition to physical torture, detainees have been threatened with rape and subjected to mock execution…. Detainees have also been threatened with bringing in a female relative, especially the wife or the mother, and raping her in front of the detainee. Some of these threats have been carried out.”
If the above-cited abuses were all that he had done, Saddam Hussein would be a truly despicable human being. And yet these horrific practices are but a small portion of his monstrous resume. He uses chemical weapons upon his own people, uses prisoners for bio and chemical weapons experiments, appropriates the country’s oil wealth to build weapons and palaces while his people suffer under the economic sanctions his aggressive policies create, pays bounties to terrorists who commit atrocities in Israel, and has invaded two of his neighbors — committing further atrocities in the process. According to Colin Powell, Hussein provides shelter to Al-Qaeda operatives, and other experts have suggested that there is good reason to believe that the Iraqi intelligence service was involved in the first World Trade Center bombing plot. And as if this extremely abbreviated list was not enough, he also attempted to assassinate former president George H.W. Bush.
In light of these facts, the question should not be “Why should we go to war?” but rather “Why shouldn’t we?” Every time I read about or watch an anti-war demonstration, I want to ask these people — who appear to be subjectively well-intentioned — why they so enthusiastically support political positions which are so objectively pro-torture, pro-nuclear proliferation, and pro-oppression. I hope the answer is that they’re naive, and not that they don’t think the Iraqis deserve liberation and freedom. Unfortunately for these demonstrators, we live in the objective world, and as such, we must adopt positions — even unpleasant ones like going to war — that have some hope of achieving justice, rather than just shouting empty, self-satisfied slogans about the purity of our intentions and the “oil-hungry” administration.
No-one should be giddy about the prospect of war, but should it become necessary with regard to Iraq, Americans should seek some solace in knowing that, once again, the United States military will be fighting for the liberation, not the oppression, of another nation. To conclude, consider the following recent statements by two foreign heads of state:
“We like Americans because they’re freedom-loving people who are pragmatic and love to help. There is a great respect for America–for the ideal. We are small, but even small friends can be important.” — Ibrahim Rugova, president of Kosovo, speaking about his country’s feelings towards the United States after the air campaign to defend the Muslim Kosovars from Slobodan Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing, available at http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA79D4OTBD.html.
“The United States is a country to which my people bears a deep gratitude because it owes to the generosity of this great democracy its freedom and its prosperity. We’ll never forget the fact that about a half a century ago, through the sacrifice of so many young Americans, Italy and Europe were saved from totalitarianism… I consider the flag of the United States is not only a flag of a country, but is a universal message of freedom and democracy.” — Silvio Berlusconi, prime minister of Italy, available at http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2002/13568.htm.
I am confident that in the near future, a democratically-elected leader of Iraq will speak similarly about the United States and our military.
I apologize for my prolixity, but I hope that this letter can make a positive contribution to the public discourse.
Michael SlipskyB.S. Economics, 2001Chapel Hill, North Carolina