Why Iraq?

Several days ago, my friend Michael Duff wrote and asked for my opinion on whether or not the U.S. should go to war with Iraq. I had to put him off because of out-of-town guests, and then the wisdom teeth surgery -- and presumably with this column, he's decided where he stands on the issue. I'm in a rambling mode because of the effects of post-surgery narcotics, so here is my rambling on the topic.

Most of Michael's article is used to set up his argument, which is represented almost in its entirety by the penultimate paragraph: the U.S. shouldn't go to war in Iraq because people you know and love in Lubbock [it's written for a Lubbock daily; substitute your place of residence here] may die.

The final paragraph consists of three sentences, each of which could be the thesis for three future columns:

Starting a war in Iraq will increase our exposure to terrorists worldwide.

Starting a war in Iraq will inflame the Arab world and legitimize the complaints of people like bin Laden.

Starting a war in Iraq will make Lubbock a more dangerous place to live, and that's something we should all care about.

All of these assertions are debatable, of course, and would make fine column fodder if they were developed. But I reject the impression that these are settled issues.

For starters, we would be resuming a war with Iraq. We started a war in Iraq a decade ago, which saw a ceasefire agreement and subsequent UN security council requirements that Saddam Hussein has flaunted almost from the beginning. Of particular concern at the termination of that war was the disarmament of Iraq, which has not taken place. That is a casus belli for the resumption of hostilities in itself. In that sense, the U.S. long ago started a war in Iraq that may well need to be finished (more on that below).

Disarming Iraq and removing its tyrant (the guy who has not lived up to his international agreements) may well give the Islamofascists additional talking points in their recruitment of terrorists, but let's be clear that the goals of radical Islamists are literally to destroy everything in conflict with their radical Islamic vision. Whether the U.S. now engages in the assertive disarmament of Iraq or not will not change that ultimate goal.

The Arab world. The Arab street. Figment of Nasser's imagination? Those are certainly terms one hears quite a bit, even if they have an ether-like quality. But it is probably true (to a degree) that not many Arab leaders are going to say publicly that they want Saddam Hussein removed, for a simple reason: if the U.S. doesn't get the job done completely (as in the last Gulf War), they have to live with the after-effects: a neighbor with a military that is relatively powerful and able to strike throughout the region. But will Arab leaders be inflamed when Saddam is deposed? I have trouble making that jump. They may be unsettled at the prospect of a democratic Iraq, for what it means to their own regimes, but will the leaders of Kuwait or Qatar or Jordan truly be inflamed?

And finally, resuming a war in Iraq is said somehow to legitimize the complaints of Bin Laden. But again, how, short of becoming a radical Islamic regime, will the United States not legitimize the complaints of Bin Laden? Isn't it enough of an indictment of the United States, to paraphrase Orrin Judd on a different topic, that Porky's is readily available just about anywhere in the world to anyone with a credit card? It's modernity that is the chief issue of Osama Bin Laden and radical Islamists; it's the existence of the United States as an international trader and leader of the free world that is the issue. Whether or not the U.S. intensifies its activity in Iraq (it already acts much as an occupying power by maintaining no-fly zones) is not going to have much effect at all on how radical Islamists view the United States, in my opinion.

And that brings me to a version of the original question: What should we do with Iraq (if anything)?

I am in favor of an assertive disarmament approach to Iraq, up to and including outright war and the removal of Saddam Hussein, if necessary. I think Iraq under Saddam Hussein poses a threat to the security of the United States because of his continued (illegal) pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, his willingness to use some of those weapons in the past, and his links to known terrorist organizations.

Now, there is a criminal proceedings approach to this question that suggests unless the United States can produce evidence of Iraqi involvement in the 11 September attacks, there is no reason to attack Iraq. I reject the treatment of international politics as a criminal proceeding. There are multiple reasons that Iraq poses a threat to the United States. The question is, shall the U.S. wait until Saddam, who is (I'm convinced) illegally pursuing weapons of mass destruction, secretly shares those weapons with terrorist organizations who carry out missions against the United States? And will evidence sufficient to a criminal proceeding (no reasonable doubt) ever be forthcoming given the covert nature of much terrorist activity?

The Israelis decided 20 years ago that they could not wait for such evidence, which might well have been a nuked Israel, and they took out the Osirak (weapons-caliber) nuclear reactor. Although the world criticized Israel publicly, many nations privately thanked Israel for this act of assertive disarmament.

In the case of Iraq today, assertive disarmament (whether it is full military invasion or the vigorous inspections regime that Saddam Hussein has resisted from day one) is far preferable to waiting for Saddam Hussein to be able to pose a greater threat than he already does, either on his own or in concert with shadowy terrorist groups. To threaten the West significantly (i.e. with weapons of mass destruction), most terrorist groups still require some sort of safe harbor, which is still best provided by a state sponsor (covert or otherwise). Afghanistan was such a place; the Ferghana Valley was such a place (hence the American interest in basing there); there are other such places, including Iraq.

And that brings us to the question of other potential threats. If we act in Iraq, why not Syria, or Iran, or North Korea? We may well act in those places! It remains to be seen. There is a faction in Iran that opposes the current governing regime (as Michael Ledeen has described for some time now), and it certainly deserves the same level of support that the U.S. has given freedom fighters in other regimes. And Syria certainly bears careful scrutiny, especially as it uses the puppet state of Lebanon to foment regional, if not global, terror. But none of those regimes poses the immediate threat coupled with the intent of Saddam Hussein (if judged by his longtime anti-American sentiment, which drove an attempted assassination on former President Bush, lest anyone forget).

It's true that people die in wars. People also die when radical Islamists use a plane as a weapon of mass destruction. Or when they (eventually) manage to attack a nation with biological or chemical weapons produced with the assistance of a state sponsor. Let's not make the mistake of thinking that by not attacking Iraq (if it rejects a vigorous voluntary disarmament regime), we will somehow change the intent of radical Islamists who would like to kill Americans. People you may know. From [fill in your town].

Maybe, just maybe, we can take a second major step (Afghanistan being the first, and smaller activities in the Ferghana Valley, the Philippines, and Yemen being smaller steps) towards reducing those threats, in Iraq.

I can't pretend to know with certainty that not going to war with Iraq will lead to a terrorist attack against the U.S. with Iraqi ties, just as I can't pretend to know with certainty that going to war with Iraq will eliminate all terrorist threats. I do know that it will eliminate one -- that much is certain. I am in favor of an American foreign policy of assertive disarmament of Iraq because it is preferable, in my view, to the risk of doing nothing.

(Update) Aww, hell. I could have just linked to this piece on NRO....

[Posted at 12:28 CST on 09/27/02] [Link]