Sara Kaminski (sarajk@bgnet.bgsu.edu) is a sophomore political science major and vice-president of the Honors Student Association.

Marvin Belzer (mbelzer@bgnet.bgsu.edu) is an Associate Professor and former Chair of the Dept. of Philosophy.

Online at http://personal.bgsu.edu/~mbelzer/iraqwardebate.html

*

The United States Should Not Launch a Strike Against Iraq

by Sara Kaminksi

President Kennedy once said, “Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.” The purpose of my presentation this evening is to show why a strike against Iraq is dangerous, unjustified, and unnecessary. Since Saddam Hussein has not engaged in any aggressive behavior since the Gulf War, launching an attack would be pre-emptive in nature.

The Bush administration has given a number of reasons in favor of a pre-emptive strike. The key reason is that Iraq has violated UN Resolution 1441, which mandated that it disarm of its weapons of mass destruction. Another argument is that Saddam has a stockpile of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, which he will use against the United States. And finally, there have been reports that the Iraqi government has an alliance with Al-Qaeda and might share weapons with those terrorists who will then launch attacks against the U.S.

First off, and very simply, weapons inspectors haven't found any weapons which violate the UN resolution. For months now, U.S. intelligence has supplied UN inspectors with information that was supposed to lead them to sites where the Iraqis are hiding weapons. But as we've seen, inspectors have found no weapons of mass destruction, with the exception of some empty chemical warheads. Admittedly, Iraq does need to cooperate more fully with the UN, but Saddam's actions thus far do not justify a war.

Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei have pushed for further inspections and implicitly see no need for military force at this time. Less than a week ago, ElBaradei commented, “We're still in midcourse, but we are moving forward, and I see no reason for us to bring the inspection process to a halt.” With the exception of the UK and Spain, the Security Council overwhelmingly disapproves of a strike against Iraq.

In response to a lack of support, President Bush asserted that if the UN doesn't confront Saddam Hussein, it will “fade into history as an ineffective, irrelevant, debating society.” However, it has been the Bush administration that has undermined the authority of the UN and the Security Council by articulating time after time that the US will go about this matter unilaterally. This situation deals with violations of a UN Resolution, and the United States is not the supreme interpreter of UN policy. At a time when international unity and cooperation is essential to combat terrorism, our President is alienating our allies and the world peacekeeping organization.

But President Bush and Secretary Powell still maintain that Saddam Hussein is a great threat because he has a stockpile of weapons that he will use against the US. At first glance this would seem very alarming to Americans, but these potential dangers do not justify a war. Yes, in the past, Saddam has used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians, but he did so with the knowledge that they could not retaliate in a similar manner. On the other hand, if the US were attacked, we could retaliate with overwhelming force, possibly with our own weapons of mass destruction.

This is precisely the reason why Iraq did not use biological or chemical weapons against America during the Gulf War. These reasons also help to explain why Saddam would not blackmail the US even if he had nuclear weapons. If Iraq launched a nuclear weapon at the United States, the US would launch one right back at them. It's mutual assured destruction. Even National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice said that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction “will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration.”

However, there has been no indication that Saddam has a nuclear program.

The IAEA concluded that Iraq does not have nuclear weapons, a nuclear agenda, or the sophisticated technology necessary to launch a nuclear warhead. Then there is North Korea, a country that we know has a nuclear weapons program, but instead of using military force, the US has shown a willingness to use more conventional approaches. This sends a message to the world that the US will go easy on nations that have weapons of mass destruction, but will bully those that don't. It gives countries an incentive to have a nuclear program.

So what about the reports that Iraq has ties to the Al-Qaeda terrorists? Well, one government official said, “We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there.” Then again, just recently, the Director of the CIA claimed that there are links. But how substantial are these links? A Pentagon spokesperson stated that Al-Qaeda is in 50-60 countries, so it's definitely possible that there are operatives in Iraq without being tied to the Iraqi government. The Bush administration has perpetually been trying to interpret fuzzy intelligence as transparent evidence in order to justify an attack.

Given that Saddam Hussein is a secularist while Osama bin Laden is a fundamentalist, it's not shocking that these men aren't linked. Last week, an audiotape surfaced that was said to be Osama bin Laden supporting Iraq in a fight against the US. But vocal support from bin Laden does not translate into Iraqi supported terrorism. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that Saddam would supply Al-Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction, in fear that American surveillance would detect a transfer of weapons. Then if there were a terrorist attack, retribution against Iraq would be inevitable.

Saddam Hussein is not suicidal. We have seen in the past that he will look out for himself, and a handoff of weapons of mass destruction to terrorists would certainly not be in his best interests. However, if the US does launch an attack, it gives Saddam the initiative to give any weapons he may have to terrorists. What would he have to lose? Thus a war is not necessary; in fact, it's incredibly dangerous to our national security, and containing and deterring Saddam Hussein is the better alternative. It's worked for the past 12 years, and it can continue to do so in the future. Colin Powell alleged that Iraq has “vast amounts of chemical weaponry” leftover from the Gulf War, but the UN has indicated that Iraq has gotten rid of at least 90-95% of its weapons. Powell is obviously neglecting the fact that inspections have worked.

After Secretary Powell delivered his speech to the Security Council, many people thought that he left a smoking gun. But he didn't. Rather, he shot a series of blanks. The quote unquote “evidence” that he presented was speculative and inconclusive, and this is reflective in the way the Security Council and Americans feel. Poll after poll has shown that the majority of Americans believe that the President should give the UN more time, that he shouldn't act without our allies' support, and that he should wait for UN approval. In the past few months, especially recently, we have seen anti-war demonstrations on a massive scale in dozens of countries, including Iraq's neighbors, who are also said to be in danger.

The Bush administration has stated that America should be prepared for a long-term commitment if it goes to war. Secretary Powell said that if war comes and is won, a US military leader would take temporary control of Iraq. That person would eventually turn things over to a prominent American or international figure, who would look toward turning the government over to the Iraqis. Not only will this cost America billions and billions of dollars over several years, but we will also be diverting that money, attention, and manpower away from the war on terrorism. In addition, it is wishful thinking to believe that this war will bring about democracy. Even Colin Powell admitted that it would be extremely challenging to establish representative leadership in a post-war Iraq.

There will not be representative democracy in Iraq. Instead, there will be a long US-led military occupation that will incite resistance in the Iraqis. These people are already marching in support of Saddam, so it's very naÔve of us to think that they will welcome our military as their government. The United States will not be spreading democracy by going to war. Rather, we will be jeopardizing our own democracy. I echo the words of JFK: “Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.”

*

Dangerous Repercussions of a Preemptive Strike against Iraq

by Marvin Belzer

In my presentation I will go more deeply into the dangerous repercussions of the envisioned war, focussing on three areas concerning first, its preemptive nature; secondly, its relation to the problem of terrorism; and thirdly, the plight of the Iraqi people.

(1) Going to war is not simply one option among others, but is always of special significance. By its nature war is destructive and deadly for those who have to be involved. It tends to engender resentment, anger and hatred among those who survive or observe it. Some of the most respected teachers to appear in the world have held that violence never makes sense -- and while such teachers as Jesus and the Buddha set a pretty high standard-- a standard higher than most people or nations regard as realistic-- nonetheless nonviolence is a standard to which civilized human beings aspire to conform as much as possible. The Charter of the United Nations, for example, was written soon after WW2 and affirms the determination of "The peoples of the United Nations ...to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind" and resolves "to ensure, by the principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest."

America was a driving force in the formulation of these ideals and the establishment of the UN. As a consequence, classical international law was revolutionized by limiting the sovereignty of nation-states. Sovereignty is limited, relative to war, insofar as an unprovoked attack by one country upon another is not generally permissible. These norms do permit a country to start a preemptive war --but only if there is a threat that is clear, imminent, and unmanageable, that is, the preemptive use of military force is the only way to deal with the threat. In such cases it is best to have the support of a consensus of the international community.

If it takes place, the war against Iraq will be preemptive. But America is not being threatened in a clear, imminent and unmanageable way by Iraq, as Sara has argued. What is going on?

In fact the Bush Administration last September declared its intention not to abide by the norm governing preemptive attacks. The new doctrine, enunciated in the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America" (September, 2002) is that the United States will exempt itself from the usual norm and may attack a nation even if it is not clearly, imminently and unmanageably threatening just so long as it may be threatening in the future. This is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense and a dramatic break with American tradition in our international relations. Its application to the current situation is clear and it may bring serious practical consequences that are likely to make the world a more dangerous place.

First, as the world's mightiest nation, the US will set a dangerous precedent for others to follow if it strikes unilaterally and preemptively in this situation. There are many countries who regard their neighbors with suspicion. India and Pakistan, for example, have skirmished regularly over Kashmir and both of these countries have nuclear weapons. If it is now ok for the US to go to war with Iraq because of a fear of a threat in the future, do we not set a dangerous precedent for others to follow? Moreover, a preemptive strike against Iraq in the near future, when the inspections regime still holds out hope for a peaceful and safer solution, will tend to weaken inspections as a UN tool for dealing with the proliferation of bad weapons elsewhere.

(2) Why are we on the brink of taking this dangerous step? Of the publically stated rationales, the most substantial would have to be the fear that Hussein might give destructive technology to terrorists. This fear is certainly not dumb. The thought that Saddam and his weapons might combine with Al-Qaida is indeed terrifying. It is rational to look into it. But preemptive war cannot now be justified on the basis of fear alone. That is why it has been essential for the Bush Administration to establish a link between Hussein and Al-Qaida-- and yet this is a link that they have, quite simply, failed to demonstrate. All of the alleged links detailed by Sec. Powell before the UN on Feb. 5, for example, have been refuted. This is a claim we are prepared to defend in detail in this debate, and it is the one issue that should be central to a debate about whether we as American citizens have been given any serious justification to support this war. We have not seen that justification.

Concerning terrorism, a preemptive strike against Iraq may be seriously counter-productive, in three ways. First, a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq is likely to weaken the coalition of some 90 countries now united against terrorism. Kenneth Pollack says that among foreign diplomats there is "a tremendous trepidation that this is just the first step in a series of preemptive wars". (Newsweek interview). This, together with the fact that the inspections regime is working, explains the unwillingness of many traditional allies to accept the inevitability of war.

Secondly, even while probably increasing the likelihood of terrorist attacks in America, war with Iraq will distract domestic attention and resources away from defense against terrorism. --"The argument that al-Qaida would probably be a better focus for America's might than Iraq is one that finds agreement within the U.S. military, if not among the civilians that run the Pentagon" writes Michael Moran. "I think it's the wrong war at the wrong time," a senior Navy officer told me. "I think we will win the battle against Saddam, but will that cost us the larger war on terror? A lot of flag rank guys are asking that question." (Michael Moran msnbc.com 2-14-03). At the least, we need to allocate resources to prepare to defend ourselves against future attacks. A war with Iraq and a postwar occupation will cost anywhere between $50 -200 billion or more at a time when our economy is sluggish and huge budget deficits are predicted for years. This is a cost we'll bear ourselves, since most of the world thinks the war is a mistake. Relative to national defense is Iraq where our resources should be going?

Thirdly, we can be certain that a preemptive strike against Iraq will inflame anger, hatred and resentment against the US in the Islamic world. Osama bin Laden and others may find it easier to recruit people who see violence as their only option. The flimsiness of the public justification for a military strike may contribute to the belief that the US is on a crusade against Islam. Twelve years ago who thought that someone like bin Laden would use the presence of US forces in Saudi Arabia as a pretext for something like 9-11? But now we know better, and it is naÔve to dismiss such points as these as irrelevant to defense against terrorism.

(3) What, then, about the Iraqi people? Should we not assist them? It is true that the Iraqi people are in a bad situation. Is going to war now the right way to help them?

A lot depends on what would happen within Iraq during and after the war if there is a war. There are rosy scenarios and there are doomsday scenarios that are being described. Nobody has a crystal ball, but there are a number of points that should make us wary of rhetoric about some sort of simple liberation of Iraq.

First, the US has no serious plans for a postwar Iraq. Albert Hunt, reporting last week in the WSJ on a Senate Foreign Relations committee meeting with 2 Administration experts: "The U.S. has prepared brilliantly for the military operation and is frightfully ill-prepared for the more difficult aftermath." Does this bode well for the US as a liberator of Iraq?

Secondly, there is the possibility of escalation of war in the region (including Israel) as well as a post-war civil war in Iraq. There are many diverse and competing factions within Iraq, for example even two different Kurdish groups which skirmish with each other for power in the north. Moreover, ".. every one of Iraq's [many] neighbors has its own agenda for the country." And these agendas do not particularly include anything like the liberation of the Iraqi people. "Turkey has threatended military action to stop the Kurds from seizing the oil capital of Kirkuk [and at one point the US offered to let Turkey station 20K troops in n. iraq in exchange for use of Turkey bases -- which would be a disaster for the Kurds]. Iran.. trained an Iraqi Shiite army to seize power in the south. Syria.. cultivating covert contacts with thugs in the rule Ba'ath Party. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.. desparate to see Iraq's Sunni minority cointinue to rule.. while King Abdullah's cousins in jordan are active pretenders to the old Hashemite throne in Baghdad.." (Newsweek feb 3, p 31)

Thirdly, if there is a war, there will be many casualties in Iraq. We should not be insensitive to this fact or discount its significance. From 9/11 we know how it feels. The Pentagon battle plan reportedly entails showering up to 800 cruise missiles during the first two days of war to pound the country to pulp. Baghdad has some five million people, and "There will not be a safe place in Bagdhad," according to a Pentagon spokesman quoted in the New Yorker by David Martin. There will be many civilian casualties and injuries. The deadliness and destructiveness of war will be fully realized and on display.

".. the problems of the Middle East are much deeper than Saddam and Osama bin Laden. The problems have to do with the social and economic and political problems which have given rise to Al Qaeda and all these terrorist groups. And how we frame that is very important. We need to help the people of the region help themselves; it can't be the U.S. coming in and imposing its will "(Kenneth Pollack, Newsweek interview)

We need to find strategies other than revving up our mighty military machine to conduct preemptive war against a small country that may become a threat in the future. The departure from standard international norms and American tradition should be alarming to us. Moreover, this despairing strategy does not promise to work generally against terrorism, and its application has not been shown to be justified in this case. People have been saying for months "well, it is going to happen." But why say that? Why should we accept it?

*

Links

On the war being preemptive: "Iraq: The Case Against Preemptive War," by Paul W. Schroeder (from The American Conservative, 10-21-02)

The Bush Administration's National Security Strategy of the United States of America (see Section 5 for the revolutionary doctrine about preemptive war)

Inconclusiveness of Powell's UN speech: "Powell's UN Speech Dissected," by Ali Abunimah (Reuters, Feb. 3 2003)

On the weakness of the publically stated rationales for the war: "The Coming War with Iraq: Deciphering the Bush Administration's Motives," by Michael T. Klare

UN Security Council Res 1441