War on Iraq: National Debate Begins

Over the past several days there have been three New York Times front page and op-ed articles reveling in the so-called "split" in the Republican Party over the Bush Administration's intention to strike Iraq preemptively, giving ammunition to the liberal press to announce the brilliance of previously "dumb" Republicans.

Dick Armey, Republican House Majority Leader, was described as part of the "Radical Republican Leadership" by Clinton aide Harold Ickes in Newsweek [Now It's Hillary Against a New Kid] in May 29, 2000. Armey said last week:

"My own view would be to let him bluster, let him rant and rave all he wants. As long as he behaves himself within his own borders, we should not be addressing any attack or resources against him."

Now, Armey is described as a "prominent Republican" in the New York Times for "question(ing) the wisdom of a campaign against Iraq."

Armey is the architect of Bush's $1.3 trillion, 10-year tax cut, and is actually a libertarian at heart. He was the last Republican to sign on to the Gulf War in 1991.

Yesterday, in a New York Times article by Adam Clymer, Armey May Be Leaving, but Isn't Going Quietly Armey said about the whole incident:

The Times front-page stories on both Friday and Saturday enlisted Henry Kissinger as another Republican opponent of the war. This was purely fantasy. What Mr. Kissinger actually said in his most recent op-ed, appearing in the Washington Post last Monday:

"The imminence of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the huge dangers it involves, the rejection of a viable inspection system, the demonstrated hostility of Saddam combine to produce an imperative for pre-emptive action."

This was best detailed by Charles Krauthammer in "Kidnapped by the Times", Washington Post :

Against going to war? Kissinger makes the case not just for going to war but for going to war soon.

"Waiting will only magnify possibilities for blackmail," he warns. But that is not the only reason to go to war, he adds. The war on terrorism itself is at risk if it stops with Afghanistan and spares Saddam Hussein. If we flinch, we'll see "radicals encouraged by the demonstration of American hesitation and moderates demoralized by the continuation of an unimpaired Iraq as an aggressive regional power."

The Times trumpets the critics' warning about the risks of "creating greater instability in the Middle East and harming long-term American interests." But Kissinger makes precisely the opposite argument: "The overthrow of the Iraqi regime would have potentially beneficent political consequences" (my italics) -- "serving to chasten the so-called Arab street, encourage moderation in Syria and Saudi Arabia, multiply pressures for a democratic evolution in Iran, demonstrate to the Palestinian Authority that America is serious about overcoming corrupt tyrannies and bring about a better balance in oil policy within OPEC." Quite a list.

The entire Times attempt to rope Kissinger into the opposition rests on his talking about the difficulties and the importance of the post-war settlement: "Military intervention should be attempted only if we are willing to sustain such an effort for however long it is needed." But everyone knows that we will have to stay and help rebuild Iraq as a peaceful, non-dictatorial state. Who says otherwise? Where is the break with Bush?

It is one thing to give your front page to a crusade against war with Iraq. That's partisan journalism, and that's what Raines's Times does for a living. It's another thing to include Henry Kissinger in your crusade. That's just stupid. After all, it's checkable.

Kissinger's only caveat is that the U.S. should be ready for the diplomatic nation-building end game of stabilizing Iraq before embarking upon removing Saddam.

REALPOLITIK re·al·po·li·tik - politics based on practical considerations: politics based on pragmatism or practicality rather than on ethical or theoretical considerations - [Early 20th century. From German, literally "real politics."], Kissinger himself is a modern disciple of realpolitik, the reality based school of diplomatic thought that basically says nations can do whatever they want inside their own borders and international diplomacy only becomes relevant when the actions of sovereign nations affect other nations.

In the past, when wars were fought with limited conventional weapons between recognized armies, this policy worked. In our time, Ronald Reagan and now George Walker Bush have moved in their own ways and with the moral clarity of their convictions to preemptively attack instead of waiting to be attacked first. The horror of weapons of mass destruction being unleashed on civilian populations is too terrible to allow the luxury of following the antiquated niceties of realpolitik.

The liberal press' sudden adoption of the 350 year old diplomatic cornerstone of realpolitik diplomacy - further made Brent Scowcroft a new anti-war darling.

Commenting on Mr. Scowcroft's article, the Wall Street Journal said August 19 in Review and Outlook: This is Opposition?:

Which brings us to Mr. Scowcroft, who does speak for a point of view worth debating. Honest debate is nothing that advocates of regime change in Iraq, whether President Bush or us, need fear. Indeed, we solicited the Scowcroft article precisely to put on record a view that has a long and honorable tradition, particularly within the Republican Party.

This view describes itself as realism. It upholds national interest narrowly defined, striving for balance of power in the old European sense. It resists a foreign policy with a strong moral component or one designed to expand U.S. principles and democracy. So it typically favors "stability," even when it's imposed by dictators, over democratic aspiration.

This is a legitimate point of view, but its track record doesn't inspire confidence. Mr. Scowcroft (and Lawrence Eagleburger) favored keeping Yugoslavia together, even under Slobodan Milosevic. That mistake kept blood flowing for a decade until even the Europeans begged for U.S. intervention. Mr. Scowcroft also presided over the first President Bush's "Chicken Kiev" speech that argued for keeping the Soviet Union together under Mikhail Gorbachev. And of course he urged that same President Bush to stop the Gulf War early, based in part on a CIA fear that a divided Iraq without a dictator was worse than a "stable" Iraq ruled by Saddam or his Baath Party successor.

Scowcroft wrote an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal August 15, 2002: Don't Attack Saddam.

It is beyond dispute that Saddam Hussein is a menace. He terrorizes and brutalizes his own people. He has launched war on two of his neighbors. He devotes enormous effort to rebuilding his military forces and equipping them with weapons of mass destruction. We will all be better off when he is gone. No argument.

Saddam's strategic objective appears to be to dominate the Persian Gulf, to control oil from the region, or both. That clearly poses a real threat to key U.S. interests. No argument

He is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes and leave Baghdad as the return address. That, Mr. Scowcroft, is the politics of pragmatism, of wishful thinking. Saddam has already used WMD against the Kurds, the Shi'a and the Iranians. If you are wrong the consequences to civilians, and American civilians, are horrific.

Saddam is a familiar dictatorial aggressor, with traditional goals for his aggression. There is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression. Rather, Saddam's problem with the U.S. appears to be that we stand in the way of his ambitions. He seeks weapons of mass destruction not to arm terrorists, but to deter us from intervening to block his aggressive designs. Those designs are to control the world's oil supply, which will disrupt the economies of the industrialized free world and hold it hostage to a dictatorial madman.

Given Saddam's aggressive regional ambitions, as well as his ruthlessness and unpredictability, it may at some point be wise to remove him from power. No argument.

The United States could certainly defeat the Iraqi military and destroy Saddam's regime. But it would not be a cakewalk. On the contrary, it undoubtedly would be very expensive -- with serious consequences for the U.S. and global economy -- and could as well be bloody. There is just as viable an argument, if not more so, that Saddam's armies are a shell of their former selves, his economy is in a shambles, his people ready to see him go and that, in fact, it would be a cakewalk. Regardless, once the shooting starts all the plans change anyway - but in the end Saddam cannot win unless we quit.

In fact, Saddam would be likely to conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses. That, plus the risk of fractioning of Iraq into two or three states, is the same argument you used as National Security Advisor to President Bush Sr. in the Gulf War, 1991 when Saddam's armies were broken and we had an international coalition and 500,000 troops ready to go. The problem of Iraq's ultimate political form is not being ignored and is manageable. If history teaches us anything about war it is that if you don't finish it the first time, you are doomed to finish it later, usually at greater cost. That time has come.

Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in 1991 when Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf conflict. This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East. You should have finished the job in 1991 before Saddam had the WMD's to do that. This time, Saddam is realistically considered to have sleeper terrorist cells with WMD's ready to go in Israel and in the United States. So do we run or fight?

Finally, if we are to achieve our strategic objectives in Iraq, a military campaign very likely would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation. Just that was done with Germany and Japan after WWII, and now they are prosperous, free democracies, leading members of the world community.

But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. There are good arguments that removing Saddam will lead to greater stabilization in the middle east and create the strongest basis for the destruction and failure of the pan-Arabic fundamentalist Islamic state elucidated in Osama bin Laden's fatwahs.

Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. There is not a consensus against an attack on Iraq at this time. The Europeans and Russians are mostly interested in making deals to secure their economic ties to a post Saddam Iraq. The "moderate" Arab Kings and dictators are too worried about their own survival to openly join in an attack against another Arab state, although none would miss Saddam since they all know he will be coming for them sooner or later. They also assume that when Saddam did that, the US would, of course, defend them. Although the coalition was politically helpful in the '91 Gulf War, the fact is that the US did most of the job, the Brits did their fair share and everyone else was along for the ride.

Possibly the most dire consequences would be the effect in the region. The shared view in the region is that Iraq is principally an obsession of the U.S. The obsession of the region, however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we were seen to be turning our backs on that bitter conflict -- which the region, rightly or wrongly, perceives to be clearly within our power to resolve -- in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us. We would be seen as ignoring a key interest of the Muslim world in order to satisfy what is seen to be a narrow American interest. "The overthrow of the Iraqi regime would have potentially beneficent political consequences serving to chasten the so-called Arab street, encourage moderation in Syria and Saudi Arabia, multiply pressures for a democratic evolution in Iran, demonstrate to the Palestinian Authority that America is serious about overcoming corrupt tyrannies and bring about a better balance in oil policy within OPEC." (Henry Kissinger)

In any event, we should be pressing the United Nations Security Council to insist on an effective no-notice inspection regime for Iraq -- any time, anywhere, no permission required. On this point, senior administration officials have opined that Saddam Hussein would never agree to such an inspection regime. But if he did, inspections would serve to keep him off balance and under close observation, even if all his weapons of mass destruction capabilities were not uncovered. And if he refused, his rejection could provide the persuasive casus belli which many claim we do not now have. This is how you, as National Security Advisor, ended the Gulf War. It hasn't worked.

Compelling evidence that Saddam had acquired nuclear-weapons capability could have a similar effect. The Congressional testimony of Saddam's number 1 nuclear expert has already demonstrated that Saddam will have functional nuclear bombs by 2005. Some reports say he already has them.

“We now, after Sept. 11, have a graphic, clear understanding of what commercial airliners can do. We can’t wait until we have a graphic, clear understanding of what biological weapons or nuclear weapons can do before we do something about breaking that connection." Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz Feb. 15, 2002

There has to be a debate - it is the American way. I agree the decision was made long ago to take out Saddam, now we will have the great American discourse on the matter and let all sides be heard. A weak leader will follow the opinion polls right or wrong (since the public does not have classified info, the public cannot really decide correctly). In our political system it behooves the leadership to allow this discourse and debate and to convincingly make their case to the public. That is modern American democracy. The strong leader will do the right thing regardless of popular opinion.
(IMHO)

Jason

In reply to your comment:""I agree the decision was made long ago to take out Saddam, now… it behooves the leadership to allow this discourse and debate and to convincingly make their case to the public. That is modern American democracy."
Hopefully you sense something wrong with those two snips juxtaposed like that. ;^)"

I do not see the problem of juxtaposition here (to place two or more things together, especially in order to suggest a link between them or emphasize the contrast between them here. I believe your point is I am linking two antithetical statements. I think you miss my point.

I believe the decision to get rid of Saddam has already been made. How and when to do that is the real question being debated. In fact, the arguments "against" are against the legality, the cost and the international repercussions of a preemptive military incursion by the US on Iraq. The KEY WORD IS PREEMPTIVE. The Bush government is making its case to preemptively take Saddam out through a military invasion of Iraq. Their justification is that Saddam's prior use of WMD's combined with his aspirations for regional hegemony and, most importantly his quest for and soon expected acquisition of nucleaer weapons makes for too dangerous a situation to wait for the "old school" "Civilized world" rules of inaction until attacked.

Much of the lack of international support is due to centuries of international diplomacy, beginning with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, that has held to this "realpolitik" viewpoint of not interfearing with another nations' internal order unless that nation directly affects another outside nation. In other words, the BAD GUY attacks 1st (historically), the GOOD GUY takes the hit and then responds. With nukes, you can't really do that.

Still think I juxtaposed two antithetical "snips?

Jonathan http://efreedomnews.com

I more or less see an irony in those two statement. We seem to agree the decision was made to remove Saddam long ago. But you say that the debate "now" begins, and that's "modern American Democracy". Well, that's not very democratic.

You bring up when and how as undecided's. Sure, but most of that is beyond the expertise of our population, and although ongoing, that debate began an hour after the 911 attack.

You also list the question of a preemptive or retaliatory strike as undecided. If the decision to take Saddam out has been made, it seems to me that this is more a question of how to frame the conclusion (spin it), not what to do. That debate has also been ongoing, but I see how it's becoming more public since the recognition of our attack is growing more real.

I agree that there's a seed of real academic and legal interest behind this debate, but I think the motives behind those that are bringing up legal obstacles are less than benevolent. I suspect that these after-the-fact discussions will be promoted and echoed across the airwaves as a method of reducing Bush's popularity domestically and reducing America's moral strength internationally.

Bush will need to mount a response to reduce their effectiveness, depending on how that effects the need to keep our military strategy ambiguous. The more he justifies our operations publicly, the greater chance that our strategy will be revealed. The more overt our strategy, the better Iraq can defend against it. The better Iraq can defend against it, the more American lives we lose.

That's why I have little respect for "now" beginning the debate. The tactics are beyond our expertise. The decision to go forward regardless of legal questions has been made. The motives of the debate promoters are frequently malevolent, and pursued despite its collective result likely being to kill more of the best Americans, those fighting with honor.

Still, a case could be made that it's exactly like you say, that this is the real "modern American Democracy". A bit cynical, but not without some truth.

Nice looking news site btw, is it yours?

It is a pleasure to read a post that is coherent and logical. I agree with much of what you say and think we both have a cynical streak. I would offer only one more consideration. Having "been there" I have seen that although the steady diet of 7th grade level spin and simplistic jargon fed to the public does not inspire much confidence in those of us who have a more academic approach to making up our minds, the people at the higher levels of government actually drop these petty political pretenses between themselves when real problems arise. Look at the response on 911 from Rudy Giuliani and Bush. Prior to their undisputed magnificent performances they were held out to be unintelligent fascists (by the liberal press and their political opponents) before their demonstrated excellence quieted their critics in the press. But it was more than that. The press shut up because their poltical bosses told them to -maybe not directly, but at least by not starting political attacks at a time of crisis. I wilnever believe the American press actually has a conscience or ethics. Look what they have done with the Kissinger interview!

We have an excellent, experienced team in the white house and cabinet. They have cranked up the debate because, as Bernard Fall said, To win, "the people and the military must emerge on the same side." [Bernard Fall Street Without Joy Stackpole 1961 p.375]
http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20Archive/President%20Bush%20-%20Policy/MidEast/RevolutionaryWarfare.htm

And by the way, thanks for the complements on the website. It is not mine alone but mine it is.

Jonathan

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.