Posted on 09/14/2002 8:25:58 AM PDT by ppaul
Securing the peace in Afghanistan and the Middle East should be a precondition for starting a third war in Iraq
The Bush administration has asked the United Nations, the US Congress, and the American people to consider taking military action against Iraq. This government's stated policy with respect to Saddam Hussein is simple: regime change. We want Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction out. Sooner rather than later. And few doubt the Bush administration's will or its ability to follow through with whatever action necessary to secure this outcome.
Regime change is one thing. Rebuilding Iraq following the fall of Saddam Hussein is another. And this is where things get very murky, as is well illustrated by events in nearby Afghanistan. There the Taliban regime has been thrown out, and the Karsai regime is in, at least in Kabul. But meanwhile much of the country has reverted to rule by the warlords and the opium producers, the economy lies in ruins, people are hungry and without means of supporting themselves, and the new president is alive only because he is surrounded by US special forces.
In Israel, the same situation confronts us. US policy is much the same: regime change, followed by the creation of a democratic Palestinian state. In this case even regime change eludes us, and the nation building has not even begun. People on both sides of the conflict face terror and misery every day.
When he was campaigning for the presidency, George Bush criticized the Clinton administration for getting involved in "nation building," a task which candidate Bush believed was inappropriate for the United States to take on. He cited US intervention in both Somalia and Haiti as illustrative of actions that he found problematic. He also argued that one should not become embroiled in military engagement around the world without clearly stated objectives, and an equally clear "exit plan."
Today however, the Bush administration has reversed course, supporting not only regime change but rebuilding basic institutions of government is no less than three of the most troubled areas of the world. Palestine. Afghanistan. Iraq. With respect to Palestine the regime change has not yet happened, and the nation building is yet to begin. There is not even a hint of an exit plan in the Middle East. In Afghanistan, we've seen regime change, but most of the nation building lies ahead. Rather than developing an exit plan, it is clear that increased US involvement is required. In both these places the work of creating stable governments, economic development, and freedom from terror and oppression is only just begun. Wouldn't it make sense to see if the task of nation building can be completed successfully in either one of these two difficult situations before taking on the same challenge in Iraq?
Thomas Freidman, one of the most acute observers of world affairs hits the mark when he writes in a New York Times Op-Ed piece:
As I think about President Bush's plans to take out Saddam Hussein and rebuild Iraq into a democracy, one question gnaws at me: Is Iraq the way it is today because Saddam Hussein is the way he is? Or is Saddam Hussein the way he is because Iraq is the way it is? I mean, is Iraq a totalitarian dictatorship under a cruel, iron-fisted man because the country is actually an Arab Yugoslavia — a highly tribalized, artificial state, drawn up by the British, consisting of Shiites in the south, Kurds in the north and Sunnis in the center — whose historical ethnic rivalries can be managed only by a Saddam-like figure? Or, has Iraq, by now, congealed into a real nation?
And once the cruel fist of Saddam is replaced by a more enlightened leadership, Iraq's talented, educated people will slowly produce a federal democracy. The answer is critical, because any U.S. invasion of Iraq will leave the U.S. responsible for nation-building there. Invade Iraq and we own Iraq. And once we own it, we will have to rebuild it, and since that is a huge task, we need to understand what kind of raw material we'll be working with.
The real question that the United Nations, the US Congress, and the American people need to be addressing now is whether we are willing and able, not only to eliminate Saddam Hussein (we surely are), but whether we are prepared to commit the resources necessary to insure that once Saddam Hussein is history, the people of Iraq find their situation actually improved.
Unless we are prepared to answer that question in the affirmative, going to war is difficult to justify. This is particularly true for Christians who must answer, not just to the court of public opinion, or to the requirements of international law, but to a far higher authority. There are a number of very specific questions that must be addressed within the framework of just war theory as worked out over two millennium of thinking about such issues in the church. Before engaging in warfare, there are three essential questions that must be addressed.
1) Just cause. To argue that there is a "just cause" for war requires a real and certain danger, as well as a worthy objective such as protecting innocent life, preserving conditions necessary for decent human existence, or securing basic human rights. One can easily make the case the ridding the world of Saddam Hussein is a just cause.
2) Proportionality. Under the requirement of proportionality, the damage inflicted must not be greater than the damage prevented. Here we enter into an area of greater uncertainty, for who is to measure, in advance, the damage caused in an invasion of Iraq? And how does one balance this against the damage that might be prevented by taking out Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction? If we knew that Saddam Hussein, for example, possessed a thermonuclear weapon and that he intended to use it against Israel, the requirement of proportionality would pretty clearly be satisfied. At this writing, we do not know this.
3) Probability of success. The "probability of success" criterion prohibits resort to force when the desired outcome is unlikely or impossible with the result that waging war will lead to greater harm being done. It is at this point that the case for attacking Iraq is weakest and where conscience requires more evidence than is currently before us. This is because merely removing Saddam Hussein will not improve the situation either for the people of Iraq or for ourselves. Should Saddam be replaced by yet another dictator, or should the destruction of his regime result in a second invasion of Iraq by a now emboldened Iran, it may well be that greater harm would be caused by our action than by our inaction. (Remember, only a few years ago, even as Saddam was using weapons of mass destruction, WE were supporting Saddam in his fight against Iran as we believed that a stable Iraq was vital to our own interests in the region!)
With the results of our prior involvement in the Middle East as well as in Afghanistan still falling far short of success, who is in a position to say that we can succeed in Iraq? Would it not be far preferable to continue with our current policy of containment which has prevented Saddam Hussein from using weapons of mass destruction for nearly twenty years? This we have already succeeded in doing. Having contained the far more malevolent, more powerful force of the Soviet Union for several decades leading up to its collapse, we should understand clearly that such a policy has a far greater probability of success than regime change followed by the far more difficult task of nation building. In the meantime, let's finish the work already begun in the Middle East and Afghanistan. It will take miracles a plenty to finish the work we've barely started in those two places. Asking for yet a third set of miracles in Iraq at this point amounts to nothing less than tempting God.
Link to article HERE.
FReep this POLL:
Should the US go to war against Iraq?
Yeah, after we declared war on Japan, and then we declared war on Germany. How does that make me wrong?
So you, in order to maintain this spurious argument, are now reduced to the spliting of VERY fine hairs indeed I would say!
Regardless of that Saddam HIMSELF is an international terrorist, the world knows it, and the end, for him, is near indeed!
If the terrorists are hiding in a part of Iraq that Saddam does not control, nay cannot control because we don't allow him to, then he cannot be accused of aiding or harboring them. So thus, according to you, the question of whether Saddam is actually harboring or aiding terrorist amounts to nothing more than "splitting of very fine hairs."
Really? And what acts of international terrorism has he engaged in? And no, Palestinian terrorism does not count, as that is a regional matter that does not have anything to do with US interests.
Does trying to assassinate the President of the United States Qualify Sir?
But enough! It really all boils down to the words spoken last Thursday by President Bush "To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take."
Are YOU willing to take that risk sir?
Former president. And it happened years ago. Ancient history.
We never, to my knowledge, declared war on Germany; Hitler waited a week and then declared war on the U.S. According to The New Dealers' War by Thomas Fleming, the Axis Pact did not require Germany to declare war--and certainly it didn't bind Hitler any more than the pact between Germany and the USSR, in force up til the day (June 22, 1941) that Hitler invaded the USSR.That date, BTW, seems to mark the time when FDR became determined to fight Germany. Just one of those funky cooincidences, like the fact that the wonderful slogan "unconditional surrender" meant that FDR was marrying Stalin because we didn't intend to take the casualties required to actually crush Germany without the USSR taking the brunt of the casualties (and without the USSR subsequently dominating the European powers).
Former president. And it happened years ago. Ancient history.
Oh, Really? So tell me, exactly when does the statute of limitations end on the attempted assassination of a former US President!?
Palestinian terrorism does not count, as that is a regional matter that does not have anything to do with US interests.
I see, so one of our best allies, Israel, is of no interest to us. That aside, let me educate you on your so-called strictly regional Palestinian terrorists.
Arafat is the inventor of modern terrorism as we know it, and the PLO is the "Grandfather of Arab Terrorist Organizations". The Palestinians have trained, funded, and armed terrorists in Africa, Asia, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latin America, Spain, etc.
Palestinian terrorists are responsible for:
Lebanon--Attacked US Embassy, 7 years later killed US Ambassador
Switzerland--Hi-jacked plane
Germany--Killed Olympic athletes (including 1 American)
Sudan--Killed US Ambassador and US Diplomat
France--Killed 2 American citizens
Turkey--Killed US Senator's aide
Spain--Killed 18 servicemen
Greece--Hi-jacked plane, killed US Navy Diver
Egypt--Hi-jacked cruise ship, killed disabled American
Italy/Greece--Bombed TWA flight, killed 4 Americans
Pakistan--Hi-jacked plane, killed 22 passengers including 2 Americans
USA--Palestinian gunman killed 1 & wounded 6 on 86th floor of Empire State Building in NY
Israel--I could go one forever about the Israeli citizens and American tourists who've been slaughtered by Palestinians in Israel, so I'm not even going to get started.
The above list is just a small sampling of the atrocities committed around the globe by Palestinian terrorists, but noteworthy because they involved the deaths of Americans. I probably could have added that Senator Robert Kennedy was assassinated by a Palestinian gunman, but decided not to because I didn't want to get into a hair splitting argument with you over whether or not the gunman was affiliated with an organization or a lone nut. So, we'll go ahead and leave Mr. Kennedy off the list.
Those Palestinian terrorists sure are regional aren't they! And, I suppose all those murdered Americans should be of no interest to the US, either.
While it is true that Germany could have ignored its alliance and not declared war on us after we went to war with Japan, the fact is up until that point we had been de facto on the side of the allies, and in one instance an American destroyer even fired on a German U-boat unprovoked. Our entering the war against Japan made made Hitler's going to war with us, which Hitler wanted to avoid, unavoidable.
I don't think you know that. According to Reuters...
The Sunday Telegraph said a draft version of the dossier contains detailed information on how two alleged leading al Qaeda members, Abu Zubair and Rafid Fatah, underwent training in Iraq and are still linked to the Baghdad government.
It said Abu Zubair was an Iraqi intelligence officer trained in using terror against the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Rafid Fatah also worked with him against the Kurds, the paper added.Revising an estimation of Saddam's relationship with al Qa'ida must also lead to a re-evaluation of his potential delivery systems. Osama bin Laden's extensive civilian shipping properties, and his penchant for collecting willing martyrs to act as delivery men, change the scope of what is possible in terms of attacking outside the region.
That there are other possible sources of nukes is interesting, but not an argument for ignoring the most likely one to act. There appears to be a proffered argument coming from the "let's wait until he bombs us" crowd that says unless we are prepared to take on Pakistan and the former Soviet Union as well, we are prohibited in some way from moving on this particular front. That's just word-noise... easily dismissed jaw flapping.
That's a risk he might take. What if he did? What if you're wrong? The penalty for you being wrong here is quite high... a city or two gone perhaps, and hundreds of thousands dead. "Oops" won't be good enough if we dither on this and then it turns out you were wrong.
I am not persuaded that future potential ugliness in Iraq is an argument in favor of losing entire American cities to terrorist WMD attacks. Should those occur, the same ugliness will arrive in Iraq anyway, except we'll have lost hundreds of thousands of lives. If we can have the ugliness without the loss, let's take it. If we can ameliorate the ugliness in some way, I'm not against that, but I am totally against getting blown up.
All arguments in favor of accepting a high risk of getting blown up by a proven madman who already has anthrax and VX gas, and who will have nuclear weapons one of these days, will fall on deaf ears at my house. I do not care about Hand-Wringing Items A, B, C, or even D. I care about getting blown up. When that threat is out of the way, we can talk about the niceities of Iraq's future.
Are you volunteering for the job?
Regardless, of how easy or not it is to assasinate a dictator in his own country, this war is not about merely killing Saddam any more than World War II was about merely killing Hitler.
If Hitler had been killed on December 8, 1941, a long list of Nazi leaders would have been available to take his place and Nazi war aims would still have been pursued. Meet the new Boss. Same as the old Boss.
Likewise, Saddam's death would not change Iraqi determination to acquire nuclear weapons.
This war is not about killing an individual. It is about killing an entire political regime and the armed forces that keeps that regime in power.
Not really.
The U.S. declared war on Japan on 8 DEC 1941.
Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S. on 11 DEC 1941.
The U.S. declared war on Germany the same day only after Germany declared war on the U.S.
The "formal alliance" with Japan did not do Germany much good in it's war with the Soviet Union as Germany's so-called Japanese "ally" decided to sit the Nazi-Soviet War out.
Why Hitler was stupid enough to declare war on the U.S. instead following the Japanese example in the Nazi-Soviet War is a question that still puzzles historians. Maybe Hitler thought that Japan would return the favor and attack the Soviet Union's Asian flank? If so, Hitler lost that gamble.
Hell with this kind of thinking we'd still be fighting WWII...fighting in 1 country at a time. Clean the Nazi's out of Italy and defeat Il Duce's fascists...make sure every one of them are dead...and then stick around long enough to found a stable gov't and rebuild their armed forces for defensive purposes. We would have been finished there by 1950 or 51 and then we could have tackled France. Of course by now Hitler would have the whole of France thoroughly occupied, but so what...how many wars do people expect us to fight at the same time? Sheesh!
Someone should tell this guy that we're not fighting two different wars...it's the same damned war!
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.