The Peacenik Top 10: The ten most popular objections to war and some commonsense responses to them

Weekly Standard ^ | 03/06/2003 | Fred Barnes

[ZGuy]

THOSE OPPOSED to military action in Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein, destroy his weapons of mass destruction, and liberate the 24 million Iraqi citizens under his control cite at least 10 objections to going to war now. These objections range from the arguable to the totally absurd. Let's examine them.

(1) Rush to war. This is a favorite of congressional Democrats. But the rush is more like a baby crawl. Iraq has been in material breach of United Nations resolutions since a few weeks after the Gulf War ended in 1991. New resolutions have been approved, inspectors ousted, and the United Nations made to look impotent. President Bush has taken all the steps asked of him before going to war: getting the approval of Congress, getting another U.N. resolution (with perhaps yet another on the way), and building a coalition of supporters. He's hardly rushing.

(2) It's a war for oil. The United States could buy all the oil it wants from Iraq by lifting the sanctions and helping to reconstruct the Iraqi oilfields. It's the French and Russians who have oil deals with Saddam and thus are fixated on that issue. They don't want a war that would upset those deals.

(3) War with Iraq will bring more terrorism. This is a hardy perennial. It was claimed before the Gulf war and the Afghanistan campaign--and when bombs fell on al Qaeda and the Taliban during Ramadan. Rather than more terrorism, removing Saddam will bring more respect for the United States. Terrorists will be increasingly fearful.

(4) The Arab street will erupt. Another perennial. This is often predicted but rarely happens. A swift, decisive victory over Saddam will quiet the Arab street. So far, only the American street has erupted--against the French and Germans.

(5) Bush is doing it for his dad. President Bush the elder stopped short of deposing Saddam in the Gulf war and to this day believes he did the right thing. So do his top aides, such as national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. Instead, they agreed to a truce with Saddam conditioned on Iraq's full disarmament. Also, consider the source of this charge: Martin Sheen.

(6) Attacking Iraq would be unprovoked aggression. No, it wouldn't. Andrew Sullivan has pointed out a significant fact: There was no peace treaty, only the truce, so the state of war resumes when the conditions are violated. By attacking now, the United States would be ending the war, not starting it.

(7) Containment is working. The problem is the right threat is not being contained: the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Sure, with U.S. troops and U.N. inspectors in the area, Saddam won't attack Jordan or Syria or other neighbors. But he could slip chemical or biological agents to terrorists without anyone knowing. And that's the threat.

(8) America doesn't have enough allies. What? Forty or so isn't enough? Is the case for war weakened in the slightest by the absence of the French or the Angolans? No. And despite what Democrats like Howard Dean say, a war with Iraq would not be "unilateral," which would mean the United States would be acting alone.

(9) Win without war. That's a nice goal. Unfortunately, it's Saddam's goal. With no war, he wins and emerges as the new strongman in the Middle East, forcing people to come to terms with him.

(10) Bush is seeking a new American empire. This is a favorite accusation of Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, the man who once recited the Gettysburg Address in Donald Duck's voice. I'll let Secretary of State Colin Powell answer this one. When hectored by a former archbishop of Canterbury on this subject recently, he said: "We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last 100 years . . . and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in." Well said.

No doubt opponents are capable of coming up with new arguments against war with Iraq. They'd better do so soon because so far they haven't convinced anyone outside the reflexively anti-Bush crowd.

[JohnGalt]

Wilsonianism is a defensible position, it's just not a conservative position.

This is a conservative website right?

[jiggyboy]

I think all these can be considered to be under the umbrella of National Defense. We've given up on the "local strongman" theory and replaced it with "liberty for all will dissuade them from attacking us". Wilsonian in effect, but perhaps not in intent.

[rmlew]

Wislonianism: Going to war to make the world safe for Democracy.

With all do respect, we are hardly Wilsonian. If we were, we would invade Africa and Democratize all of those countries. They would be far easier than Iraq.

We are attacking Iraq because Ba'athist (Pan-Arab National Socialist) Regimes alligning themselves with Islamist regimes and supporting terrorists are threats to the US. It is in our national interest to do so.
Now you may disagree. However, to call all pro-war folks Wilsonian is false.
As for Barnes, he probably is a Neo-Wilsonian. PS. You might be interest in the Paleo blog run by Jim Kalb and Larry Auster www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/

[JohnGalt]

That logic follows the liberal tradition of justifying every federalized handout as constitutional under the 'General Welfare' clause.

Even, worse, the hawks have used the tactics of the left to convince themselves the George Washington had no idea what the world would be like when he warned against "searching for foreign monsters to destroy." You can disagree with him, you can say he had no idea what the world would be like today, but at some point, you cease to be a conservative and become merely a pawn in the whims of the political ruling class of the day.

[JohnGalt]

The only conservative argument for the war is the one that the Bush team is not making. Saddam represents an uppity, backward nation in a failing backward culture. He is a logical person to make an example of in the hope of convincing other Arab members of the ruling class to get their homes in order.

Rather, the Bush Team, featuring anti-Christians and certainly anti-Conservatives, Condi Rice, Colin Powell and Fred Barbes, telling us that the war is about how awful Saddam treats his people; How Islam is really a religion of peace; how Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (who doesn't these days?); how we keep letting these people into our country...

So long as the Bush team frames the war in liberal rhetoric, the policy should be rejected by Conservatives.

But the war is a given at this point and many innocent people will die, and hopefully, Bush will be right and we will be better off. But one things for sure, if there is another terrorist attack 10 years from now in response to what happens in Iraq today, the neo-cons and the hawks will claim no responsibility, just as liberal welfare-state leftists take no responsibility for the destruction of black American society when they unleashed the war on poverty.

If the unintended consequences of Gulf War One was 9/11, why are we allowing Perle/Wolfowitz/Cheney/Rummy still steer this ship?

I will check out your link, thank you. I am a paleo-libertarian in the Yankee merchant tradition and there is plenty of disagreement between myself and my neo-confederate and prarie populist friends, but we all seem to know liberalism when we hear it.

[Consort]

[Spiff]

Don't get too upset about the unwashed malcontents getting riled up by the marxist Workers World Party to wale and stomp and throw temper tantrums in our streets. On their best day they may have brought out 200k nationwide - however 299,800,000 Americans didn't participate that day. Interest is waning, their crap is old and tired. Don't let them bother you - they're not worth it.

[Bigg Red]

...where were they when Slick Willie was doing the Missiles for Monica mission(Kosovo)?

Exactly. Those clymers are not for peace; they are just against Bush and the many Americans who share his Judeo-Christian values.

Wow! You got to shake W's hand. I am envious. Sorry you had to touch the Rapist. I hope you washed your hand in antiseptic solution after that.

[Bigg Red]

Your additional arguments are excellent! Keep gettin' jiggy wid'em.

[jiggyboy]

I'll mostly concede or plead No Contest. Before I wrote my first post here at FR I wrote on my home page that "I would fail many of the litmus tests of a true Conservative".

But re "foreign monsters", we aren't "searching" for the Muslims because we're bored; they found us. As Los Angeles and San Diego have foretold and continue to fortell the future for the Silicon Valley re language problems, race conflicts, general lawlessness, etc., Israel is the early indication of what will happen to the U.S. if the Muslims are allowed to continue their war against civilization.

[kimmie7]

pinging for a later read