Cross-Blog Iraq Debate
February 15th, 2003 | by Tony Steidler-Dennison |Both Stand Down and The Truth Laid Bear have posted questions for the Cross-Blog Iraq Debate. Pick your position and answer the questions in your blog. Anti-war bloggers should comment or TrackBack to Stand Down, while those in favor of war with Iraq should comment or TrackBack to TTLB.
Here are my responses for the anti-war position.
Question 1: If you were President of the United States, what would be your policy toward Iraq over the next year? What advantages and disadvantages do you see in your proposed policies versus the current path being pursued by the Bush administration?
First, I would step down the public rhetoric regarding Iraq, focusing our efforts behind the scenes to address the concerns of our UN Security Council allies. The French, Germans and Russians have been under the spotlight of late. Rather than dismissing their concerns as “old Europe” and “second-tier Europeans”, we clearly need to address their national issues regarding the current situation. The less attention we pay to their concerns, the stronger their influence will become.
The Arab nations in the region have no more love of Saddam than do we. We should be working to bring those countries to the forefront of a broader coalition. A lasting solution will require active input from and participation by both Arab and Western European nations, as well as Israel.
In short, as President, I would allow the UN inspectors to continue their work while also continuing to gradually build forces in the region, in cooperation and full communication with the above-mentioned allies. I would explore diplomatic solutions to the issues of concern for our Western European aliies and work closely with the Arab nations in the region to assure their participation and satisfaction with the process. This is fundamental diplomatic coalition building that will be critical to the ultimate resolution of the Iraqi problem. An immediate “Saddam solution” has, it appears, become less critical than a solution to the alienation of our aliies and the resulting “loose cannon” view of the US.
Question 2: Is there any circumstance that you can conceive of where the United States would be justified in using military force without the support of the UN Security Council — or does the UN always have a veto against US military action for whatever reason?
I believe circumstances that genuinely justify the use of military force would be fully supported by the Security Council. It’s not an issue of whether the US or any other UN member has the right to act unilaterally - all clearly do. If, for example, Saddam began to show signs of an immediate intent to use weapons of mass destruction against his people or his neighbors in the region, Security Council support would be clear and unequivocal. The first Gulf War was a perfect example of the strength of the UN when force is clearly justified. In other words, if our case to act militarily is truly justified, unilateral action will be unnecessary.
Question 3: American and British military force has allowed Northern Iraq to develop a society which, while imperfect, is clearly a freer and more open society than existed under Saddam Hussein’s direct rule. Do you agree that the no-fly zones have been beneficial to Northern Iraq — and if so, why should this concept not be extended to remove Hussein’s regime entirely and spread those freedoms to all Iraqis?
The no-fly zones have, to some extent, been beneficial to Northern Iraq. However, these regions were clearly predisposed to US support. The beneficial effect can’t easily be extrapolated to apply to the entire country. This is especially true given our current status with Western European and Arab allies, upon whom we will still have to rely to enforce such country-wide zones. While this is clearly a better alternative to full-scale military action, we again need to address the concerns of our Security Council peers in order for such action to be effective.
Question 4: Do you believe an inspection and sanctions regime is sufficient and capable of keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of the Hussein regime — and should this be a goal of U.S. policy? In what way is an inspection/containment/sanctions regime preferable to invasion? Civilian casualties? Expense? Geopolitical outcome?
Over the long term, inspections and sanctions can serve a limited but very useful purpose. If, in fact, the Iraqi regime is now engaged in misdirection and deception to protect these weapons, that fact will become clear over time. During that period, the inspections also serve to occupy the full efforts of the Iraqi government to maintain such deception. This is time that can be used fruitfully to unify world opinion and strategy for the removal of Saddam.
In that regard, the inspections are fruitful in two other areas. First, they keep the attention of the world on Iraq. This will likely prevent Saddam from taking any radical action. He’s demonstrated that his preferred modus operandi is to take such action when he believes no one is watching. Second, the inspections provide a “cooling off” period in which the opinion and strategy of the UN and its member nations can be solidified and unified.
By allowing the time necessary to coalesce world opinion, and by removing the anonymity the Iraqi regime clearly prefers, an inspections/sanctions/containment policy eliminates the concerns noted above. It prevents civilian casualties. It avoids the exorbitant financial expense a unilateral US invasion and occupation would incur. And, it allows diplomatic time to establish a voice in the region for those most affected by the outcome - the geographic neighbors of Iraq.
Question 5: What, in your opinion, is the source of national sovereignty? If you believe it to be the consent of the governed, should liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s regime be U.S. policy? If so, how do you propose to accomplish this goal absent military action? (And if in your view the sovereignty of a state does not derive from the consent of the governed, then what is the source of sovereignty?).
I do believe that the sovereignty of a nation arises from the consent of the governed. In the US, that consent is a slipperier slope than ever before. We are governed by a president who was, in reality, appointed by the Supreme Court rather than elected by the majority of the governed. Whether or not the consent of the governed actually exists in the US is an issue that won’t clearly be resolved until November 2004.
That ambiguity emboldens both our allies and our enemies. The lack of unanimity allows our allies to toughen their initial position in negotiations. Knowing that many more in the US likely share their views, it allows our allies to speak much more freely in opposition to the positions of the US government.
That divided opinion also removes subtle obstacles for our enemies. The appearance of a government divided invites action that would be given much stronger consideration under a truly united governed/governor relationship.
While the sovereignty of a nation arises from the consent of the governed, the strength of that sovereignty has been reduced in the US over the past two years.
As for Iraq, my opinion is consistent. There is no clear consent. Therefore, Iraq cannot, by any reasonable measure, be considered to be a truly sovereign entity. The only effective way to establish that sovereignty is to work toward Saddam’s removal in as unified and non-violent manner as possible. Iraq has the fundamental tools to blossom as a sovereign nation, provided the rest of the world doesn’t bomb them into the stone age. The only way the US will garner the long-term respect of the future Iraqi sovereignty is to fomulate a measured approach that removes Saddam with minimal damage and recognizes the necessity to let Iraq truly govern itself.
9 Responses to “Cross-Blog Iraq Debate”
By joseph castleschouldt on Feb 15, 2003 | Reply
Tony,
When France and Germany needed our nuclear umbrella, they claimed to be our friends. They now seek to protect a dicatator for oil. Everyone claims Bush is after oil but no one mentions France and Germanys contracts.
I think we are entering into a possible world war against the muslims. When you loose the dogs of war you can never tell who will get bit.
Joseph
By Derek James on Feb 16, 2003 | Reply
Concerning your answer to #1, would you mind clarifying a couple of specific policies?
1) Would you continue to support of economic sanctions against Iraq?
2) Would you continue the no-fly zones in the North and South?
And like many of the anti-war protesters, you would “let the inspections work”. Well, 1441 compelled Iraq to cooperate and comply. By any standard they have not, only doing so in baby steps and half-measures. What would you do specifically in the face of continued Iraqi stonewalling and noncooperation?
By Kevin Shaum on Feb 16, 2003 | Reply
I was unaware that anyone had threatened to bomb Iraq “back into the Stone Age”. Do you have a source for this, or are you just making stuff up?
Discussion of US tactics have mostly centered on the use of precision munitions to attack command centers and other military targets, as was done in Afghanistan. To me, that sounds like “a measured approach that removes Saddam with minimal damage”, if one assumes that “minimal” is not “zero”. (A reasonable assumption, given that we have spent twelve years proving the futility of negotiation.)
By Tony on Feb 16, 2003 | Reply
It’s interesting, Kevin, that that’s the only point from the post you chose to argue. I’ve removed the quotes from the offending phrase just to clear your confusion.
By Tony on Feb 16, 2003 | Reply
Derek:
Yes and Yes. And, in fact, yes.
If you read my answers, you’ll see that the reasons for continuing the inspections really have little to do with what they might turn up. They should continue a) to keep Iraq in the international spotlight and b) to allow time to truly develop a coalition that can remove Hussein and provide governance for the region afterward.
By Derek James on Feb 16, 2003 | Reply
I suppose I’m a little confused by your answer. It sounds as if you’re not really “anti-war” at all.
You want to “develop a coalition that can remove Hussein and provide governance for the region afterward.”
Sounds like you’re in favor of military action, just later and with more allies. Is that right?
By Tony on Feb 16, 2003 | Reply
Derek:
It’s a problem to get locked into interpreting “develop a coalition that can remove Hussein and provide governance for the region afterward” as meaning military action.
There may be any number of solutions that will acheive this end and not involve military action. Unfortunately, we seem, as a country, to be locked and loaded.
By Kevin Shaum on Feb 17, 2003 | Reply
Tony, I’d thank you for answering my question, except of course that you didn’t answer it. Let me rephrase: what makes you think that a US would employ a “bomb back to the stone age” battle plan (by which I presume you mean saturation bombing, napalm, perhaps even nukes), despite thirty years worth of examples to the contrary? Again, do you have some evidence that this is the plan, or are you just making stuff up?
And I am not obligated to respond to every point you make, and the fact that I challenged that assertion does not mean I concede anything else. But some things are simply a matter of opinion (for instance, I find your faith in the goodwill and good sense of the UN Security Council charmingly naive).
If you want something else to chew on, how about this? Your last paragraph emphasizes the need for both internal and international unanimity. (Leave aside for the moment this this argument could as easily be construed as a call for you and your fellow dissenters to go along and show solidarity with the pro-war American majority.) But democracies will always be divided internally; should democracies therefore never act? And should one or two self-interested parties (e.g., note Iraq’s recent contracts with France’s TotalFinaElf and Russia’s LUKoil) be able to hold other countries’ security needs in abeyance so that they can cash in?
By Tony on Feb 17, 2003 | Reply
Kevin:
You’re right that we haven’t used napalm in many years - since Vietnam, in fact. The absence of napalm doesn’t eliminate the military need to go after infrastructure to the extent that it inhibits our enemy’s military activities. That’s common knowledge that I’m suprised you’ve missed in your keen analysis. Diminished infrastructure will push an already struggling country to the brink. So - no, I’m not privvy to the secret war plans of the US government, and no, I’m not making stuff up. I’m relying on the common knowledge of necessary military tactics.
******
> I find your faith in the goodwill and good sense of the UN Security Council charmingly naive
******
I’m glad you’re charmed. Of course, that’s what I’m here for.
******
> Your last paragraph emphasizes the need for both internal and international unanimity.
******
I don’t recall writing that. In fact, what it says is:
“The only effective way to establish that sovereignty is to work toward Saddam’s removal in as unified and non-violent manner as possible.”
Emphasize “in as unified and non-violent manner as possible.” In fact, emphasize the qualifier - “as possible.” Nowhere does it say unanimity. My naievete may be charming - it’s just not stupid.
I don’t see the Bush administration making any attempt to create a unified front in the world or US community. In the US, Bush pounds the table, puts on his most serious face, and tells us that Saddam is an imminent threat. The UN inspectors have found no evidence of that. On the world stage, Bush expresses outrage that anyone would dare have an opinion that differed with ours and talks nearly daily about taking unilateral action. There is virtually no sense of the type of diplomacy it will take to bring together the necessary coalition of countries. He seems to have little interest in *any* measure of unanimity, regardless of how small.
There are potentially 300,000 US lives in the balance (the administration’s numbers, not mine). If you believe Saddam to be such a threat, it stands to reason that you must believe he’s capable of using his weapons of mass destruction when facing defeat on the battlefield. That exposes each and every one of the US soldiers to the very real threat of death. That they have volunteered to serve their country does not make such a death any less of a loss. A stack of bodies in the desert is a stack of bodies in the desert no matter how noble the cause.
Let’s move on to another side effect of the “war on terrorism” that’s now become the war on tyrants. The mere mention of war has thrown the economy into full-scale disarray. Because the world relies so heavily on the US, it’s in the interest of the world to maintain a stable economy. The destabilizing effect that even serious discussion of war has on the US economy affects the world economy as a whole. Our most prosperous period came when we were moving *away* from deficits and toward surpluses. This, by the way, was also the most prosperous period globally. When we’re prosperous, we spend money all over the world.
Now, however, we’re setting record deficits to the tune of $307 billion next year, with more to come over the next five years. To add insult to injury, no one in the administration will even speculate as to the additional costs of a war with Iraq. The current deficit projections do not take those costs into account.
This is not the time to engage in this war, period. We don’t have the support of the world community, the reasons for sending Americans into the desert are murky, at best, and the resulting additional drain on the economy will push us further into a recession, further weakening our position in the world for years to come.
How about the end strategy, Kevin? The response of the White House to any questions regarding our end game in Iraq is, “We don’t know. It’s impossible to predict how this will go. And, we don’t know how long it will take to get the job done.” Are you prepared to drain this already sagging economy for the next ten or fifteen years? More importantly, are you willing to watch the nightly casualty counts on CNN? No one thought it would happen in Vietnam, by the way, yet it did.
Frankly, I wouldn’t lose one second of sleep if Saddam was to disappear, either by internal or external forces. What I object to is sending 19-25 year-old Americans into the desert to die for a cause that has yet to be proven. If the evidence truly exists, and if Saddam truly presents a threat to the world community, our allies will rally around without hesitation. They’ve done it many times in the past. If their interests are threatened to the extent that the Bush administration would have them believe, they certainly wouldn’t stand by and watch. And, as always, they would rely heavily on us and follow our lead.