"We do not need to, nor should we, attack or even threaten a criminal Syria'
Published April 26, 2003
The arguments now against the war in Iraq - coming from the rather awkward position of resounding victory and liberation in just three weeks - are that our motives were "wrong" (just not pure enough for a worldview that values ideology above all else), and that this dangerous "preemptive" war would continue - driven by a bloodthirsty momentum - to rampage against others we deem unfit for rule, like, say Syria's Assad.
Preeminent among pro-war theorists all along has been classical and military historian Victor Davis Hanson: if ANYONE on the side of the hawks could be expected to argue for a continuation and expansion of hostilities, it is he. Yet this is what he wrote just yesterday:
- We do not need to, nor should we, attack or even threaten a criminal Syria with a force that we probably won't employ. Creating permanent change in Iraq and allowing the world to realign itself to new moral realities will soon enough squeeze Mr. Assad as never before. The future, you see, is on not his, but our, side. It is precisely because the last decade has seen American military power - against Noriega, bin Laden, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein - used for the promotion of human freedom and humanitarian values that our enemies are so exasperated and the neutrals so shrill. [National Review]
And what of our purity of heart? David Ignatius rather poignantly addresses such concerns:
- Muslims believe that two angels sit on our shoulders, one recording our good deeds, the other our bad ones. In Arabic, the good deeds are known as "hasanna." They are the gifts we give others without counting the cost to ourselves, or the benefit.
The decision by George W. Bush and Tony Blair to defy global opinion and invade Iraq was a hasanna — a good deed. Perhaps it will bring the United States a reward in greater security, perhaps not. But it was a virtuous act that freed a desperate people from a tyrannical regime.
If you travel this country and listen to Iraqis, it's hard not to conclude that in moral terms, this war was worth the pain and suffering it caused. The stories you hear on every street corner about life under Saddam Hussein still break your heart. People here doubted anyone would rescue them from the torture chamber that was the Iraqi state, least of all the United States. And now they are free. That's a hasanna. [Washington Post]
- "We do not need to, nor should we, attack or even threaten a criminal Syria'
- Published: April 26, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Eric Olsen
- Eric Olsen's BC Writer page
- Eric Olsen's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Brian, you certainly caught me off guard with this one - I wasn't aware the argument turned on the term "preemptive war." I see it as utterly interchangeable with "preventive war": how is a preeemption any different from a prevention? And my point about the relative ease of the war was not to say anyone in particular said it would be a nightmare.
The point was/is, that between the ease of the war, the reception from the Iraqis, the changes in Arab/Islamic thinking that are already taking place due to the success of the war, about the only anti-war argument left is the "continuous war" fear, and if VDH, one of the most outspoken hawks, says that we will not be invading anyone in the foreseeable future without specific provocation, I see NO logical anti-war positions left - that was the point.
And by the way, if a similar situation occurs again, I would have no problem whatsoever with a PREVENTIVE WAR.
Eric,
The difference between preemptive and preventive war is clear. Preemptive war requires knowledge of an imminent, pending attack--imagine if we'd known the Japanese were about to attack Pearl Harbor, for example. That attack by the Japanese, of course, was PREVENTIVE war. We had no specific plans to attack the Japanese, but we certainly had the capability to do so, and it was clear that, depending on various factors, we MIGHT attack Japan.
The difference couldn't be more clear, and it is well-established. I take your confusion on the matter as more evidence of the success of the Bush Administration in obscuring the nature and purpose of this war. Next you will no doubt be calling it Operation Iraqi Freedom.
- The point was/is, that between the ease of the war, the reception from the Iraqis, the changes in Arab/Islamic thinking that are already taking place due to the success of the war, about the only anti-war argument left is the "continuous war" fear, and if VDH, one of the most outspoken hawks, says that we will not be invading anyone in the foreseeable future without specific provocation, I see NO logical anti-war positions left - that was the point.
You see no logical positions left because you didn't look for any. Your imagination does not count as the record. Your imagination, in fact, has apparently allowed you to forget the words "weapons of mass destruction." Remember those? How could you possibly write a post expressing, categorically, that there are "NO logical anti-war positions left" without even mentioning WMD anywhere in the post?
Let's go back to mid-March. Here are just three of the most compelling reasons not to go to war:
1. The United States is lying to the U.N. to try to rush into this war. Inspections are ongoing, and it is not at all clear that Iraq's WMD cannot be taken care of through this toughened--and perhaps even more toughened--inspections process. At this point, we don't need war to protect the U.S. from an attack, and it is far from clear that we need war to prevent Saddam from possessing WMD. Let's wait the "weeks" that the Security Council-appointed inspection teams says it will take to get a definitive answer to that 2nd question.
2. Even if the United States does attack, it is not at all clear there is a plan to win the peace in Iraq. What will happen after Saddam is ousted? How do we know that will be better (for the Iraqis as well as the U.S.)? We don't--therefore, let's not rush into a war that clearly is not urgent.
3. By rushing into this war and freely lying to the U.N., the U.S. is shattering an important instrument of peace on this planet. Let's not destroy the U.N. just to go to war in Iraq. Our allies matter.
Your argument is a straw man argument, Eric. You pretend the anti-war camp's argument were exclusively limited to a handful that were not even the principal arguments against the war.
Finding a few warnings among many that have not panned out (in other words, if the skeptics suggested 10 things that might go wrong, you try to find 3 that haven't panned out) wouldn't be much of an achievement anyway. But even your main point, that VDH's essay is iron-clad proof that the U.S. does not intend to intimidate the rest of the world with its military power, doesn't even make sense. An essay is an essay. It isn't proof of what is going to happen in the future.
- And by the way, if a similar situation occurs again, I would have no problem whatsoever with a PREVENTIVE WAR
"Occurs again." Apparently you misunderstand. Preventive war is not dependent on an occurrence. It is dependent on a CONDITION. And the proper conditions--a big threat somewhere or one that could turn into a bigger threat someday, maybe--exist in approximately, oh 100, or maybe 1000, different places on the globe.
Preventive war is not a response to an incident. That's what has everyone on Earth so worried. Preventive war is simply a choice. Among all of the countries on Earth that you can plausibly IMAGINE might become a threat someday (in up to "5 years" according to Bush), you simply point at one and say, "You."
It's easy to endorse this policy when you're the one who gets to do the pointing.
Brian, you only serve to prove Eric's point by bringing up three arguments that have no validity whatsoever.
1) Clear logic dictates that Saddam wanted WMD, was developing, had them at one time (I would contend they are still in Iraq), and had a propensity for using them. Furthermore, we had reason to fear Saddam would transfer his WMD to terrorist groups to use against the US and that he had the means of delivery himself if he so desired. To ignore this logic is to doom the US to another 9/11 type of attack. But as events have played out, this logic was more than just fantasy. Saddam was in contact with Islamist terrorists and there is ample evidence of a WMD-Iraq connection. Furthermore, you argue for more and tougher inspections -- if the US military controlling Iraq has only been able to find traces of WMD, how would the UN been able to do any better?
2) There was all kinds of news about US post-war Iraq plans; always attacked, when the news leaked, by the left. This argument is more along the lines of, we don't like the post war plans, so they must not exist, because they don't agree with our collectivist vision for how countries should be run.
3) Our allies matter, but the U.N. doesn't. Our true allies joined us in the liberation of Iraq; our suspect allies sat around with their thumbs up their asses collecting pay checks (as we now know) from Saddam's corrupt regime. We cannot conduct our foreign policy based on who does or does not agree with us. We must conduct our foreign policy based on what is best for the United States.
As for your loaded phrase -- rush to war -- I wouldn't call 12 years a rush.
Howard answered substantive points. But re VDH: he isn't the government, an essay is an essay, BUT, regime change in Iraq was the clear product of the thinking of a very few influential individuals, including VDH, and if he, one of the architects of the vision, if not the nuts and bolts of the war, counsels against attacking or even threatening Syria as unnecessary, then we can take this as damned good indication of where official thinking is. That was the point.
Re your preventive/preemptive concerns: you can generalize all you want about how the conditions that preceded this war are in a "hundred" other countries, but we all know that is just rhetorical nonsense. There were very specific, narrow conditions that made this war both proper and doable, and those conditions exist nowhere else right now. Please stop pretending you can't see these distinctions for the sake of debate. The American people see the difference, I see the difference, even stupid George W. Bush sees the difference, and you're not stupid.
Howard,
- Furthermore, you argue for more and tougher inspections -- if the US military controlling Iraq has only been able to find traces of WMD, how would the UN been able to do any better?
This is hilarious. It reminds me of Rumsfeld's saying, when asked why there was no convincing evidence for his claims in the rush to war, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
In other words, because I say it, it is true. If evidence turns up, I was right. If evidence does not turn up, I was also right. I am always right. Evidence doesn't matter.
Eric,
- Re your preventive/preemptive concerns: you can generalize all you want about how the conditions that preceded this war are in a "hundred" other countries, but we all know that is just rhetorical nonsense.
No, we don't all know that. While you are right that there are many specifics here that don't apply elsewhere, it is the essentials that matter. The laundry list of reasons for this war (I don't remember how many at last count, but they shift in retrospect anyway--I think removing "weapons of mass destruction" was the primary one, but maybe that was only for a few days) is impressive in quantity, I will grant you, and finding the precise combination of contributing factors again--WMD (real or imagined), Gulf War 1 ("finish the job"), oil, a politically dangerous domestic situation in the U.S. that requires distracting the U.S. public during a mid-term election--might not be possible.
However, one might consider it, as you say, "stupid" to suggest that this unique combination of factors makes this war uniquely defensible. Preventive war is still preventive war. A doctrine is still a doctrine.
And the Bush Doctrine does not say, "we will attack another country only if the following unique set of circumstances exists: 1)..."
Rather, the Bush Doctrine says, "If we think you might be a threat in the future, we are allowed to attack."
Brian, I am glad you recognize Iraq to be a special set of circumstances, but your representation of the Bush Doctrine is a bit off: he said we would g oafter terrorists and those who harbor them, which it now appears clear applies to Saddam, and that is the most important basis for this action. The WMD simply him the most dangerous terrorist. What about North Korea? Just too dangerous and unpredictable to attack right now - I could certainly see a strategic surgical strike against nuclear targets if we can pinpoint them, but the geography of the situation is very dangerous.
Eric,
You're dead wrong about what the Bush Doctrine says. Even those in the White House would disagree with you--using euphemisms for what they really mean, no doubt, but disagree they would.
The Bush Doctrine states unequivocally that the United States has a right to attack if it in its sole discretion determines that a county might become a threat to the U.S. at some point in the future.
That's not an exaggeration. That's United States foreign policy.
Yes, Iraq is a "special" set of circumstances. So is every single other country on the face of the Earth. No country is an exact duplicate of any other. And every single one of these very "special" cases is subject to the Bush Doctrine.
The argument you are attempting to make in defense of the Iraq war would make sense if Iraq had attacked the U.S., or had attacked another country's borders. That would not only be a special circumstance, but it would be recognized the world over as legitimate.
The problem with the Iraq war is that few countries (by "few" I mean the coalition of the coerced and bribed, plus Britain) recognize the "special" circumstances the U.S. is claiming as legitimate. And now, of course, we are seeing the closest-to-legitimate factor we cited--WMD that could threaten the U.S. (in the U.K., Parliament was told a WMD attack on England could be launched in 45 minutes)--is starting to look like a lie, er, "mistake."
Suddenly a lot of other countries look a lot more "special" by our own standards. After all, plenty of countries have real WMD, not just imaginary ones.
Attacking "counties" now are we? (smile) I don't believe anyone in th White House would agree that the policy is "anyone who may become a threat in the future": that would be literally anyone. I will buy anyone who is a threat now (or at any given time) could be theoretically attacked. As far as WMD: do you doubt that the regime has done everything it possibly can for the last 12 years to hide what it was doing? And that once attack became inevitable, it destroyed, exported, buried even deeper, what it had? You can find what you are looking for in the evidence found thus far.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/4878)
Eric,
You wrote:
The arguments now against the war in Iraq - coming from the rather awkward position of resounding victory and liberation in just three weeks...
There's nothing awkward about maintaining an anti-war position now, unless you live in a fantasy land where anti-war people said, "The United States military isn't nearly strong enough to win this war. There is no way a country with a $400B military budget could possibly defeat a country with a $1B military budget."
Nobody doubted the U.S. would prevail. While some on the left and the right predicted it would be/could be more difficult than it was (including Bush, who warned the nation to be ready for a tougher and longer fight), the anti-war position was never fundamentally made from the notion that the U.S. would not be victorious.
What IS a bit awkward is your attempt to portray a disgreement within the neoconservative movement about how soon further aggression should begin as a repudiation of the anti-war camp's fears.
This argument AGAINST an invasion of Syria wouldn't even be necessary unless there were clear evidence that members of the Bush Administration have a far more aggressive view.
The anti-war argument isn't "down the drain." It is being confirmed every day.
Are you really trying to claim that because on April 26 the U.S. has not already invaded another country, any fears about the preventive war doctrine are unfounded? Where did this deadline come from?
Please quote from the war opponent who said a second invasion would happen by April 26. Or, alternately, the one who said, "Military historian Victor Davis Hanson is sure to write an article in National Review arguing for an invasion of Syria."
...and that this dangerous "preemptive" war would continue...
You are correct, by the way, to put "preemptive" in quotes, although I doubt you meant the irony in a way that is consistent with fact. "Preemptive" war is a war taken to immediately stop a known, specific, imminent attack. By contrast, "preventive" war is war undertaken to stop a possible or imagined future attack. As far as I know, there isn't any disagreement on these definitions--the Bush team has simply popularized the use of the "preemptive" term by misusing it consistently.
That doesn't mean you have to, though (especially when pretending to quote the anti-war side). If you wanted to be accurate, you could actually, and I know this will be hard for you, but you could actually write the words "preventive war." That's what it is--you might as well stand behind it, rather than running away from it.
Preventive war.
Preventive war.
Preventive war.
Preventive war.
I know it's offensive. But remember--it's what you believe in.
Preventive war. It's not a pejorative made up by the other side. It's the correct term by any reasonable, established definition.
"Preemptive" war, however, in the context of the war on Iraq, is merely a dodge--it's a word used by someone who can't bring himself to state what he really believes.