The war’s detractors meanwhile define its purpose as:
C. Foreign adventurism in the affairs of a brutal regime which nevertheless controls only a small portion of the world’s oil and poses no immediate threat to U.S. national interests;
D. An imperial land grab orchestrated by a handful of scheming oligarchs and fat cats whose goal is to preserve their grip on power, boost their oil company stocks, and protect their lavish lifestyles.
The (A) crowd — the liberal hawks — is the most interesting group because it counts among its members many who forged their politics in opposition to the Vietnam War. Now these former draft card burners are cheering Bush’s plan to blast Saddam out of existence. They see the possible bombardment of Iraq as the latest in a series of wars and revolutions that have expanded liberal democracy around the world. The former Democratic Senator Bob Kerry, Dissent magazine editor Mitchell Cohen, and American Prospect editor Richard Just are other liberals who favor forcibly removing Saddam.
Those in the (B) camp, meanwhile, see the war’s main purpose as maintaining global stability by eradicating Saddam as an agent of global terror. The bible to this group is “The Threatening Storm” by Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst in the George H.W. Bush administration, who offers extensive documentation of Saddam’s long efforts to acquire nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. If Saddam had the bomb, Pollack argues, he would almost certainly use it to seize Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti oil fields, or to destroy them while trying. The only real disagreement in this camp is over how much time the U.S. should spend to develop domestic and international support for the war and to work with Iraqi opposition groups before sending in the troops.
Two camps favor answer (C) – libertarians, always wary of foreign entanglements, and geopolitical thinkers who see Saddam as a brutal yet eminently rational and self-protective man who is, therefore, deterrable. To these folks, the likelihood of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction will actually increase if the U.S. strikes now, perhaps by activating sleeper terrorist cells in the United States, or by launching chemical or biological weapons against Israel once a war starts. Those who chose answer C also chide the administration for justifying its war plans with principles it would be impossible to follow consistently, such as neutralizing every possible nuclear power and deposing every nasty dictator in the world.
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
Very thoughtful and balanced look at the most difficult topic of our time. I very much like your ideas on personal responsibility. Thanks!
2 - rob
Nice utopian worldview, oh citizen, so full of holes I can't address it here, I should start my own blog, I suppose. Go out and do a few of those things you suggest, and if that causes Saddam to step aside and let his people live their lives freely, and causes terrorists to stop attacking us around the world, I will say you are correct. You won't of course, and neither Saddam nor the terrorists will either. In short, great ideas on paper, not likely in real life. You may have all the benevolent goodwill in the world, but not everyone does, and those people mean harm to others like you.
3 - Eric Olsen
It may be idealistic but I don't think it's utopian. The suggestion that we all try to be good neighbors is practical and idealistic at the same time, and is something we can all do to help.
4 - Tom
Interesting analysis, and one I applaud in principle. However, it seems to me that the assumption that "this war is for oil" is necessarily a bad thing might be just a tad irrational. In other words, so it's about oil. So what? As a good friend of mine put it, "If you thought about it for a while, you might find one or two reasons to put a steady, guaranteed supply of petroleum as the second most important natural resource need in the world, but most likely, you'd have to put it right at the top of the list."
Surprisingly, the "humanitarian angle" still works admirably well even from this perspective. Not only do we liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator (which, by the way, is still a noble pursuit regardless of whether it is a primary casus belli.) but we at least partially secure the Arabian Peninsulaand all its vast oil reserves. Now when we do that, we guarantee that 1) Oil is available all over the world for direct concerns such as moving products to and from markets, thereby directly keeping world infrastructure alive, and 2) America's infrastructure is kept alive and working at a reasonable level of efficiency.
Now, the first point is self-explanatory, but the second, as self-serving (not that there's anything wrong with that, necessarily) as it seems, also has a profound effect across the world. To wit: if the American economy is damaged, you can expect worldwide economic devastation. A dip in the stock market here gives brokers in London and Tokyo the cold shivers. A fluctuation in price here means people in our enormously affluent market quit buying quite so much, which means that folks in Venezuela experience untold economic hardship. People starve. Riots occur.
Now, as a global citizen, I view this little matter to be just as much a reason for action as any other. "No blood for oil?" Ha. Strategically guaranteeing that a madman can't choke off a significant part of the world's petroleum supplies, and that he can't destroy those reserves, AND that he can't indulge his expansionist tendencies to cover the Arabian Peninsula may be the most humanitarian approach we could possibly take.
Would you believe I'm not even a Republican? :)