The thirst for war: Is it justified?

The United States will invade Iraq. It has become a fait accompli in the minds of most policymakers, whether they are in America or the Arab world. Senators Biden and Hagel, after returning from a recent trip to the Middle East, remarked that every Arab leader they met felt that an American war with Iraq was inevitable. The hawkish constituents of the Bush administration such as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfovitz (known in certain circles as the prince of darkness) and Richard Perle, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board that is the principal advisory panel to the Pentagon, have feverishly promoted an invasion of Iraq almost immediately after Sept. 11. Perle said in an interview (Oct. 2001) with PBS: " The question of Saddam Hussein is at the very core of the war against terrorism. There can be no victory in the war against terrorism if, at the end of it, Saddam Hussein is still in power."

So is this the end of the debate? Does the United States have to unequivocally invade Iraq and replace Saddam Hussein militarily? President Bush's pivotal State of the Union speech to Congress shifted the agenda from the war on terrorism to a war against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by labeling Iran, Iraq and North Korea in a delightful axis of evil. However, incorporating this fight with the war against terrorism is erroneous. There is no proven link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime. In fact, they are antithetical in their core principles. The Ba'athist regime in Iraq is harshly secular, and is completely incompatible with Islamist groups such as that of bin Laden. If anything, the focus on Iraq has significantly hindered the stabilization of Afghanistan and the war against terrorism in general.

If the real threat from Iraq is weapons of mass destruction, is the United States compelled to invade? It seems rather senseless to make a policy of attacking nations based simply on the assumption that a country will potentially have the desire to develop chemical and biological weapons. The hypocrisy of this position is that the United States holds the most dangerous WMDs on the face of the planet. However, even if the policy was to target Iraq because it is also a "rogue state," where would this train of thought stop? Would Iran, North Korea, Syria and others be next? This policy could not only pave the way for a bloody future, but could also earn the United States the label of an imperial hegemon.

In Iraq's case specifically, are these WMDs truly dangerous enough for the United States pursue an invasion? President Bush (II) repeatedly uses two examples of Hussein's use of biological and chemical weapons to make the case for an attack: against the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War and then again against the Kurds in the northern Iraqi city of Halabja. Yet, when these incidents occurred, the American government was fully aware of them and subsequently squashed both Congressional investigations and a U.N. Security Council discussion on the issue. If the weapons are so dangerous today, why were they not back then? It could be said that Iraq would use these weapons against the United States. Fortunately, Iraq has never attacked any American installations in the Middle East nor the U.S. itself. It would be tantamount to political suicide for Saddam Hussein to pursue such a course of action, and all previous history has shown that this is not a likely scenario. Moreover, neighbors of Iraq, who are not necessarily on friendly terms (see Iran) do not view the alleged existence of these weapons as a significant threat. Iraq would also need delivery systems that it clearly does not have to attack the United States.

An invasion of Iraq would set a very clear and dangerous precedent that would approve of preventative (not even preemptive) war. In terms of international relations, preventative war in Iraq could be disastrous as it would set a path in the future where we could see states other than America choose to invade a country of their choice. Russia may choose to invade Georgia, in order to fight what it deems Chechen terrorism. India may want to invade Pakistan, and China might posture towards some of its neighbors. Australia has already drafted a policy that states it will strike any country that it views as not fighting adequately terrorism in Southeast Asia (i.e. Malaysia). The precedent would be as dangerous on the domestic front. If the United States invades Iraq today, what will stop the administration from pondering preventative strikes against Iran, Syria and others, as mentioned before?

The talk of an invasion has been cloaked in terms of Wilsonian idealism by hawkish elements of the Bush administration. The belief is that an overthrow of the Iraqi regime would lead to a regional transformation, and a flourishing quasi-democracy in Iraq. However, these are highly unrealistic expectations, and the actual effects could be counterproductive to this vision. An American invasion of Iraq would likely feed the flames of anti-American sentiment and support for Al Qaeda, especially if the invasion becomes a protracted and destructive war, something that is very likely. We must remember that bin Laden was created by the first Gulf War. Moreover, there is no calculus which determines that Iraq or the Middle East would become pro-American even if there was regime change in Iraq. How would the Bush administration handle a new Iraqi regime that refused to sell its oil to the United States?

Despite the flaws of an invasion, it is not enough to just silence the frightening calls for war. The cacophonous clamor of elements of the left have been deafening in their silence with regards to formulating a credible alternative to war. The fact of the matter remains that Iraq is a rogue state that has and may continue to threaten regional stability, and is led by a ruthless dictator who has brutally murdered his people and continues to repress them to this day. Although the sanctions have been deadly and destructive, whatever wealth there is in Iraq, Saddam has kept much of it from the Iraqi people (especially the Shiites in Basra and the Kurds).

Without an invasion, what will happen to this brutal regime? Can we stand idly by while the innocent civilians continue to suffer at the hands of a narcissistic and sadistic dictator and oppressive international sanctions? As British Prime Minister Tony Blair said: "Our quarrel is with Saddam, not the Iraqi people. They deserve better. Iraq is a country with a very talented population, a country that is potentially rich and successful. We want to welcome it back into the international community. We want the people to be free to live fulfilling lives without the oppression and terror of Saddam." Nonproliferation is also a noble objective, and U.N. Security Council resolutions mandate that Iraq must disarm.

Is there a credible alternative to war? Perhaps in the end the international community will need to use military force in order to induce a regime change in Iraq, but before that occurs we need to exhaust all possible options. The international community, led by the United States, needs to change its approach that presently is extremely aggressive and unclear. The first step that needs to be taken is to effectively have Saddam Hussein declared a war criminal. This could be done under various legal auspices by both expatriate Iraqis and individual states. The case could be taken before the International Court of Justice, and certain countries such as the Belgium that have laws which allow the indictment of war criminals.

The second step is to enforce smarter sanctions that would more clearly isolate the political elite of Iraq. However, these sanctions have to be widely enforced to be effective. The international community and regional actors such as Jordan and Syria need to clearly enforce these new smarter sanctions, which would target personally the ruling party of Saddam Hussein, and enforce a travel ban as well as aggressive freezing of all personal assets of the ruling party and top government officials.

The third step is to give an opportunity to the weapons inspectors to rigorously investigate Iraq's weapons programs. This inspections regime should not only be reinforced both militarily and politically, but must also transform a team of weapons monitors and remain in the country indefinitely. If any weapons facilities are found, they must be destroyed, and any weapons of mass destruction should be discarded. The fourth step is to sponsor strong opposition to the rule and instigate civil unrest. Opposition groups in southern and central Iraq currently receive very little support both financially and militarily from the United States. Perhaps, frozen assets of Iraq abroad can be used to support such opposition groups. There should be as much of an effort as possible to empower the Iraqi people to overthrow the regime themselves. Through these same groups and others, the United States should encourage mass strikes, and other forms of civil unrest in parts of Iraq in order to destabilize the regime. In order to facilitate the success of opposition groups perhaps the no-fly zone should be extended to almost the whole of the country, allowing only civilian and humanitarian travel.

War is never a preferable option, and the international community and the United States must try its best to avoid it. By pursuing an alternative but credible course of action against Saddam's regime, there will hopefully be defectors and built-up opposition. Thorough weapons inspections will also serve to disarm the threat from Iraq. Attacking Iraq will be accompanied by a myriad of grave consequences. We urgently need to reevaluate the current jingoistic and imperialist drive for an invasion that we will all end up regretting. Taufiq Rahim is a Wilson School major from W. Vancouver, British Columbia. He can be reached at trahim@princeton.edu.