An unnecessary, avoidable, dangerous war
Robert Malley
IHT
Friday, March 7, 2003
iht.com
Bush's irrational rationale
WASHINGTON After months of furious zig-zagging, the rationale for the coming U.S. invasion of Iraq finally has landed where it always was meant to be. This war-to-be has little to do with disarmament and everything to do with regime change.
.
As the Bush administration has made plain, it matters not now whether Saddam Hussein destroys more weapons or cooperates with the inspectors. These steps, we are told, are only being taken in response to the pending military threat - whose purpose, mind you, was precisely to force such concessions - and therefore are of no moment.
.
It is good to know this now rather than during the war. It would have been better to have known it earlier, rather than on the eve of the confrontation, with the momentum for war so irresistible that retreat would be akin to surrender.
.
Being candid from the outset about the purpose and goals of the war would have been a matter of sound public policy and of fair, accountable government. At a minimum, it would have helped clarify the debate among the American people and their representatives, and sharpened their cost-benefit analysis.
.
It is one thing to put American men and women at risk in order to defend America's national security against a genuine nuclear, biological or chemical threat. It is quite another to do so in order to overthrow a despotic and ruthless regime, regardless of the ability of means short of war to prevent or dissuade it from using such weapons - indeed, regardless of the likelihood that war will increase rather than decrease the risk that they will be used.
.
The administration has never offered a truly persuasive answer to the argument that a combination of intrusive inspections within Iraq and a strong military presence outside could adequately contain and deter the Iraqi threat. Little wonder: If the principal motivation is to topple the regime, install its democratic successor and reorder the region, neither containment nor deterrence will advance the goal. Indeed, they will both retard it.
.
Being informed up front of the actual war goals also would have helped the American people more accurately measure whether it will be worth its many other costs. The trans-Atlantic alliance is badly shaken. NATO is in crisis. In the Arab world, leaders face the daunting challenge of either risking the U.S. support on which they depend to remain in power by opposing the war or risking the little popular legitimacy they still have by facilitating it.
.
The credibility and future usefulness of the UN Security Council is being undermined by the application of the odd principle that Washington will support it only insofar as it follows the U.S. lead. Throughout the world, faith in the United States is reaching an all-time low, with increasing numbers viewing it as an agent of disorder rather than order.
.
As resentment grows, so does the risk of anti-American violence and terror, and so does the cultural and political divide that separates America from the Muslim world. Militant Islamism, far more than modernist democracy, is likely to emerge victorious from the political debris. All this before a single shot has been fired.
.
Nor are the demands made on the United States, or the risks presented it, identical under the two scenarios. A program of regime change followed by regional transformation, as compared to targeted disarmament, requires a far greater commitment of resources, staying power and hubris that may not come naturally to the American people. And it is all the more likely to trigger long-term resistance and terrorist revenge, even though the war will be victorious, and even though it may well be quick.
.
President George W. Bush's decision to commit his citizens to a course of action that will have grave and lasting repercussions for them is only the mirror image of how the administration is dealing with the rest of the world. For the consequences of a military invasion of Iraq will be felt not by the United States alone, but shared by the West as a whole.
.
The Bush administration must be credited with having brought to the world's attention a genuine, complex threat: the perilous marriage of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, through the mediation of so-called rogue states. But by using this legitimate rationale to justify an altogether different war, it is endangering its legacy even before it has put its first case to the test.
.
It is too late to walk back, we are told, as more troops keep pouring in. Too late, as the military momentum for war keeps growing. Too late, in other (truly irrational) words, because the means - a huge military buildup - must now justify the ends: an unnecessary, avoidable and dangerous war.
.
The writer was President Bill Clinton's special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs from 1998 to 2001. |
