Rationale for Iraq war unconvincing
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
OUR VIEW
9/8/02
Wisely ignoring the more rash voices in his administration, President Bush last week conceded that he needs permission from Congress before launching an invasion of Iraq. His grudging but welcome acceptance of constitutional reality sets the stage for a much-needed national debate.
The stakes are enormous, reaching well beyond the immediate issue of Iraq. In the weeks to come, we will also be debating who we are as a nation, how we expect to conduct ourselves in the future in a much-changed world, and what example we -- the world's pre-eminent nation -- will set for other countries.
The administration acknowledges that the invasion of Iraq as proposed by President Bush would be a revolutionary change in U.S. foreign policy and in its use of military power. This war would be unprovoked, and we Americans would be its clear instigators. Furthermore, unless something dramatic changes, it would be a war fought largely by ourselves, in direct defiance of much of the rest of the world.
Such a war might indeed be necessary under certain conditions. But so far, those conditions have not been met.
First, to justify a pre-emptive strike we would need strong if not overwhelming evidence that an attack by Iraq was imminent. Administration officials continue to assert that such danger exists, yet they present no evidence to support that claim. The closest they have come is to suggest that Saddam Hussein could provide weapons of mass destruction to terror groups, who in turn would use them against us.
They're right: He could, and they would.
However, nothing in Hussein's history suggests that he would take such a step. He has possessed chemical and biological weapons for 20 years, and has never shown any sign of letting them out of his direct control. Furthermore, no substantive link has ever been established between Hussein and al-Qaida.
Nonetheless, by using the week of Sept. 11 to press his case against Iraq, Bush is attempting to create at least an emotional link where no logical link exists. Al-Qaida is a group of fanatically religious terrorists willing and even eager to commit suicide in order to strike at American targets; Hussein is a tin-pot military dictator concerned with preserving his own life and power. While they are both our enemies, using one as an excuse to attack the other makes no sense.
Second, a pre-emptive war -- any war, really, but particularly a war launched without provocation -- must be a last resort, a course chosen only when other alternatives fail. That is consistent with international law as well as our national values. In 1991, for example, only military force would have worked to oust Hussein from Kuwait, and we had every right to use it.
In this case, however, a better alternative is available: containment. That approach worked for 45 years against the Soviet Union, a far more powerful and dangerous foe than Hussein will ever be. And Hussein, at age 65 and living at the core of an extremely violent society, will not last anywhere close to 45 years.
As Americans, we have more economic and military power than any other country in the world -- our superiority in those realms is unchallenged. But wisdom, it is safe to say, has been allocated more evenly among the nations of the world. If some of our leaders believe that war against Iraq is necessary, while almost every other nation believes we've gone a little nuts, that reality ought to give us pause.
There's also the matter of international law. In a speech to the United Nations scheduled for Thursday, Bush will no doubt stress the fact that Iraq continues to flout U.N. Security Council resolutions. However, if we choose to attack Iraq without support from the United Nations, we too would be in violation of international law.
We would also set a powerful and destabilizing precedent that others would be more than willing to follow. India could cite our example to justify an attack against Pakistan. Russia could use it to invade neighboring Georgia, where Chechnyan rebels have taken shelter. All over the globe, any nation that felt threatened by a neighbor would have an excuse to act.
Last week, former South African President Nelson Mandela tried to reach Bush to discuss Iraq, but the president refused to take his call. Mandela then sent his message via a press conference. He urged Iraq to accept U.N. inspectors and pleaded with the United States to act only with U.N. approval.
"They are the only superpower in the world today," Mandela said, "and they must be exemplary in everything they do."
That's a heavy burden, but one we should be proud to bear.
accessatlanta.com |
