A Few Words Archives - Half Formed Thoughts 03/13/03

War

I’ve put it off long enough with a few funny pieces, but I suppose it’s finally time for me to finally speak about this upcoming war in Iraq. I would have written about it sooner, but given the highly emotional state of the country right now, a wanted to be sure that I knew what I thought and that I could back up my opinions with some at least semi-developed arguments.

I almost don’t want to write this column. When I have opinions, I like my opinions to be based on facts. And no one can ever be completely certain of what is true, since we all so easily fall into the trap of ignoring whatever evidence does not fall within our narrow world-view. This is a well-known psychological phenomenon, and it usually turns into a vicious positive feedback circle which causes us to hold much more firmly to our positions than we should. Our brains are wired so that we will seek out evidence which supports our prejudices, and ignore what we perceive to be impossible.

But in the case of war, it’s even more simple than that. The truth of what is going on right now is not being told to us, and for good reason. If our government feels that war is necessary, leaving aside for the moment the question of whether they’re right, they should do everything in their power to make sure that we win as quickly and decisively, and with as little loss of human life, as possible. And that end is most definitely NOT achieved by being fully open with the public about its intentions or reasons. The elements of fear and surprise are invaluable assets in war. Along with ruthless efficiency.

Still, as citizens in a democracy we’ve got to have opinions, right? And since we can only base our opinions on the best available data, that will have to suffice.

As I see it, there are three, perhaps four, possible reasons we are about to go to war with Iraq. The first reason, which seems to be the official position of the Bush administration, is that Saddam Hussein has failed to comply with United Nations resolutions to disarm, and he continues to stockpile weapons of mass destruction, perhaps even seeking to obtain nuclear capability. Since he has not complied with UN resolutions despite being given a decade to do so, he has to be disarmed by force.

Whether any of these claims are true, I have no way of knowing. I’ve heard of the existence of evidence, and what little of it I have seen is of such low quality that it hasn’t proven anything to me. But, as I have stated, I don’t expect my government to provide me with evidence to support its every decision. Some of it has more than likely been gathered using classified techniques and to reveal it might also reveal more of our classified information gathering techniques than we would like. We probably have techniques we keep secret even from our allies.

So I’ll concede the premise that Saddam currently possesses unauthorized weapons. He’s a naughty boy. But is that a sufficient reason to attack? I don’t think so. In the first place, I don’t think that the UN should have the right to dictate any country’s internal policy, whether military or domestic. If the UN passed a resolution condemning our development of the “Star Wars” missile defense system, and ordering us to scrap it, does anyone think we would be deterred in any way at all? We had already signed a treaty which forbade it, so we just cancelled the treaty and went right on developing it. Good for us. We should do whatever we feel is necessary to protect ourselves, even if the rest of the world doesn’t like it. See also: The Kyoto Treaty.

And so should Saddam. We’ve got nuclear missiles capable of obliterating all life on this planet (with the exception of Janet Reno) a hundred times over. So by what moral authority do we tell him that he can’t? How is this situation any different from that horrible commercial in which the father angrily confronts his son about some drugs he had found to which the son replies, “I learned it by watching you”?

The difference, some would claim, is that Saddam is an insanely evil madman bent on world domination, whereas we’re a civilized democracy. Perhaps some people read too many comic books. I think it’s safe to say that no person gets anywhere in the business of running a country without being a heartless, amoral scumbag. And that’s probably even truer in Iraq than the United States. So while I don’t think Saddam is going to be winning the Nobel Peace Prize anytime soon, has he really proven himself to be a threat to our national interest?

That brings us to the second possible justification for war against Iraq, that he supports terrorists like Al Queda and the upcoming obliteration is just step two in the War on Terror.

Unlike the first reason, I just can’t swallow this one. For if it were really true, the first reason would be irrelevant. When we were attacked on our soil, and thousands of Americans died, the world stood 100% behind us in obliterating the Taliban in Afghanistan. No one protested that war, not even France.

If we had evidence that Saddam was giving aid to Al Queda, or that he was planning to give them assistance in some future terrorist action against us, then we wouldn’t be playing this silly inspections game of hide-and-seek right now. If we could prove that Saddam was in bed with terrorists, we would already have taken him out, and no one would have objected. So either Bush doesn’t care about world opinion, or he can’t prove that Saddam has plans to attack us.

But some might say that when American lives are at stake we shouldn’t wait until we have credible knowledge of an imminent attack. If you kill the baby cobra, you never have to be wary of the adult’s bite. This may be satisfying to some people, but not to me. Saddam has to know that any attack on the United States, terrorist or military or otherwise, would be the last decision he made as a breathing human being. An attack on us would be his death warrant, and will be no matter how many weapons he develops. If the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction worked well enough to keep the Evil Empire at bay for 40 years, how is Iraq any different? The Soviet Union was way more of a threat than Iraq could ever be. It’s as if the Red Sox beat the Yankees but were then afraid of the Devil Rays. It doesn’t make sense to me.

And there is the simple fact that many others have already observed, that an unpopular attack on Iraq will infuriate our enemies even more, making further terrorist actions more, not less, likely.

Which brings us to the third possible reason for this war, which most of the anti-war activists believe is the real reason, oil. Bush and the Republican Party are in bed with the Big Oil Companies and the Evil Selfish SUV Drivers, and this whole affair is designed to ensure a steady, ample supply of cheap oil so we can keep driving our Ford Hippopotomic Land Masses. From what I know of politics and human nature, that seems plausible enough, but I’m not certain exactly how a war with Iraq will accomplish it. Iraq has a lot of oil, true, but it’s not likely that we’re going to plunder it after Saddam is defeated, nor make Iraq the 51st state. Is Kuwait giving us oil at below market prices since we liberated them?

If, as it is claimed, we don’t really care that Saddam is a murderous madman, but we just want his oil, wouldn’t the more logical move be to make peace with him? The United States has certainly never shied away from befriending evil murderous tyrants before, so long as there was something in it for us. “No Blood For Oil” sure looks great on protest posters and bumper stickers, but given how relatively cheap gasoline already is even with the present Iraq embargo, it seems more like a JFK-esque conspiracy theory to me. In order for me to believe that this war is about cheaper oil, someone will have to explain to me how winning the war will result in cheaper oil.

As a matter of fact, I suspect that the most likely reason of all might be none of the above, since none of the reasons seem very persuasive to me. I suspect that our military needs some kind of major conflict every decade or two, and in the absence of any clear and present danger will gladly create one. Technology becomes obsolete rather quickly in our high-tech world, and our brilliant scientists are ever creating smarter and better bombs, guns and planes. And there’s really no performance test that can take the place of actual combat versus a real world enemy. So we might be gearing up for an attack on Iraq simply because it’s been a while since our last good invasion and it still seems like the best possible opponent. It’s certainly an evil regime with a grudge against us, and it’s big enough to put a strain on our capabilities without being too big of a threat to inflict significant casualties on our side. Or it might be as simple as a bunch of generals with nothing better to do who want to be able to tell war stories to their grandchildren the same way they heard from their grandfathers. It sure as heck wouldn’t surprise me.

So, after all that, what do I really believe? I don’t know. I’m an anti-war person generally, but not extremely, so all I can say with certainty is that I agree with the anti-war people who say that Bush has not yet sufficiently proven to the American people that war with Iraq is either necessary or just. However, I also do not believe that convincing the American people is Bush’s primary responsibility at this point. Certainly it should factor into his thinking as the 2004 campaign begins to get into gear, but even in a democracy I don’t believe that we citizens should expect a right to knowledge of all our government’s foreign policy plans. A president who invariably seeks the support and good will of his citizens cannot at the same time serve their best interests, which is one of the fatal flaws of democracy.

If I or someone in my family were in the military, I would probably feel more strongly about the issue. But on the other hand, anyone who chooses to join the military has already voluntarily put his life in the hands of other people’s decisions. One of the reasons I never joined the military is the fact that I know that 90% of all people are blithering idiots who I wouldn’t trust with my pet hamster. If a situation arose which led to a return of the draft, I would certainly expect a more satisfactory justification for war. But those people whose lives will be put at risk by Bush have volunteered, and most of them are no doubt proud and eager to serve their country in combat. So who the hell am I to disagree?

That was a hell of a lot of words to arrive at no conclusion at all. Oh well, sometimes that’s the best you can do.

Email Steve with any comments at aenor@aurora.mv.com