Originally posted by sleeveboy
I've wanted to make a detailed post about my thoughts on the Iraq situation but hesitated, because I think the quality of the debate has been very poor. I keep seeing the same dumb arguments rehashed over and over, e.g. "Saddam will attack us if we don't attack him first", "This is a war for oil", "Saddam is consorting with Al-Qaida", "Hundreds of thousands of civilians will die", etc. etc. etc.
Truth is, there are some very convincing arguments to be made both FOR and AGAINST this war. Many of them are quite complicated and cannot be boiled down into simple catchphrases. Let's start with the case for war. Most American hawks (including Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and most of Defense) see Iraq as an opportunity to flex American muscle, to prove to the rest of the world that it is serious about fighting terrorism. It's almost beside the point whether Saddam has connections to Al-Qaida since there will be very little immediate impact to the threat of terror either way. Best case scenario is that Osama loses an ally; worst case is that it doesn't affect Al-Qaida at all. But in the long run the U.S's military presence will arguably send shockwaves through the region and, hopefully, discourage Al-Qaida from carrying out more terrorist plots. If Iraq does possess biological or chemical weapons (I loathe the term "weapons of mass destruction" because it is vague and meaningless), then we will remove them from circulation, making it less likely they will end up in terrorist hands. Looking even further down the road, if the U.S. follows up on its promise to build Iraq into a functioning republic, it could create a wave of prosperity and hope that might positively impact the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
But this rosy, Panglossian worldview takes much for granted. It assumes that an Iraq war will be quick and painless (in terms of casualties and economic loss to Iraq). It assumes that the U.S. will indeed devote a decade or more to forcing a viable democratic state in Iraq, and spend the billions of dollars necessary to do so. It assumes that the Iraqis will greet the U.S. with open arms and will not stage any protracted guerilla campaigns. It assumes that Saddam will not torch his oilfields. Etc. etc. etc. One of the worst, most dangerous assumptions behind the war effort is that it will discourage other states from developing nuclear weapons. This is a terribly flawed idea and may actually have the opposite result. Burgeoning nuclear states such as Iran may decide to
accelerate their nuclear programs, knowing that the U.S. is reluctant to attack countries with nuclear weapons and/or treat them with kid gloves (see North Korea and Pakistan). More nuclear weapons means more potential for leaks, and more leaks means more opportunities for terrorist acquisition of nuclear weapons, and more opportunities for terrorist acquisition means NYC turning into a fireball. Not to mention the horrifically destabilizing consequences of having multiple nuclear-equipped nation states.
And what if our plan to introduce a democratic renaissance in Iraq fails? The Bush administration has provided no coherent post-war plan for Iraq, no projected cost estimates, nothing (although they are requesting that their billion-dollar missile defense program be exempt from Congressional oversight). With our country in as poor shape economically as it is, it's not a stretch to imagine that Bush's grand plans for democracy will evaporate. And what then? More chaos and civil war as the various Iraqi factions fight for control? Will the U.S. be willing to stage troops in Iraq for an extended basis under such conditions? There are many, many possible bad outcomes for this war, and I'm barely scratching the surface.
So far I'm undecided about this war, but I am gravely skeptical of it. Perhaps some of you hawks can change my mind.
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Bookmarks