[current thought]
[thoughts index]

February 12, 2003

I've been watching the world mount protest after protest against war in Iraq. People I know and respect are decrying the "senselessness" of planning an attack, and I've heard just about every reason in the book. Some I even agree with. After all, who in their right mind is pro-war? Nobody!

Nobody wants to see innocent people die, and I'm certainly no-one to talk about encouraging war, having never served in the armed forces myself. One might rightly call me a hypocrite, and since I don't take that lightly, I decided to do some serious soul-searching. Why war in Iraq? Why do I think that the protestors are dangerously wrong?

Let’s examine some of their arguments:

1) War is hell.

This is the argument used by a large number of principled pacifists, and is one of the main ones being put forth by countries such as France and Germany, who claim to know all too well the horrors of war and who would prefer to exhaust any diplomatic option before resorting to force.

In general, that’s a sound principle. War is hell. But the problem with this argument is that diplomacy doesn’t work with madmen like Saddam Hussein. Saddam has a long history of stringing things along as long as possible, in order to avoid war and buy time. He has flagrantly violated U.N. Security Council resolutions instructing him to disarm and cooperate with weapons inspectors. And how are the nations of the world dealing with him? Not with strength, but with endless appeasement.

The lessons of history have taught us the dangers of appeasement. Or at least they should have. All the world is showing Saddam is that nobody is willing to take action – leaving him free to get away with anything he wants. It means the U.N. has no teeth, no capacity to enforce its own resolutions, and it is one step from fading into oblivion like the League of Nations.

A threat is empty unless it is enforced. When Neville Chamberlain gave his famous speech about “peace in our time” in 1938, defending the Munich Agreement, he set the stage for the catastrophe that was World War II. What catastrophe will this modern-day appeasement of Saddam Hussein bring?

The United States has a long-standing policy: we will not negotiate with terrorists. Rewarding terrorism – whether the terrorists are international networks like Al Qua’eda, or rogue states like Iraq – only encourages the terrorists that their tactics work.

War may be hell, but the question isn’t whether a crisis can be averted, it’s whether an even greater crisis can be pre-empted. Ousting Saddam Hussein today will cost many less civilian lives than being forced to do it in 5 years, when he has developed more weapons of mass-destruction to use against Israel, the West, and his own people. If George W. Bush is paying for the mistakes of his father today, who will pay for the mistake of appeasing Saddam Hussein today, tomorrow?

2) Bush is only after Iraq’s oil.

Ah, the left’s favourite claim. From Hollywood celebrities to Gazette columnists, it seems quite fashionable these days to claim that the war in Iraq is motivated by the black gold bubbling under the surface in Iraq. Bush must want to invade to take over Saddam’s oilfields, goes the logic.

The problem is that there’s no logic there at all. If Bush wanted oil, he would just have to start drilling in Alaska. Or perhaps invade a country in South America or two – after all, it would be much less costly to have a war there, right? Or perhaps launch a campaign encouraging the use of more energy-efficient technologies.

The point is, Iraq has had oil all along. Nobody spoke of war until Iraq threw out weapons inspectors and started developing mass-destruction technologies and sponsoring terrorism. Oil has never been a factor; it’s just a convenient excuse for the anti-war demonstrators to attack Bush.

3) Western imperialism is wrong – we shouldn’t force our values on others.

The cultural relativity argument is a tough nut to crack. After all, we have our own problems in the West. We are morally prohibited from judging other cultures, goes the argument, because there are no absolutes in morality. Who are we to say that Saddam’s dictatorship isn’t a wonderful way to live?

This argument fails on two counts. Firstly, ethical relativity is a logical fallacy, because of course we can and do criticize aspects of other cultures regularly. The same people who are rallying against war in Iraq were marching on the streets decrying South African Apartheid. And many of them are out with their picket signs protesting Israel’s policies regularly – and even its existence as a state.

Clearly, they have no qualms about attacking what they see as wrongs perpetrated by other states – selectively, that is. According to the Left, we can only attack pro-capitalism, pro-west democracies. Muslim theocracies, dictatorships, and communist states are all beyond reproach. Which, of course, is ridiculous.

The second count on which it fails is that nobody is advocating war in Iraq in order to force democracy on the people. If the people gain freedom as a result of this war, it will be a positive outcome. Protest is, after all, the invention of a free society. The Iraqi people aren’t able to march in the streets to protest against Saddam Hussein’s rule – they’d be shot or imprisoned. So Sadadm stages a few carefully crafted rallies in which citizens are forced to pretend to support him, and then claims to be the “beloved” leader of his country. (He also claims to be “elected”, though, as the joke goes, I suspect that when he heard he won 99.9% of the vote, he asked for the names of the other 0.1%).

Yes, it would definitely be a plus. But it’s not an argument for war. There are plenty of strong reasons to go to war having nothing to do with restoring democracy in Iraq. Namely, protecting the security of the world.

4) Other countries have weapons of mass-destruction – including the U.S. and even Israel – so why shouldn’t Iraq?

This one is usually accompanied by a change of subject to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and to a long barrage of complaints and insults against Israel. Then the speaker usually launches into a tirade against Zionism and Iraq is all but forgotten.

That thrills Saddam Hussein to no end. The Arab world has long claimed that no other issues can be resolved before the Palestinian crisis. Strong words for countries that never cared enough about the Palestinians to help them – except by funding terrorism. Iraq recently upped the reward to $25,000, paid to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In other words, it is crucial for the Palestinians to claim that their conflict must be resolved first – because they need the money to keep flowing from countries like Iraq. And whenever other Arab countries want to deflect attention from their dismal records on human rights, they point a finger at Israel. It’s scapegoating at its worst.

More to the point, the “other” countries, such as the U.S. and Israel, use their weapons for defense and world stability. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, has shown his willingness to launch unprovoked attacks against other countries as well as his own citizens. There’s a very good reason not to allow him to possess such weapons – because he’s sure to use them.

5) People wouldn’t hate America and Israel so much if not for their policies. Instead of attacking Iraq, they should change their policies so that they won’t be targets for terrorism.

As L. Ian MacDonald writes about Osama Bin Laden:

Most of all, says Howard, terrorist objectives have changed. In the bad old days, terrorism was a means to an end. Now it is an end unto itself.

"It used to be that they wanted a seat at the table," Howard said. "Now they want to destroy the table, and everyone sitting at it."

Do the terrorists have no agenda but terror? Actually, Osama told us what he wants, in one of his first missives from his cave: the U.S. out of the Middle East and Israel out of Israel.

Those who suggest that the U.S. and Israel give in to these demands are delusional. They want to reward terrorism, and probably most of them privately agree that Israel ought to be destroyed. I wonder if they even realize they’re advocating the slaughter of 6 million Jews . . . anyone remember the last time that happened?

Israel’s security must be assured, even if Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and other terrorists don’t like it. They don’t get to dictate world policy by launching terrorist attacks.

Saddam Hussein is not Osama bin Laden. That much is true. He’s worse. Instead of having to hide out in the mountains and run a secret network, Saddam is in control of a powerful country. He’s got weapons, an army, allies, and a seat at the bargaining table. Given the chance he could – and would – be far more dangerous.

Claiming that the U.S. should butt out of the mideast on the threat of terrorism is like claiming that Concordia University should have never invited Benjamin Netanyahu because of the threat of violence. It takes decisions out of the realm of right and wrong, and rewards terrorism and violence. The scale may be different but the theory is the same.

The U.S. should continue to fight for what’s right. Israel should continue to fight for its security. And other countries should be lining up to help. Why? Because it’s right. And because if today it’s Israel, tomorrow it could be Canada.

6) Bush hasn’t offered any proof to support his allegations against Saddam Hussein.

Completely untrue. The U.S. has made one presentation after another to the United Nations, showing clearly that has violated every single condition. And yet nothing seems convincing enough. What will constitute enough proof for the anti-war protestors? When chemical weapons explode in their living rooms?

7)If there are banned weapons, the inspectors will find them.

Oh really? Is that so? When Saddam has a whole country to hide them in? When scientists refuse to be interviewed outside the presence of Iraqi government officials, because they know they’ll be killed by Saddam if they so much as disclose the location of a safety pin?

In this game of hide-and-go-seek, Iraq has the clear advantage. If the U.S. couldn’t find Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, what are the chances of the U.N. inspectors finding banned weaponry until it’s too late?

8) Saddam may be bad, but Bush is worse.

This one is the funniest argument of all. Saddam Hussein is a ruthless, crazy dictator who has killed his own civilians, invaded Kuwait, launched unprovoked scud missiles against Israel, and shot numerous members of his own family.

George W. Bush may be dyslexic and have had a problem with alcohol, but wake up people! There is absolutely no comparison here. It’s almost as insulting as the idiots who compare Ariel Sharon to Hitler. (Almost, but not quite).

Sometimes I wonder what reality I’m living in.

In conclusion, I don’t think it’s possible to be “pro-war”. It’s like saying you’re “pro-abortion”. I don’t know anyone who’s pro-abortion; but I do know a lot of people (myself included) who are pro-choice. Why? Because the alternative is much worse.

Same logic here. War is never good. Sometimes, it’s the lesser of the evils, however. And this is such a case.

In the words of Elie Wiesel:

I find war repugnant. All wars. I know war's monstrous aspects: blood and corpses everywhere, hungry refugees, devastated cities, orphans in tears and houses in ruins. I find no beauty in it. But it is with a heavy heart I ask this: what is to be done? Do we have the right not to intervene, when we know what passivity and appeasement will make possible?

Is President Bush's policy of intervention the best response to an imperative need? Yes, it is said, and I am reluctant to say anything else. Bush's goal is to prevent the deadliest biological or nuclear conflict in modern history. If the US, supported by the UN Security Council, is forced to intervene, it will save victims who are already targeted, already menaced. And it will win. The US owes it to us, and owes it to future generations.

As the great French writer André Malraux said, victory belongs to those who make war without loving it.

I hope that there will be peace every day. But I’m not naïve enough to believe that appeasement will bring peace. Saddam Hussein must be disarmed and disposed of, in order to eliminate this grave threat to the security of the Middle East, and that of the world.