“I am scared,” said a friend, discussing Iraq. So am I. And
sick at heart.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Under the
cloak of fighting terrorism and Saddam Hussein, George Bush is making a
catastrophic — perhaps irreversible — change in US foreign policy. That
change will affect not only the United States but also countries and innocent
people throughout the world. It is one of the most serious, far-reaching
foreign-policy moves in decades.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย The media
are focused narrowly on Bush’s plan to attack Iraq, and certainly that’s the
immediate crisis. The public and Congress are going along with Bush with little
more than a whimper. Our previous war against Iraq wiped the horrors of Vietnam
from our memory. World War II’s gruesomeness, laid out in Saving Private Ryan… well, that was just a movie. Besides, World
War II was long ago. We fight high-tech wars now. Quickly, cleanly, and from
above.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย But Desert
Storm didn’t spare Iraqi citizens and soldiers. And it didn’t remove Saddam
Hussein. The coming war, many experts predict, is likely to be long, expensive,
and bloody, requiring American troops on the ground. There will be Americans
dead. Brits dead. And thousands of innocent Iraqis dead.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Saddam has
been restrained until now by the threat of US force. Once we start this war,
will he unleash biological and chemical weapons on his own people, on our
troops, on nearby nations — Israel, for example?
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Even if we
succeed in removing (whatever that means) Saddam, this will be no in-and-out
operation. We will have to stick around, for years, and help build a new
nation. And protect a new government from warring tribal leaders. (Note
Afghanistan after the Taliban.)
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย What about
our “war on terrorism”? Do we no longer need the cooperation of other
countries? Do we not care that much of the rest of the world opposes our Iraq
plan?
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย What about
the war’s direct impact on other nations? “Are we prepared,” asks a Nation editorial, “to cope with the
outbreaks of anti-American protest and violence that… are sure to erupt
throughout the Muslim world, jeopardizing the survival of pro-US governments in
Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia and further inflaming the Israeli-Palestinian
crisis?”
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย And what
about Pakistan, where President Musharraf has a tenuous hold? “If a wave of
public anger helped Islamic radicals unseat” Musharraf, writes William Galston
in The American Prospect, “we would
have exchanged a dangerous regime seeking nuclear weapons for an even more
dangerous regime that possesses them.”
Even worse than
Bush’s planned attack on Iraq is what it signifies. It is the first
eruption of the United States’ dangerous new foreign policy of pre-emption: war
as a deterrent. No longer will we work with other nations toward world peace.
No longer will we give at least lip service to international law. No longer
will we rely on a policy of containment.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย If the
president of the United States decides that another country poses a threat, we
will attack. And we will go it alone if need be.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย We will no
longer try to serve as an example of democracy and diplomacy. Instead, we will
be the world’s model bully, using military might to get our own way.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย “A global
strategy based on the new Bush doctrine of pre-emption,” writes William
Galston, “means the end of the system of international institutions, laws, and
norms that we have worked to build for more than half a century.”
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย “We must
ask how the new norms of international action would play out,” writes Galston,
“as nations around the world adopt them and shape them to their own purposes.
(And they will; witness the instant
appropriation of the United States’ anti-terrorism rhetoric by Russia and
India, among others. It is an illusion to believe that the United States can
employ new norms of action while denying the rights of others to do so as
well.)”
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Echoes
Richard Falk in The Nation: “Far more
menacing than Iraq is the danger of a war between India and Pakistan, which
could easily be triggered in the aftermath of an attack on Baghdad, with
Islamic militants taking power from the West-leaning General Pervez Musharraf
and India responding with its own version of pre-emption.”
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย “The
planned US invasion of Iraq,” writes Seumas Milne in The Guardian, “will increase the threat of war throughout the
world. By legitimising pre-emptive attacks, it will lower the threshold for the
use of force and make aggression by powerful states more likely. It will
encourage nuclear proliferation, as states rush to get hold of some protective
deterrent. It will damage the fabric of international law and multilateral
treaties. It will encourage terrorism by pouring oil on the flames of
anti-western rage.”
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย This is
dangerous stuff. And the danger will extend long after our next war against
Iraq. If you haven’t already contacted your US senators and representative, do
so now.
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Among the links on this subject:
ย ย ย ย The nation.org
ย ย ย ย gaurdian.co.uk
ย ย ย ย prospect.org
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Want to comment in City? Write
themail@rochester-citynews.com or The Mail, City Newspaper, 250 North Goodman
Street, Rochester 14607. Please include your name, address, and daytime phone
number.
This article appears in Oct 2-8, 2002.
