Viewpoint
U.S. force necessary to liberate Iraq
By CHARLES DAVIS
Last September, I wrote a column for
NCR that opposed the coming war. I said at the time that the United
States was overstating the threat from Iraq while downplaying more real
dangers. But I am revisiting the issue because I now believe that to not use
force to back up the many U.N. resolutions over the past decade could lead to
more serious injury to the world than to maintain the current situation of
phony containment of Iraq.
My main reason for opposing war was that I believed that Saddam
was deterred from using weapons of mass destruction as both the United States
and Soviets were deterred during the Cold War. However, in reviewing the 1962
Cuba crisis, I found that when the United States was putting pressure on the
Soviets to remove their missiles from Cuba in 1962, Castro was screaming at
Moscow to launch a nuclear attack on the United States from Cuba -- even though
Castro knew that Cuba would have faced destruction from the U.S. response. This
unnerved Khrushchev because he knew the conflict would then probably escalate
to full-scale nuclear war. Khrushchev was perfectly willing to threaten to use
nuclear weapons but was constrained from using them; Castro, however, would not
have been so constrained had he had them.
There is a strong possibility that Saddam is not deterred from
providing chemical and biological weapons to terrorists. He has used chemical
weapons against his own people in the past and there is no reason to believe
that deterrence would persuade him not to provide chemical or biological
weapons to terrorists. Short of an invasion of Iraq, Saddam may be persuaded to
not make an overt attack with weapons of mass destruction. However, there are
all sorts of ways to clandestinely provide them to terrorists.
As President Bush said in his State of the Union address:
“Secretly, without fingerprints, [Saddam] could provide one of his hidden
weapons to terrorists or help them develop their own.” Imagine how
attention would be diverted away from Iraq by, say, near simultaneous chemical
and/or biological weapons attacks in European and/or American cities by
terrorists with weapons supplied by Iraq. Without regime change in Iraq,
disasters such as this are waiting to happen.
My second major reason for advocating regime change is the
suffering of the Iraqi people. The tortures, executions and other activities of
the Saddam regime against its own people are comparable to the suffering of the
peoples of Europe under the Nazis. Many argue that the U.N. sanctions policy is
the cause of the suffering of the Iraqi people. In response, I would point out
the situation of the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Under the protection of the U.S.
and British aircraft in the “no-fly zone” the Kurds have prospered,
while Iraqis in other regions have suffered severely. Saddam has clearly
manipulated the sanctions to cover up his spending “oil for food” to
build his palaces and weapons of mass destruction -- while at the same time
allowing the blame for the suffering of the Sunnis and Shiites to be put on the
U.N. sanctions.
There also have been accusations that “the war in Iraq is
about oil.” I believe that is true -- but for reasons different from those
who advance that argument.
As I see it, the United States can buy oil from whomever it wants.
Note that in the current crisis in Venezuela, the Saudis have proposed
increasing OPEC oil production; the sheikhs know that their financial future
depends on healthy Western economies. At the same time, oil producers are
signing oil contracts with Russia and other Black Sea states to diversify their
suppliers.
Clearly, if Iraq was not an oil producer, the United States would
not have the same interest in that country. At the same time, no country
without energy to sell (except the bankrupt North Koreans) would have interest
in developing weapons of mass destruction.
The United States has alternative sources of supply and among the
major world economies dependent on imported energy, it is itself one of the
world’s greatest energy producers. Since, unlike the other advanced
Western economies, the United States also has the capability of developing
other sources of energy -- shale, natural gas, hydroelectric, solar and so on
-- it is a canard to assert that the United States is going to war to dominate
Iraq’s oil resources.
On the other hand, few in the Western press publish the interests
of the French and the Russians in perpetuating the status quo in Iraq. John
Hall, a columnist for the Media General News, writes, “To a certain extent
the source of the current deterioration in French-American relations over Iraq
is traceable to oil.” The French have extensive contracts with Baghdad.
“There is clearly a huge French financial interest in a peaceful
settlement of the Iraqi issue. That doesn’t explain dovish French policy,
any more than oil explains hawkish U.S. policy.” In addition, Baghdad has
significant debts it owes to Moscow for arms purchased during the Soviet era.
Moscow wants to collect on those debts, and both the Russians and the French
have contracts to develop Iraqi oil fields once the sanctions are lifted.
Certainly, the United States will want to use some of the funds
from Iraqi oil to pay for rebuilding the country after the war and the costs of
occupation. But Washington knows it cannot be seen as exploiting the situation
for controlling Mideast oil for its own purposes or setting up a colonial
regime in Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell said, “The U.S. had sent
its soldiers into foreign wars over the last century, most recently into
Afghanistan, without having imperial designs on the territories it secured.
We’ve put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost
their lives. ...We’ve asked for nothing but enough land to bury them
in.”
I believe those who shout that the war in Iraq is “about
oil” should consider these factors.
There are other significant reasons why the status quo in Iraq
cannot continue. To briefly enumerate:
- The League of Nations collapsed in the 1930s after Hitler
marched into the Rhineland and Mussolini conquered Abyssinia. Many in the
league said forceful measures to expel the conquerors were not needed,
collective security would protect Western Europe. The result was the league
turned out to be toothless and civilization plunged into World War II. Since
the end of the first Gulf War there have been innumerable U.N. resolutions
calling on Saddam to disarm. He has not disarmed. Short of invasion there will
be no disarmament.
- We owe the Kurds in Northern Iraq. They have been the most
“sold out ally” in history. Most recently, at the end of the first
Gulf War, they were brutally repressed by both the Turks and Saddam’s
forces. According to a March 2 New York Times editorial,
“Forcefully repressing Kurdish national aspirations has been a central
doctrine of the modern Turkish state. … The Bush administration is trying
to convince a skeptical world that it is ready to fight for a free, democratic
Iraq. Nothing would undermine the American assertion faster than abandonment of
the Kurds.”
There is a need to provide an example of democracy to the Arab
world. New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman calls Bush’s
plan for regime change: “the mother of all political gambles. … It
could help nudge the whole Arab-Muslim world onto a more progressive
track.”
- Considering the lack of confidence among the American
electorate of our president’s domestic policies, it is not surprising that
there should be broad skepticism over U.S. foreign policy. There is doubt over
whether the administration will keep its promises for reconstruction in Iraq
(and Afghanistan) after the fighting ceases.
I believe there is no greater effort the United States could
undertake at this time than the liberation of Iraq, winning the peace in both
Iraq and Afghanistan and creating an example for democracy for the Arab world
-- as the United States nobly did in Western Europe and Japan after World War
II. Such a course would set the stage for then turning to more effective
policies to resolve the Arab-Israeli situation.
Charles Davis was a pilot for the Navy and flew antisubmarine
warfare aircraft in the late 1950s. In his civilian career he was an analyst of
Soviet military and foreign policy for the Defense Intelligence Agency and
National Intelligence Council.
National Catholic Reporter, March 14,
2003
|
