|
August
12, 2002
No
Iraqi Surprise:
Look Now, Not Later, at the Dangers of War
by Brian Foley
Avoiding surprise seems the order of the day when
it comes to Iraq. Invasion plans are out in the open. The Bush
Administration has pledged against any "October Surprise"
-- war to boost Republicans in November elections.
Yet potential "surprises" remain.
Surprise! The war will not necessarily
make us safer from WMD: The stated goal of targeting Saddam Hussein
is to eliminate the threat that he might use weapons of mass
destruction (WMD), presumably against Americans or our allies.
Although Saddam has biological and chemical weapons, few U.S.
officials believe he has nuclear weapons, and it's doubtful he
could use the former against Americans.
Containment and a renewed commitment
to meaningful inspections can keep nuclear weapons from Saddam's
grasp. The key is to tighten control -- the very control that
would slip away in the chaos of war. This legal approach will
also avoid the mass killing and misery that war always brings.
If it turns out that Saddam has more
capabilities than now believed, then a U.S. assault could actually
trigger Iraq to use all of its weapons, in self-defense. So might
all this talk of war. Indeed, the increasing doom that Saddam
must feel could give him incentive to smuggle any WMD he might
have to terrorists now, or to launch missiles as his own preemptive
strike.
Surprise! The war will not defeat terrorism:
The Bush Administration openly, and unsuccessfully, has tried
to tie Iraq to the September 11 attack. But what if the Bush
Administration finds evidence? Should we then declare war?
Military responses to terrorism have,
to date, failed. According to many U.S. officials, the war in
Afghanistan has not made us safer from terrorism by al Qaeda.
Israel's war on the Palestinians is another example; it has succeeded
only in escalating terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians.
The best successes against terrorism
have resulted from work by police and intelligence agents, coordinated
among many nations. For example, a plot to bomb the U.S. embassy
in Paris was foiled last fall. A plot to bomb New Year's 2000
celebrations was thwarted by customs inspectors in Washington
state. The perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Tower bombing
were arrested in the U.S. and convicted in federal court.
That brains, not bombs, are necessary
to defeat terrorism is clear. Transnational terrorist groups
such as al Qaeda funnel money from country to country. Members
cross borders. Members discuss plans for attacks. Armies, navies,
and air forces are not equipped, or trained, to detect and disrupt
these plans.
Surprise! The war will increase the danger
of terrorism: Iraqis whose families will be uprooted or killed
by U.S. bombs won't necessarily forgive the U.S., even if it
removes their vicious leader. Litmus test for human emotion:
How did Americans feel after being bombed on September 11? Expect
similar reaction from Iraqis and others, especially in the Arab
world, if they watch U.S. forces rout Iraqi troops and wreak
"collateral damage." This anger and resentment will
be exploited by those who recruit terrorists.
Surprise! Civilian casualties and mass
slaughter: If a bomb falls in another country and no American
hears it, does it make any noise? Yes. It kills people, too.
The Gulf War killed so many people that many Arabs call it "The
Gulf Massacre." (U.S. officials estimated in June, 1991
that 100,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed. Baghdad reported 35,000
civilian casualties. Since then, some scholars have revised these
numbers downward.) In the Afghan war, U.S. bombs have killed
thousands of Afghani civilians. A new war with Iraq promises
more large scale killing. Yet possible civilian casualties in
Iraq were not a focus of last week's Senate hearings on the proposed
war, and the danger to Iraqi civilians was barely mentioned in
the mainstream media.
In any event, U.S. forces will kill mostly
soldiers, and that's good, right? But who are these enemy troops?
Many Iraqi soldiers, if not most, are conscripts, young men and
teenagers. In the Gulf War, some of Saddam's soldiers were civilian
men plucked off the streets and dumped at the front.
That soldiers may be "innocents"
is never mentioned by U.S. leaders eager for war. How innocent?
Worldwide, according to UN estimates, 300,000 children are being
used as soldiers in various conflicts. This might not be the
case in Iraq (where the UN sanctions wipe out 5,000 children
every month), but it is the case in many poor nations -- nations
targeted in the war on terror.
"War" might be an inapt description
of U.S. military operations in the past decade -- the lopsided
scorecards tell the story. Fewer than 200 U.S. troops were killed
in combat in the Gulf War, the Kosovo war and the Afghanistan
war combined. Contrast that with the 100,000 Iraqi soldiers,
5,000 Yugoslavian soldiers, and an estimated 10,000 Taliban and
Al Qaeda fighters killed in these wars. Using the above figures,
that's almost 600 enemy soldiers killed per each American killed.
So efficient is the U.S. military that, in the Afghan war, American
generals called the shots all the way from Central Command in
Tampa, Florida.
As a practical matter, the use of advanced
weaponry yields the same result as fighting unarmed people.
Surprise! Refugees and starvation: Last
September, the mere announcement by U.S. leaders that they would
bomb Afghanistan caused millions of Afghani civilians to flee
their homes. Uprooted, these Afghanis lugged what belongings
they could to cramped, unsanitary refugee camps, where thousands
died from starvation, exposure, and sickness.
Such misery is sure to be inflicted on
Iraqis if Bush wages war. UN economic sanctions since the Gulf
War have caused the death of more than 600,000 Iraqi children.
A new war could be a death sentence for people already so weak.
Surprise! Destruction, disorder, and
yet more death: Rebuilding infrastructure such as dams, bridges,
water purification plants, irrigation, highways and communications
centers -- all targets in modern U.S. war practice -- is an enormous
task. When infrastructure is destroyed, disorder and disease
take hold. In fact, most of the 5,000 children who die each month
in Iraq die as a result of impure water. Materials needed to
rebuild the purification plants are under UN embargo, because
they could conceivably be used to make WMD.
The prospects that a new war against
Iraq might somehow avoid such waste are bleak. The Bush Administration
categorically dismisses reconstruction as "nation building"
and in Afghanistan has left that task to allies. Nation building,
which helps "drain the swamp" where anger, misery,
poverty and chaos fester, could be a potent weapon against terrorism.
The Bush Administration has offered no exit strategy for Iraq,
and experts warn that post-war chaos could result in a civil
war between Kurds, Sunnis and Shias, a war that could flare into
animosity, and even terrorism, against Americans.
Surprise! "Conflict contagion":
A little-discussed effect of war is "conflict contagion."
Simply put, conflicts often lead to more conflicts. Such was
the result of the U.S. war against Afghanistan, which brought
that region to a near boil: India and Pakistan teetered on the
brink of nuclear war, and Israel upped its own war on terror.
A new war against Iraq could prompt Saddam
to hurl missiles at Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to disrupt the flow
of oil, causing Western economies to nosedive. He might fire
missiles at Tel Aviv, as he did in the Gulf War, to incite a
broader Arab war against the West. If so, will the Sharon government
restrain itself from unleashing its own nuclear weapons?
As a member of the Kuwaiti royal family
pleaded last week in the New York Times, "Afghanistan is
in turmoil, the Middle East is in flames, and you want to open
up a third front in that region? That would truly turn into a
war of civilizations."
Surprise! The war will not "spread
democracy": Some Americans support war against Iraq because
toppling a brutal dictator would appear to "spread democracy."
Yet the opposite will likely obtain, because the U.S. will need
to cut deals to win the support of other nations. And there are
no plans or pledges to create a democratic post-war Iraq.
U.S. deal-making to win international
support for war has thwarted the spread of democracy in the past.
For example, securing UN Security Council support for the Gulf
War required preempting a likely Chinese veto. So U.S. leaders
lifted the trade sanctions imposed for the 1989 Tiananmen Square
massacre and resumed relations with China, despite a continued
crackdown on dissidents.
To gather support for its fight against
Afghanistan, the U.S. has nourished repressive regimes in Pakistan,
Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia. Other countries saw a green light
to go after their own internal -- and often legitimate -- political
opponents in the name of fighting terrorism.
The need for allies in a war against
Iraq could likewise limit democracy and human rights. The Bush
Administration has already promised Turkey that it will not support
any political autonomy for Kurds in a post-Saddam Iraq if Turkey
backs the war. (Turkey feared such autonomy could inspire its
own Kurdish population to seek similar freedom.)
Surprise! International criticism: There
is no meaningful support for this war around the world. If the
Bush Administration goes ahead anyway, nations will criticize
the U.S. for not following international law and acting unilaterally,
perhaps even as a "rogue nation." Why?
After World War II, the U.S. helped draft,
and signed, the UN Charter, promising to place control of its
military forces in the hands of the UN Security Council. Under
the Charter, nations may use military force unilaterally only
in self-defense against an armed attack, and then only until
the Security Council can take over.
Preemptive strikes -- the crux of the
"Bush Doctrine" -- are forbidden. If a country can
go to the Security Council, it must. More importantly, the UN
Charter requires all nations to seek peaceful alternatives to
war.
Given that international cooperation
is crucial to defeating terrorism, listening to allies and respecting
the laws that apply to all nations make eminent good sense.
Surprise! Americans will be forced to
tighten their belts: The Gulf War cost almost $80 billion in
2002 dollars. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Japan picked up 80 percent
of the tab. A new war would likely have a similar price tag --
but Americans will have to bear all the costs alone. Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait and Japan have indicated they won't pay this time.
At the Senate hearings last week, Scott
Feil, a retired Army colonel who specializes in post-war rebuilding,
advised that to create a stable, post-war Iraq, U.S. troops would
have to occupy it for at least six years. Price tag: more than
$16 billion Without occupation, there would be no guarantee against
chaos, or that Saddam's successor won't have a similar appetite
for WMD.
Experts have also predicted that if the
Bush Administration attacks Iraq, oil prices will soar, stocks
will tumble, and the federal budget deficit will deepen. These
effects are no tonic for an already-ailing U.S. economy. The
resulting recession could put many Americans out of work.
A positive surprise: Americans might
be able to stop this war before it starts: Saddam poses a danger,
and certainly no reasonable person would suggest that we sit
by and do nothing. To initiate another Gulf War, however, given
the pain it would inflict on others and the financial burdens
and misery it would inflict on us, defies common sense. Instead
of passively observing our leaders plan for war, we should force
them to find more intelligent, more responsible, ways to deal
with Iraq.
BRIAN J. FOLEY
is a professor at Widener University School of Law in Wilmington,
Delaware.
He can be reached at Brian.J.Foley@law.widener.edu
Weekend Features
Lawrence McGuire
How Does
Christianity Work?
Ralph Nader
The Quest
for the
Fuel Efficient Car
Frank Fugate
The Arabs
I Know
Jan Oberg
Visit Iraq
Jill Drier
Dodging
Bullets in Nablus
Walt Brasch
The Bush
2 Legacy...So Far
Poetry
M. Shahid Alam
Death by
Sanctions
Anthony Gancarski
Coin of the Realm
David Krieger
Einstein's
Regret
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
August 10/11,
2002
Walt Brasch
The Bush
2 Legacy...So Far
August 9,
2002
Mokhiber
/ Weissman
Corporate
Crime:
More Shareholder Power
Not the Solution
Ansar Ahmed
The Waning
of the
Pax Americana
Alexander
Cockburn
War,
the Military and the Hunt for the "Violence Gene"
August 8,
2002
Ron Jacobs
Iraq:
The Final Storm?
Dave Marsh
Now Ain't
the Time
for Your Tears
Mark Weisbrot
Bush
Administration Tries to Hide Role in Venezuela Coup
Anthony Gancarski
AIPAC,
Congress and Iraq
Robert Fisk
Families
of the
Disappeared Demand Answers
Gary Leupp
Karzai's
Bodyguard
August 7,
2002
Anis Shivani
The First
21st Century
Police State
Jeffrey St.
Clair
Fallon's
Fallen
Is the US Navy Killing
Children in Nevada?
Robert Fisk
For the
Forgotten Afghans,
the UN Offers a Fresh Hell
Dr. Susan
Block
Rigas in
Cuffs
Bill Christison
Disastrous
Foreign Policies of the US Part 5: the Call of Democracy?
August 6,
2002
Philip Farruggio
Signs
of the Elites
Bruce Gagnon
We Must
Come Alive
David Krieger
From
Hiroshima to Hope
Jerre Skog
Global
Reach of Corporate Crime or What the Hell are
They Teaching at Harvard?
Robert Fisk
Return to
Afghanistan:
Collateral Damage
Alexander
Cockburn
The
Fox in the Pension Fund
August 5, 2002
Rahul Mahajan
Iraq
and the New Great Game
Jordy Cummings
The
Last Frontier of
Israel and Palestine
Bernard Weiner
Inside
Saddam's Diary
Mike Leon
US Mute
to Israeli Brutality
Norman Madarasz
Brazil:
the Most Important Election of 2002?
August 4, 2002
Susan Davis
Fat Americans
August 3, 2002
David Krieger
Nuclear
Apartheid
Gilad Atzmon
The End
of Innocence
Gavin Keeney
Everybody's
a Critic
Alexander Cockburn
Can the Times' Jeff Gerth
Save Dick Cheney?
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By
Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|