My Position on Iraq
I was originally going to write a complete article outlining my position on war with Iraq, and explaining the logic and evidence that led me to my conclusion. And, in fact, I wrote a good portion of that article. But, given how many great articles have been written about Iraq recently, I didn't really think that I could add anything to the debate. What I was going to say has been said.
But I did want to state, for the record, my position on Iraq:
I believe that we should invade Iraq.
I do have an involved argument for why such a war would be moral, and why the concerns of the international community should not stop us, but really the arguments that are most powerful to me are very simple:
Hussein is so awful that Iraqis want us to invadeAll the evidence I have read points to the fact that even Iraqis want us to invade. For example:
ICG ReportNYT Article
If even Iraqis - despite their intense mistrust of America and their hatred of colonial powers, despite the fact that a war will lead to their deaths - want us to invade if it will mean the end of Saddam Hussein, then life under Hussein must be truly awful. But then, we already knew that. Torture, rape, and murder are his methods of governance. There is a reason that fully 15% of Iraqis live in exile.
War is less damaging to Iraqis than sanctionsIf we removed Hussein from power, we would not have to contain Iraq any more with sanctions. How is a war which will kill a few thousand immediately but save the lives of even more who would have died under sanctions immoral? Walt Russell Mead, who makes the argument powefully, explained:
The Gulf War killed somewhere between 21,000 and 35,000 Iraqis, of whom between 1,000 and 5,000 were civilians...Saddam Hussein is 65; containing him for another 10 years condemns at least another 360,000 Iraqis to death. Of these, 240,000 will be children under 5."
Mead makes this argument better than I could, so I suggest reading him: Mead's op-ed in the Washington Post.
The war should be very easyIraq's army fought poorly against Iran. It surrendered en masse in the first Gulf War - hell, it even surrendered to journalists when it couldn't find American soldiers to surrender to. Is there any reason to suspect they'll fight any better this time?
Well, some Iraqi troops have already surrendered to British troops based on Kuwait, mistakingly thinking that a British training exercise meant that war had started.
More seriously, the Iraqis army was significantly damaged in the first Gulf War. Since then, sanctions have prevented Iraq from rebuilding it. One study suggests that it is only at 1/3 of its pre-Gulf War strength.
Most importantly, Iraqi soldiers will know that fighting for Hussein is a losing proposition. He is going to lose this war, one way or another. Why fight for a man who has brought disaster upon your country, who is going to be deposed very soon regardless of how hard you fight?
Containment is not freeThere is a good deal of concern about how expensive this war will be. After all, in an weak economy with rapidly growing deficits, it is reasonable to wonder if we can afford to spend $200-300 billion invading and rebuilding Iraq.
There's also great concern that invading Iraq will anger the Muslim world, and thereby create more terrorism directed at us.
But containment is not free, either. One Georgetown professor estimates that it costs America $50 billion annually to defend Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from Iraq. (I am skeptical of this number because the cost of stationing American troops in South Korea is only about $20 billion annually, and I don't see why the cost in the Gulf would be so much higher, but nevertheless the point remains - containment is expensive.)
And it was containment - the stationing of our troops in Saudi Arabia - that led Osama bin Laden to create Al Qaida and to go to war with America. Keep American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, to defend it against Iraq, and you maintain the reason that 15 out of 19 hijackers were Saudis.
Inaction will not protect us from terrorismAl Qaida has not declared an end to its war against America. There is simply no reason to believe that Al Qaida is not planning another attack. If we did not attack Iraq, would Al Qaida say, "You know what, let's give America a break?" Of course not. We weren't planning an invasion of Iraq when the Cole was attacked, when our embassies were bombed, or on 9/11.
If Al Qaida is the major terrorist threat to America - and it is - and Al Qaida will try to attack us regardless of what we do in Iraq - and it will - then our decision on whether to attack Iraq should not be altered by fear of Al Qaida.
There is the argument that invading Iraq will anger the Muslim world, and thereby provide more recruits for Al Qaida. This is a reasonable fear. However, it is largely a short- run fear. Yes, in the short-run, invading Iraq might increase the risk of terrorism. But if neo-con and liberal experts alike are correct that it is a lack of democracy that is driving Muslims to terrorism, then the only way to eliminate the root cause of terrorism long term is to start bringing democracy to the Muslim world.
We have two choices - we can live with a very high risk of terrorism for a very long time, or we can increase our short-run risk in order to greatly reduce our long-term risk by bringing a better life to the Arab world.
Better Iraq fall apart with peacekeepers on the ground, than without.There is a tremendous risk that Iraq will fall apart into communal strife after the war - that the Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish communities will decline into a Lebanon- or Yugoslavia- like communal fighting for power and territory. After all, the Kurds even fought each other for many years after the no-fly zone was set up.
But remember, Lebanon and Yugoslavia fell apart without any external invasion. In Yugoslavia, a multiethnic country fell apart because there was no longer a dictator powerful enough to hold it together. Why should the fall of Hussein be any different? Clearly, Hussein has no intention to slowly devolve power. If Hussein is not removed by American troops, his rule will end only by coup or by his own death. Either way, there is no reason to believe that such a sudden change of power would lead to anything but internal communal strife.
If Iraq is a hotbed of communal divisions, then it will devolve into civil war whether Hussein's regime is ended by American troops, by Hussein's death of natural causes, or by a coup. The only difference is that at least if American troops are on the ground, they can act as peacekeepers. If Hussein dies of a heart attack in 10 years, there will be a civil war - but no peacekeepers. And remember what happened in Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and Lebanon when there were no peacekeepers.
Christopher Hitchens has made this argument better than I could: http://slate.msn.com/id/2073634
So what are the caveats?I do not believe that we need to invade Iraq. We can contain Iraq. Basically, I am in the Tom Friedman school of thought: We can do tremendous good by liberating Iraq, but there is also great risk.
Like many other liberal hawks, I wish someone else were running this war. I'm not sure Bush can be trusted to rebuild Iraq. As Friedman argued, it would be a lot easier to support this war if Tony Blair were leading us to it, not Bush.
America walks into a very risky environment in post-war reconstruction. While I believe that, on the whole, Iraqis will welcome us for freeing them from Hussein, and accept us if we quickly end sanctions and rebuild Iraq in a fair way, this may be too optimistic. Peter Baker argued in The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030310&s=diarist031003) that Iraqis may hate and distrust America as much as they hate and distrust Hussein.
So, invading Iraq is the view I have come to take. I am not 100% certain of it. There are risks that cannot be accurately measured in advance. There are some anti-war arguments I respect (along with others I find ridiculous). I respect George, Matt's, Dan's, Shakin's, and Nina's opposition to the war. :) There is no simple way to know whether this war will be a tremendous good or a tremendous disaster, and that's why I respect anti-war opinions that are well-reasoned and serious.
That being said, I hope that others can respect my views as well, since I believe they are well-reasoned and serious too.
But - and this amuses me no end - all you anti-war people better hope I am right. Because we're going to war anyway, and if I'm wrong it's going to be bad for all of us.