The liberal argument for war.

[davywavy]

Those of you planning on going on any antiwar marches - do read this. It's not even by me, but it's got a lot of sense in it.


A war of liberation
The war that America is currently trying to justify is not

By Salman Rushdie
November 4, 2002
Source: The Washington Post

NEW YORK: Just in case it had slipped your memory - and as the antiwar protests grow in size and volume, it easily might have - there is a strong, even unanswerable case for a "regime change" in Iraq. What's more, it's a case that ought to appeal not just to militaristic Bushie-Blairite hawks but also to lily-livered bleeding-heart liberals; a case, moreover, that ought to unite Western public opinion and all those who care about the brutal oppression of an entire Muslim nation.

In this strange, unattractive historical moment, the extremely strong anti-Saddam Hussein argument isn't getting a fraction of the attention it deserves.

This is, of course, the argument based on his three and a half-decade-long assault on the Iraqi people. He has impoverished them, murdered them, gassed and tortured them, sent them off to die by the tens of thousands in futile wars, repressed them, gagged them, bludgeoned them and then murdered them some more.



Saddam Hussein and his ruthless gang of cronies from his home village of Tikrit are homicidal criminals, and their Iraq is a living hell. This obvious truth is no less true because we have been turning a blind eye to it - and "we" includes, until recently, the government of the United States, an early and committed supporter of the "secular" Saddam against the "fanatical" Islamic religionists of the region.

Nor is it less true because it suits the politics of the Muslim world to inveigh against the global bully it believes the United States to be, while it tolerates the all-too-real monsters in its own ranks. Nor is it less true because it's getting buried beneath the loudly made but poorly argued U.S. position, which is that Saddam is a big threat, not so much to his own people but to Americans.

Iraqi opposition groups in exile have been trying to get the West's attention for years. Until recently, however, the Bush people weren't giving them the time of day, and even made rude remarks about Ahmed Chalabi, the most likely first leader of a democratized Iraq. Now, there's a change in Washington's tune. Good. One may suspect the commitment of the Wolfowitz-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis to the creation and support of a free, democratic Iraq, but it remains the most desirable of goals.

This is the hard part for antiwar liberals to ignore. All the Iraqi democratic voices that still exist, all the leaders and potential leaders who still survive, are asking, even pleading for the proposed regime change. Will the American and European left make the mistake of being so eager to oppose Bush that they end up seeming to back Saddam, just as many of them seemed to prefer the continuation of the Taliban's rule in Afghanistan to the American intervention there?

The complicating factors, sadly, are this U.S. administration's preemptive, unilateralist instincts, which have alienated so many of America's natural allies. Unilateralist action by the world's only hyperpower looks like bullying because, well, it is bullying. And the United States' new preemptive-strike policy would, if applied, make America itself a much less safe place, because if the United States reserves the right to attack any country it doesn't like the look of, then those who don't like the look of the United States might feel obliged to return the compliment. It's not always as smart as it sounds to get your retaliation in first.

Also deeply suspect is the U.S. government's insistence that its anti-Saddam obsession is a part of the global war on terror. As Al Qaeda regroups, attacking innocent vacationers in Bali and issuing new threats, those of us who supported the war on Al Qaeda can't help feeling that the Iraq initiative is a way of changing the subject, of focusing on an enemy who can be found and defeated instead of the far more elusive enemies who really are at war with America.

The connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda remains comprehensively unproven, whereas the presence of the Qaeda leadership in Pakistan, and of Qaeda sympathizers in that country's intelligence services, is well known. Yet nobody is talking about attacking Pakistan.

Nor does America's vagueness about its plans for a post-Saddam Iraq and its own "exit strategy" inspire much confidence. Yes, the administration is talking democracy, but does America really have the determination to (a) dismantle the Baathist one-party state and (b) avoid the military strongman solution that has been so attractive to American global scenarists in the past - "our son of a bitch," as Franklin Roosevelt once described the dictator Somoza in Nicaragua?

Does it (c) have the long-term stomach for keeping troops in Iraq, possibly in large, even Vietnam-size numbers, for what could easily be a generation, while democracy takes root in a country that has no experience of it whatever; a country, moreover, bedeviled by internal divisions and separatist tendencies?

How will it (d) answer the accusations that any regime shored up by U.S. military power, even a democratic one, would just be an American puppet? And (e) if Iraq starts unraveling and comes apart on America's watch, is the administration prepared to take the rap for that?

These are some of the reasons why I, among others, have remained unconvinced by President Bush's Iraqi grand design. But as I listen to Iraqi voices describing the atrocities of the Saddam years, then I am bound to say that if, as now seems possible, the United States and the United Nations do agree on a new Iraq resolution; and if inspectors do return, and, as is probable, Saddam gets up to his old obstructionist tricks again; or if Iraq refuses to accept the new UN resolution; then the rest of the world must stop sitting on its hands and join the Americans and British in ridding the world of this vile despot and his cohorts.

It should, however, be said and said loudly that the primary justification for regime change in Iraq is the prolonged suffering of the Iraqi people, and that the remote possibility of a future attack on America by Iraqi weapons is of secondary importance. A war of liberation might just be one worth fighting. The war that America is currently trying to justify is not.

Author

Salman Rushdie, author of "Fury" and other novels, contributed this comment to The Washington Post ("The liberal argument for regime change" -- Novemver 2, 2002).

Comments

I prefer The Onion's points.

[lanfykins.livejournal.com]

They do seem to have a slight bee in their bonnet about that at the moment, mind...

Re: I prefer The Onion's points.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

This is possibly slightly more accurate than the Onion, but I like the onion for the same reason that I like Private Eye - they hate everyone equally.
Can't stand partisanship, except when it's by me :)

Bah! Rushide just wants the notoriety of another fatwa. ;-p

[applez.livejournal.com]

Rushdie can argue the bleeding heart case all he likes, but the fundamental fact is that it isn't the argument this administration is making, so one certainly mustn't join ranks with it in the vague hope that thing will come out your way incidentally.

There is again the bigger philosophical question of whether the US has the right to invade another country without provokation ... beyond just that of any nation doing such to another, but that the sole superpower can do so. It is one thing for a regional military-muscled nation to act pre-emptively, like Israel ... they at least share the risk of retaliation fairly equally. Even if one buys the argument of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link - 11 September notwithstanding, the US is by in large impervious, still. The US still has no experience with a years- (or decades-) long terrorist campaign as Britain, Northern Ireland, Israel, Greece, and the pre-broken-up Yugoslavia has had.

----

Incidentally, I had an interesting conversation with a convalescing (sp?) day labourer on the bus this morning. This black guy believed that $1.98 per gallon of regular petrol was too much ('the most in the nation!' he said), that the US should invade Iraq, and take over the oil fields. 'So what' if we kill a bunch of Iraqis. Nevermind the $2.10/ga people in Honolulu pay either, which did give him pause (I didn't mention what people in Europe, or the UK pay, btw). More than anything else, what bothers me most about this experience is the ease with which public opinion is manipulated by very few information sources ... ignorace is a terribly powerful weapon. Disturbing, because in the event of an imperial(ist) war, it'll be poor minority folks like him that are going to shed the most blood for cheap fuel.

Cah.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

To the best of my knowledge it's be cheaper to extract the oil under the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWAR) than it would be to redevelop the oil infrastructure in IRAQ (based on costs in Kuwait after Gulf War 1) post-war (can't remember where I got that factoid from - Guardian in the Gym, I think).
So this bobbins about 'oil war' cuts precisely 0 ice with me.
If they just wanted oil, they'd be shooting them caribou because they don't shoot back.

Re: Cah.

[applez.livejournal.com]

1) ANWR would be cheaper to exploit economically, but:

a) it doesn't have near as much oil

b) it does bear the political stigma of the as-yet-still-potent environmental lobby ... and Iraqis don't have a vote.

c) the comparison is irrelevant anyway since Bush's 2004 appropriation has drilling in ANWR PLUS a war in Iraq.

Re: Bah! Rushide just wants the notoriety of another fatwa. ;-p

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Reading this, your point seems to me to be that if the argument being made by the administration doesn't tally with the one you'd like to hear, then you're happy to sit back and let the persecuted die whilst you discuss whether you have the moral right to save them.

*blinks*

I have to be wrong.

Re: Bah! Rushide just wants the notoriety of another fatwa. ;-p

[applez.livejournal.com]

No my point is simply this:

The main argument the Bush administration is making is one of risk against the US directly/indirectly from Saddam's weapons. The 'liberation' aspect is a rhetorical footnote ("Iraq's enemy is in Baghdad"), so Rushdie's emphasis on this aspect bears little to the real protest against the real emphasis of this administration.

------

Point 2: It is a very murky business INVADING another nation without clear provocation...given the values of international law. Whilst the US has been arguing the case that Iraq is in violation of such laws as explicitly written in UN resolutions, they are pursuing a course of interpretation independent of the UN, crippling their legal basis for a pre-emptive war.

Besides the fact that a pre-emptive war is in direct contravention of numerous international agreements.

That is why, frankly, as Eddie Izzard put it, we're quite fine with dictators murdering their own. :-)

-----

Point 3: Ultimately yes, we really can sit back and argue whether we have the moral right to 'save' them. The only emergency we have now concerning Iraq is of this administration's own making. They are using that perceived emergency to short-circuit the vital moral debate that NEEDS to happen.

Incidentally, going in and blowing up the remaining life-support infrastructure they have, sealing the fate of literally millions by disease and worse is hardly my idea of 'saving' them. Moreover, there really hasn't been the prepatory appropriation for reconstruction and humanitarian assistance. Awfully limited foreplanning I think.

Re: Bah! Rushide just wants the notoriety of another fatwa. ;-p

[ex-boog351.livejournal.com]

Strangely enough, I was on a bus recently travelling on my merry way, when I looked out the window, and there he was, sat in his Mercedes, waiting at a junction. Has the original fatwa been lifted?

Re: Bah! Rushide just wants the notoriety of another fatwa. ;-p

[applez.livejournal.com]

It was, in 1999 or 2000 or so. Thanks in large part to the then-new Hatami government in Iran, I think.

Interesting Points

[ex-boog351.livejournal.com]

I think Rushdie may have a point when he argues the suffering inflicted on the Iraqi people is cause enough to remove Saddam. It is a point often missed in the debate, which represents America's looming war with Iraq as either an attempt to dominate the region and secure its oil supplies and the security of Israel, or as part of the wider war on Terror. I also think it is unacceptable to allow a regime such as Iraq's to develop WMD.

Of course it is true that many people could die as a result of military action, which I expect is the main objection of most people to war. I have to admit this does worry me deeply, and I would for the moment prefer to see the current pressure maintained for as long as possible in he hope Saddam can be persuaded to leave. There is no immediate need to attack this year, yet somehow I am pretty sure Saddam won't go and that Bush won't wait.

Ultimately, I think Iraq and the entire Middle-East need democracy, else the only viable alternative to brutal secular dictators will be the religious fundamentalist fanatics hell-bent on destroying the west. Removing Saddam from power would be the first step in achieving this and all we can hope is that if there is a war, it will be very quick otherwise things could get quite nasty.

As far as America's strategy goes, I understand from what I have read that their aim is topple Saddam, and replace him with an interim ruler (probably Gen Franks) before holding elections after a couple of years and installing democratic instititutions. I think they recognise they cannot get rid of all the Ba'ath Socialists, so they will just go for the very senior ones, the rest will no doubt be recycled into society much as the old Soviet communists were.

Its very risky, but I think the course is already set.

Re: Interesting Points

[applez.livejournal.com]

Ahem,

A small lesson of history ...

'Democratisation by force' destroys the very credibility of such democratising effort.

Try 1: Napolean's 'spread the Revolution to Europe!'

Try 2: Communists 'spread the Revolution by the International!'

Democracy needs to be a grassroot effort. The Iraqis themselves would need to decide for themselves, by whatever means they have, to make that effort. Even if that means the abolition of Iraq as a single nation (which is likely, and probably necessary - the Balkan lesson).

We can examine the American record of such efforts in the past:

1) Cuba ... hmm, the US did so well there Castro got in and stayed in.

2) The Philippines ... again, the US did so well that not only did Marcos get in, after he left, corruption rules the country.

3) Hawaii ... well, that was a federal decision after the Kingdom was simply taken. The remainder natives are increasingly marginalised.

4) Vietnam ... the US aborts a cross-border populist referendum to see what future the partioned country(-ies) wanted, and fueled a war.

So, on the whole, no I don't think the US can be trusted to build an authentic sustainable democracy for someone else.

Re: Interesting Points

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Democracy needs to be a grassroot effort. The Iraqis themselves would need to decide for themselves, by whatever means they have, to make that effort.

And you propoise they do that *how*, exactly, given that whem people have tried that in Iraq they've been shot, tortured, gassed, etc - oh and their friends and families have too, just to p[ut anyone else off the idea.
Perhaps, radically enough, it might be helpful if those capable of doing so were to remove the shooters, torturers and gassers and *then* the people can decide what they want?

Re: Interesting Points

[ex-boog351.livejournal.com]

History is replete with examples of failed attempts to impose political systems on unwilling nations, Vietnam is a case in point. My knowledge of the events leading up to the war are sketchy, but my understanding is that it was a former French colony on the way to independence and there some sort of communist uprising, which led to civil war. When the French withdrew, the Americans intervened to fight the communists as part of an extension of the cold war. The strength of the Vietnamese resistance and the peace movement in the USA eventually led to a withdrawal.

Examples of success:

Germany: Helped introduce democratic institutions (the Weimar republic never really took root in society) and helped Brought in Democracy and played important part in post-war reconstruction, now world's 3rd largest economy
Japan: Ditto, now world's second largest economy
The former Yugoslavia was breaking up and riven by civil war, yet NATO intevention in Bosnia and Kosovo helped stop vile human rights abuses, and the area is now far more peaceful and people have far more self-determination, though I am sure more remains to be done

My fairly unscientific observations of the pre-requisites for a successful democracy are that it is a system the people need to accept, and have strong institutions prepared to back the system up. Imposed democracy can fail without these, as the political system needs to be seen to be working for the people as opposed to a foreign power.

My understanding is that the Bush adminstration intends to use the post-war re-construction of Germany as a template for Iraq. Ultimately I am sure they want a pro-American democracy, which they hope will be stable and hold the country together, and start the ball rolling for democratic reform in the Middle East. The key to success will be a commitment to supporting the institutions.

I think there probably is support for democratic reform in the Middle East even though it is suppressed, witness the imprisonment of activist Professor Saadeddin Ibrahim in Egypt. Goodness knows how Iraq would have dealt with him. I don't think it is terribly likely that there will be a populist democratic movement in Iraq in the near future given Saddam's brutal repression of his own people.

The one issue I have ignored is the possible break-up of Iraq. As I am sure you know it is an artificial creation of Eurpoean colonialism. I think you are right to say that Iraq will probably break up, if this is what the people want, then so be it. That will likely cause problems with Turkey and Iran's own Kurdish minorities.

The whole problem I guess is that this is a very risky business, but it seems that the Bush adminstration is already set on its course. I just hope they get it right

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

If the US and the UK attack without UN backing, then they lose the moral high ground.

Just because we have identified Saddam hussein as a 'Bad Guy' does not give us the right to invade him. To ensure our moral high ground, we rely on our "world court" equivalent of the UN. Without that we become international vigilantes, and I do not ever support that.

If I know a criminal, I'm not going to personally stuff him in a home-made cell. I will report him to the proper authorities and they will deal with him with the moral certitude gievn to them by us.

So should the US and the UK.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Pray explain to me here, firstly how we can possibly lose the moral high ground against someone who has gassed, shot, and starved hundred of thoousands of his own p[eople in submission, and secondly, why we need the moral high ground to save hundred of thousands more from a similar fate.

Do you think it's okay to sit back and let people carry right on dying to assuage your conscience of morality?

but that does not change ...

[faerierhona.livejournal.com]

the thousands of people the money I pay in taxes will help to kill.

It isn't right to start a war. Ever. At least, that's how I feel. It's wrong to kill, government sanctioned or not.

And the fact that this government has decided to cover the streets in soldiers makes me more determined not to be bullied on this

Right on!

[applez.livejournal.com]

Well said!

Re: but that does not change ...

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Passive resistance can have great benefits (cf gandhi), but sadly it ain't gonna work all the time - the Argentinian government faced a passive resistance movement in the late 70's so they closed the borders to stop the press getting in and killed everyone they possibly could who didn't agree with them.
It took a damn good pasting by the British Navy to get them to stop, because sitting there singing 'gosh no, we won't go' wasn't acheiving anything - in fact, passive resistance really only works in situations where the presiding government gives a shite what the people think, or even if they live or die.

[godzuki.livejournal.com]

Id agree with you that the moral reasons for supporting change in iraq is quite strong, from our perspective there is nothing worse than a dictator who starves innocent people, torture and kills those who have commited no crime and attempts to destroy the values we in western culture hold as tantamount to human rights.

The problem is, that is almost exactly how the middle east sees america. And with good reason if you take it from their perspective. It has killed innocent people in iraq, syria and other countries in the name of security. America bombed a so called chemical weapons factory that turned out to be a pharmacy. It supplies 3 billion dollars a year to israel in military aid and makes it the best armed superpower in the middle east, untouchable and allied to it.

The problem with bush's war is that it is conducted with ZERO diplomacy, cooperation or consideration for the consequences of his actions. The bullying and bulldozing of policy may get anger in europe, but in the middle east it inspires much worse - martydom and desperation on a massive scale. Bush doesnt care about the consequences of his actions it seems (look at the massive canadian logging and european steel tarrifs he pushed thru, or the rabid stance on taiwan, or total refusal of the Kyoto accords and the International court of human rights) - right or wrong in his decisions, everything he seems to have brought about since his presidency was in power has pissed someone off.

War in iraq may well seem like a walk in the park, but it will only intensify the terrorist or even overt actions of muslim extremists. Such games are more public, irresponsible and dangerous than anything that happened during the cold war.

What bush should be doing is focussing on the causes of terrorism and the hatred that is displayed to the united states and by default europe, not fanning the flames like this.

[ex-boog351.livejournal.com]

Hopefully, the next issue to be addressed will the Israeli-Palestian conflict. There is huge resentment in the Arab world for what they see as Israeli state terrorism against the Palestinians. I was in Cairo last May, about the same time Israel sent troops into the West Bank settlements and folk weren't happy to say the least. The official media there doesn't even refer to Israel as a legitimate state, rather the Zionist Entity. I got to talk to a couple of young Egyptian guys about the situation. They suggested that the Palestians may accept a two-state solution in the short run, but will eventually want to see the destruction of Israel and the restoration of the whole of their country pre-1948. Ultimately though, I think we have to move forward with self-determination for the Palestinians.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

I don't think blowing seven shades of sh*t out of the constituents of the new democracy is good policy, though. I don't think might making right is a good way to start. I don't think that war is the solution.

And, no, I don't necessarily have any better ideas. But I think that the anti-Saddam movement and the anti-war movement aren't mutually exclusive, and I'm not sure I know that we have any right or, indeed, sufficient knowledge to say that a majority of people living under Saddam's rule are dissatisfied. Just as I don't think removing left-wing rulerships because of the Red Threat was fair, justified, or anything other than self-serving, I think that converting another country with an entirely different ideological basis to the triple rule of the IMF, WTO and World Bank and their little thousand-year Reich is entirely morally unsustainable.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

don't think blowing seven shades of sh*t out of the constituents of the new democracy is good policy, though.

I dunno, it seemed to work pretty well in Germany and Japan.

Why a sole superpower using the argument of 'pre emption' is a BLOODY BAD IDEA!

[applez.livejournal.com]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2757923.stm

Now consider Japan's history in Asia. Yeah, bad enough the Americans blew up half your country to kill Japanese, but to have a belligerent-sounding Japan *again*?!?

Lemme find some nukes, quick!

Important article on ANWR - real numbers for a change!

[applez.livejournal.com]

http://www.enn.com/news/2003-02-14/s_2605.asp

Of course, this is coldest economic analysis that excludes any monetary valuation of a near-pristine ecosystem, and ignores the underpriced insurance for oil spill risk.

Some facts on World Oil Supply

[ex-boog351.livejournal.com]

USA is the largest consumer of oil and accounts for 25% of all imports. Its Oil dependency is about 50% on imports, which is alot lower than most western democracies. This gap, however, is forecast to increase to about 60% by 2025 as domestic oil production is outstripped by consumption.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/figure_5.html

Currently, oil imports from the gulf states accounts for about 12.6% of present day US imports, the most significant source coming from the Western hemisphere. The biggest single supplier from the Middle East is Saudi Arabia, by quite some distance, I believe.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/Trade_image_origin.htm#U.S. Imports by Area of Origin

The interesting one is estimates of Oil reserves:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/Sup_image_Reserves.htm

I think this shows a growing future dependency on Middle-Eastern Oil, a region acknowledged to be politically unstable. Unless of course fuel cell technologies make this obsolete.

It seems logical to argue that attacking Iraq will help the US seize control of the oil it will need in the future. It seems more logical to nurture a friendly dictator in Baghdad and offer to buy his oil and make him extremely rich, if all we are interested in is oil. Bringing a war that could very well destabilise the entire region if things go awry does not fit with this logic in my opinion.

The real issue is the drive to build weapons of mass destruction and the terrible threat they pose to all of us. The proliferation of these awful weapons into the hands of dictators and terrorists who do not value human life absolutely has to be stopped, otherwise a few decades down the line everyone will be faced with the threat of annihilation and there will not be the discipline of the cold war to prevent it.