March 6, 2003
As the diplomatic end game winds down (emphasis on "game"), and
preparations for the Second Gulf War take a southern turn with Turkey's refusal
to allow passage of U.S. troops, this would be a good time to ponder what the
United States and Britain will soon be fighting for. It would be helpful for the
Allies to discard the "good versus evil" rhetoric swirling around this upcoming
conflict and simply acknowledge the practical benefits of action and the dire
consequences of inaction.
For starters, this war is not a war against terrorism: there has been no hard
evidence presented of cooperation between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Invading Iraq will
not directly hurt the cause of Islamist terrorists (indeed, it might win them
more support in the short term). What this war will do is eliminate a potential
threat to the civilized world (if you consider the probability of Iraq
eventually being able to terrorize Israel and other nations with WMD-tipped
missiles, then, yes, this could be deemed a war against terrorism). The Bush
administration would have been better off keeping it very, very simple from the
start: before September 11th, America ignored those who threaten its survival.
After September 11th, America has seen that it can no longer ignore those who
threaten its survival. The Bush administration's attempts to link Iraq and
Al-Qaeda by citing evidence such as a supposed meeting between a 9-11 hijacker
and an Iraqi official, or the supposed harboring of known terrorists, are (at
best) futile and (at worst) damaging to American credibility.
Iraq doesn't need to be linked to Islamists to be deemed a threat to Western
civilization. Iraq was required by the United Nations to discontinue its pursuit
of weapons of mass destruction after the First Gulf War, and it hasn't produced
evidence to that effect after being given many chances to do so. The United
Nations has proved itself irrelevant in the face of determined dictators, and
the United States is the only nation powerful enough to enforce international
norms. Case closed. Send in the cavalry.
And regardless of whether one side is evil or not (I won't argue with those
who say Saddam Hussein and his supporters are "evil"), casting this war in terms
of light and darkness is not productive either. Such spin is not productive
because it ignores recent history: we supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War
knowing full well that we were dealing with a totalitarian regime. We supported
Iraq only because its enemy Iran posed a much more dire threat to our Middle
Eastern sources of oil, but we still supported it.
What we are fighting for is survival, nothing more and nothing less. Today's
Iraq does not pose a direct threat to the West, but tomorrow's Iraq (or
tomorrow's North Korea) just might. Weapons of mass destruction, either through
the deliberate intent of their creators or their creators' demise, cannot be
allowed to fall into the hands of those who would be inclined to use them
against civilized nations. Iraq must be disarmed, both as a practical matter and
as a warning to other nations that wish to pursue WMD.
The twenty-first century is turning out to be a time fraught with danger. As
the double-edged sword of technology grows sharper, and its reach longer, the
civilized world must make a choice: either slide into a familiar past or embrace
an unknown future. The past, which is never quite past, is full of barriers not
only to weapons and people, but also trade and ideas. If actions are not taken
to eliminate sources of danger in other parts of the world, civilized nations
will have no choice but to maintain and strengthen borders and the security
apparatuses within those borders. Such a state of affairs would have dire
consequences for the progress of Western civilization.
Or civilized nations can choose to make an unknown future known by embracing
it. They can change failed states into successes by actively assisting them,
even assimilating them (the European Union has made great strides in this
arena). The world today is not divided between the forces of "good" and "evil";
it's divided between the forces of progress and recidivism. The question of
whether a nation, organization, or an individual chooses to be a productive
member of the global community or a dangerous rogue does not need to be cast in
terms of "good" and "evil." Suffice it to say that most of the world wants to
see long-term peace and progress, and that these goals can only be achieved by
coercing rogue nations into conforming with the post-Cold War standards of the global
community. If this coercion entails war, then so be it.
