Iran spam redux, a war on error
A few months back I wrote in "Iran Spam" about my misgivings regarding the nation's seeming bumrush into war with Iran, a piece not unlike October 2002's "Hail to Fredonia," (below) when I doubted the case for the invasion of Iraq and worried over possible calamitous outcomes. My views were dismissed then--with varying degrees of consternation by a number of soon-to-be ex-U.S. Catholic subscribers--as "disingenuous," "naive," "dangerous." One even wrote that I had gotten "into bed with evil" by raising concerns about another morally and strategically hazardous martial adventure in the middle east.
Now comes word that a comprehensive intelligence review's best estimate is that Iran ceased whatever nuclear weapons building it was doing in 2003, something our president must have known just weeks ago when he made the case for greater pressure, including military intervention, on Iran and darkly, irresponsibly speculated on the coming of WWIII.
I don't wanna say I told you so and I don't want to ask who's naive or disingenuous now, but for the love of God, who is naive and disingenuous now and I did tell you so, just as a thundering herd of other commentators have, that there are reasons to hold this administration up to a greater, healthier skepticism. When will this administration be properly called to task for cherry picking intelligence, improperly pressuring intelligence services, and irresponsibly exploiting this nation's fears in the interest of more war making. We are engaged in a war on terror that apparently knows no fiscal or geographic bounds. As surely as Afghanistan put a stake in the dessicated heart of the Soviet Union, so will this Pax Americana bring U.S. hegemony to its quivering end. But no doubt only after a great deal of senseless brutality and sacrifice in a war we cannot pay for--and so pass on the cost to our children--in violence that is costing us (and Iraqi noncombatants) dearly in life, treasure, and diplomatic and social opportunity costs.
It looks like in the near term at least, Iran may have dodged a bullet. So have we. Let's remember this escapade when the next target appears within Washington's crosshairs.
From US Catholic, October 2002
Hail to Fredonia! The Bush administration adopts a Marxist (brothers') approach to war-making in Iraq.
"TO WAR, TO WAR, TO WAR WE'RE GONNA GO! A-high-dee-high-dee-high-dee-high-dee-high-dee-high-dee-ho!" Forgive my giddiness, but I can't help turning over that delirium-inducing dance sequence from the Marx Brothers' Duck Soup in my mind these days.
Who can blame me when each morn the good old New York Times carries the latest in a series of progressively ominous "leaks" related to America's willfully inevitable showdown with Iraq? So far the war drums along the Potomac haven't quite generated the same enthusiasm for mayhem the Marx Brothers achieved among the citizenry of Fredonia, but amid all the dark insinuations about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction," they might as well roll out the dancing generals and see what happens.
But before CNN starts rolling tapes of Iraqis spearing infants on bayonets, can we all step back a minute and take a deep breath? Does anyone besides the Bush administration want this war to happen? Are we sending our soldiers off to die and kill to secure our national security or to satisfy some inchoate longing to get even with a man who has made a career--and a regime--out of thumbing his nose at the U.S. in general and the Bush family in particular?
We've been told for more than a decade what an evil man Hussein is. Case closed--not even the most patchouli-addled of pacifists want to break bread with him. But keeping a lid on Hussein's ambitions and scheming doesn't require 250,000 ground troops and cloudbursts of cluster bombs.
The Catholic Church teaches that the use of arms must not produce disorders graver than the evil intended to be eliminated. Western-leaning Arab leaders, amid assertions that their territory will not be made available for a U.S. invasion force, assure U.S. policymakers that a "preemptive" attack on Iraq--preemptive apparently serving here as a newly coined synonym for "unprovoked"--will only deepen Islamic hostility to the U.S. and lead Western civ into truly uncharted territory. Radical Islamic rebellions in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are among some of the worst-case scenarios one can only hope Washington warmongers are taking into consideration as they work out the subtle details of U.S. Iraqi policy. A radicalized Pakistan might encourage India to make a preemptive strike of its own, and then we'll really get to see some weapons of mass destruction put to their intended use.
The U.S. bishops already insist that the Iraq sanctions program is morally flawed because "innocent civilians suffer for the actions of a regime over which they have no control." Subjecting these same people to outright war in an effort to remove the regime that already oppresses them builds upon the immoral foundation of the sanctions policy.
Hussein will not be dumb enough to repeat Gulf War mistakes. This war will not be fought on an M-1 friendly desert but through downtown Baghdad. U.S. bombing aimed at neutralizing Iraq's offensive forces will surely violate just war principles of proportionality and civilian immunity. Worse, any attack will likely produce the outcome U.S. war planners propose to prevent, that is, a desperate Hussein compelled to vigorously deploy whatever chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction he does have at his disposal.
If our nation's political and military leadership have the evidence that demonstrates their right intention, let them bring it forward for everyone to see. Then let's hear from the only legitimate authority with the power to make war in our constitutional republic, the Congress, in a real debate all Americans can witness. Only then can we decide if we have moral justification to step again into the abyss of war, remembering that even if our cause is just, our actions must be merciful and virtuous, but above all else, they must be wise.
Before the Gulf War began, Pope John Paul II implored U.S. policymakers to reject the "hurried deadlines of war" and warned that the conflict would only begin "an adventure without return.., a spiral of death and violence." The U.S. and the West may be tired of trying to maintain a dialogue with a megalomaniac like Hussein, but if our only options truly are more talking or more war-making, then we must continue the path of negotiation, the path of peace.
Labels: iran, war on terror
posted by Kevin Clarke @ 5:13 PM
9 Comments
Links to this post
9 Comments:
I hear you! I wish some others in my family could hear too but "patriotism" is being shouted too loudly and they have become deaf.
Strident appeals to patriotism in these instances are meant to shut down critical analysis and debate, so crucial for good decision making in a healthy republic. What bothers me most, however, is we are urged to silence and compliance not out of misguided faithfulness to patria, but to a cult of personality (and weird dome of silence) that is descending around one administration and its increasingly strategically and diplomatically tone-deaf minions. Peter principle on steroids meets hyper-denial=really bad strategic and public policy.
Even if a good argument for a horizonless, hard-power reliant war on terror could be made, I fear we as a republic cannot assume its cost. We would not be the first empire brought down by careless overreach and over spending. Partly by U.S. machinations, the Soviet Union was finally brought down by the cost of their 10-year Afghan adventure. It is an unpleasant historical irony that we could be brought down by the domino of events we set in motion through our intrigues related to USSR's fiasco there and for the same reason.
Hey, even the romans were brought down by over-reaching. But, I guess if we haven't learned the lessons Jesus taught 2000 years ago, why should we have learned about waging the wrong wars in that same amount of time?
Peter principle indeed! That does describe a certain administration! Too bad they can do so much harm without anyone able to stop them.
Since it sounds as if Clarke looks forward to the end of "U.S. hegemony," the question must be asked: Whose hegemony would he prefer to live under? Do not be mistaken--or disengenuous or naive. If America's dominant role in the world ever ends--something that will take a great deal more than our troubles in Iraq to bring about--some other country will strive to take our place (Russia? China? India someday? Who knows?). There always has been and there always will be a world leader; this time is unique only in that no other nation is yet ready or able to directly challenge our leadership. But one or more will try. Personally, I far prefer a Pax Americana to Pax Fill-in-the-Blank, and should he ever have to live under some other nation's hegemony I suspect Clarke will be the one who ends up quivering with regret.
Dear HH,
I don't look forward with much enthusiasm to the collapse of any hegemon since really bad things tend to happen to good, but vulnerable people at such times. I am trying to discourage a sudden collapse of the hegemon I inhabit. I guess I don't agree that there is an "if" to the "ever ends" of America's dominance. We are already witnessing the limits of U.S. hard power and the United States has already surrendered a great deal of its autonomy/power to debt and bond holders around the world, particularly in China. Not to belabor an image (which is, fair-to-say, flat out beginning to sound odd), I'm already "quivering with regret" at the self-determination we have already surrendered to external would-be hegemons like China, a phenom we are only accelerating by passing on the expense of this war to my children and yet unborn grandchildren (a shameful dodge of our collective responsibility to the future).
I don't know that we have to have such a limited vision of a possible future. What about a global political economy more reliant on cooperation than dominance? This is the mistake all doomed empires make, relying on and enforcing dominance until they are spiritually and financially exhausted. My above point is that we seem to be treading down the same tired path; we all already know where it ends. Is our collective imagination so diminished that we can't even conceive of an alternative?
No, I don't want to live under a Pax Sinica, anymore than I want to participate in enforcing a Pax Americana with my tax dollars. It is after all a Pax Christi we Catholics are called, presumably desire, to build. The fact that today that goal seems an impossible challenge is part of the reason we must work toward it with as much energy and commitment as we can muster.
"What about a global political economy more reliant on cooperation than dominance?"
Because 5,000+ years of human nature, human history, etc., stand firmly in the way. Global political improvement comes slowly, if it comes at all. Already, the Pax Americana is far more tolerant, far more open, far more willing to permit dissent, to spread wealth and freedom than the Pax Romana or Pax Britanica ever were. Certainly by any reasonable comparison to the empires that came before ours, we are truly living in a Golden Age. There is some tarnish, of course, but we are a more democratic and flexible society than even Great Britain was at its height, so again I seriously question how lasting the "limits" on America's dominance will be. We remain the largest manufacturer in the world (China is merely moving up fast) and our military is unchallengeable (in the sense that no one can even imagine invading us or taking even one square foot of our territory from us; even the insurgents in Iraq can never physically force us to leave). Yes, we do not always get our way in the world--but then neither does a parent who nonetheless holds absolute power over his children. But the analogy only goes so far--the other nations of the world will never actually "grow up" and "move out of the house" ... thus, the world is stuck with us and our leadership whether they like it or not. Just watch--the world will suddenly find America far easier to live with after Bush's presidency ends (regardless of whether anything changes all that much). I don't really mean to sound so machiavellian and arrogant--but your pessimism and defeatism are really hard to swallow.
HH,
You say U.S. military might is "unchallengable." I guess you mean within our national borders because it is clearly being challenged by the strain of the Afghan-Iraq commitments, both in resources and in manpower. What we are seeing in Iraq is how easily the technological and material superiority of the U.S. military can be neutralized by a determined insurgency. I think the current strain is a bigger "imperial" threat than you seem to think. Certainly at the beginning of the Iraq invasion, few in Washington were anticipating, or at least admiitted so, the $500 billion we have already spent and the other $500 billion+ we will have to commit to it going forward. I do believe that kind of mind-numbing resource suck on the future is a real threat to U.S. hegemony.
I also think you take too generous a view of the individual human costs of Pax Americana over the last 50 years or so. I don't think folks in Southeast Asia and Central and South America who have endured grave suffering in demonstrations of how far the U.S. would go to protect its hegemony would agree with you about the "golden age" of empire.
You speak of "my pessimism and defeatism"? This to me does not compute, but feel free to call me naive. (Though I would argue that I'm merely casting a critical and honest eye on the practical limits of contemporary power and the opportunity costs it engenders.)
I'd have to argue that it is your position, that a militarily enforced hegemony is the only model for future international relations, that is truly pessimistic and defeatist. If anything I am hopeful about the future even as I despair over current fiascos such as the Iraq adventure.
"5,000+ years of human nature, human history, etc., stand firmly in the way." Undeniable. But isn't the essence of our faith to call this new thing into the world, to find this infant and to protect and nurture him? The guiding light of bethlehem and the prince of peace are all metaphors certainly; they are also the practical reality--and the better world--we are supposed to want to co-create. To me, there is nothing more pessimistic or defeatist than to say man is mired in his sinfulness (and how it expresses itself in international relations) and will never escape it.
On the contrary, I think we are on the precipice of a great enlightenment in terms of international relations, accelerated by globalization and the critical shared global problems of our times such as climate change, that cooperation and dialogue are not only the most desirable way forward, they are the only way forward. I think we can learn from the past and are not doomed to repeat it. That to my eyes is a hopeful perspective on the future.
It seems we are living in alternate universes. In yours--which smacks of a retro 60s college leftwing mindset--America is the cause of great evil in the world in the interest of only its own power: "I don't think folks in Southeast Asia and Central and South America who have endured grave suffering in demonstrations of how far the U.S. would go to protect its hegemony ..."
In mine, the U.S. actions helped save the world from the once-seemingly unstoppable spread of Communism, a genuinely evil political system that rivaled Nazism in its totalitarian control of human life (and a system that ended up causing more deaths than Nazism, although usually these deaths occurred within the Communist nations themselves rather than in a global war between nations).
Also, please do not put words into my mouth--I have never suggested that we need or even have a militarily enforced hegemony. Indeed, we are the least militarized "empire" the world has ever known. Our power has been largely economic and cultural. We annex no territory, we possess no colonies, we haven't even added a new state since 1959--and God knows there are plenty of countries that we'd like to invade and get rid of their governments (Cuba, Venezuela, and--from time to time--France all come to mind) yet we show what is by historical standards remarkable restraint. The Iraq fiasco is a result of using too little military power not too much (as evidenced by the progress made through the minimal "surge"); had we sent in a half million men, as we did with Desert Storm, the situation there would never have spun out of control.
HH:
I think my argument is more nuanced than your take on it here, and please let's get past trying to steamroll debate with blanket buttonholing dismissals a la "smacks of 60s leftist" whatever. I am not an aging 60s revolutionary and counter-mainstream positions on the most important issue of our times, how this nation is going to comport itself as it copes with an ongoing, amorphous cultural and security threat, desperately need to be heard and evaluated, not stereotyped and waved off.
You accuse me of putting words in your mouth. The central point you have consistently made here is that there has been and will always be a dominant imperial power on the world stage. Are you suggesting that such power can be maintained without military might?
Your assertion that the U.S. holds no territory and shows restraint on interfering with other nation states "by historical standards" is naturally a challenge to evaluate. We certainly do hold minor territories (and essentially annexed the southwest from the U.S. of Mexico) and the list of nations we have interfered with covertly or with large-scale force in the last century is pretty long. Likewise it's hard to evaluate the U.S. level of militarization compared to past empires or quasi-empires, but we are spending about $450 billion on the pentagon budget alone this year (not including war on terror and related costs), nearly 10 times what the nearest global competitor (China $60+ billion) spends. The U.S. is responsible for roughly half of the total world outlay on military spending. This seems to me a significant level of militarization however you want to rhetorically slice it.
I do not believe that the U.S. is a source or even primary source of great evil and certainly am not suggesting there are not worse alternatives as you delimit above. Like all great powers, however, we have done evil things. It seems foolish to me to try to deny it or dismiss it by saying there are worse world actors than us. I think it is evil to launch a missile at a "valid" target knowing full well that it will also kill noncombatants; I also think it is evil to hijack a planeload of people and fly them into a building. I would prefer that we spend more time thinking about preventing the latter without resorting to the former.
As to what went wrong in Iraq, to me the pertinent moral and strategic question is not a how much force should have been used in the initial invasion and follow through, it is whether the invasion made moral or long-term strategic sense in the first place. To my mind, it fails both standards.
I think we have argued our positions about as far as we can go without moving this to a barroom (fine by me), particularly as we have strayed far afield from the actual blog posting itself. If you would like to have the last word on this, please feel free to respond.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home