The main trouble with determining the proper course of action is our considerable ignorance concerning Iraq's capabilities. I'm greatly troubled by the Bush administration's enthusiasm for war with Iraq - there is plenty of principled ground from which to object to Bush's push to war. On 9/23, on C-SPAN, I saw most of Gore's speech to the Commonwealth Club, plus the follow-up program, testimony to the House of Representatives regarding the status of Iraq's nuclear program. I agreed with about 90% of what Gore had to say, which is
summarized (by Salon.com) below:
Gore blasted Bush for failing to stabilize Afghanistan, nine months after routing the Taliban from power. He accused Bush and the Republicans of cynically using Iraq as a political issue in the weeks leading up to November's midterm elections. He charged that Bush's stated policy of unilateral action is turning even allies against the United States. And he warned that the new doctrine announced last week by the administration, asserting the right of the United States to take unilateral, preemptive action against any country perceived as a threat, would set a precedent encouraging other countries to take preemptive action, creating a global "reign of fear."
My objections to Gore's speech are on the following points:
1.) Given the sorry history of outside involvement in Afghanistan's politics, it may be wise not to try to stabilize Afghanistan by ourselves. We provide
Karzai's bodyguards, and assistance to the central regime. If
Karzai gets enough help from us, he can work out a
modus vivendi with the rest of the warlords. We don't need to 'nation-build' in Afghanistan, but we do have to prevent it from becoming a terror base ever again. And, please, the U.S. has not abandoned Afghanistan! Our guys are still there!
2.) As Niccolo Machiavelli would no doubt urge, it's an excellent idea for the U.S. to create a "reign of fear" in the Middle East. Al
Qaeda was able to get such lavish funding from many Saudis precisely because the Saudis were not fearful enough of the U.S. - they figured their oil contacts made them immune to our anger. And they have been right in their calculation - for now. By spoiling the convivial atmosphere between nations, however, the U.S. reminds everyone that it is not a helpless giant, and that severe consequences may follow from irresponsible actions.
3.) Gore elevated the "rule of law" to lofty heights, ignoring the hard reality that nations are sovereign entities and are not bound by law, but by traditions. At the international level, only might, and traditions influencing the use of might, are respected. Law by itself is a weak reed.
I think Gore is sincere in his concerns - I don't think his main concern was political opportunism - but as a lawyer, he is saddled by too much respect for the ways of law. Had he been President, he would have been an easy mark on the international scene. The Republicans will eviscerate him, as they should. Democrats need to do the same.
I was impressed by the testimony of Dr.
Hamza on C-SPAN regarding his experiences as an engineer in the Iraqi nuclear program. Based on what he said, and the amount of time that has elapsed since Iraq started on its efforts to get nuclear weapons, it seems to me quite likely Saddam and the
Baath party of Iraq already have an undetermined number of nuclear weapons. It seems to me odd that we are then making such a show of going to war, because that just gives Iraq time to prepare a nuclear attack. The U.S. government then is either trying to get Iraq to move its forces around, and then reveal their locations, or the U.S. government thinks they haven't yet put bombs together. Pretty risky stuff, especially if the U.S. government is wrong! I don't think Iraq is going to give nuclear weapons to a terrorist group like Al
Qaeda, because the weapons could be turned on his own regime, or lost, or compromised, or used in a way that a control-freak like Saddam would disapprove of.
Dr.
Hamza also pointed out that much of the Iraqi nuclear infrastructure is of German design. I find it odd then that Bush doesn't use that information to slam the Germans and prevent Gerhard Schroeder from taking the moral high ground, as he did in his recent re-election campaign. Perhaps Bush is a political klutz (no particular surprise there), or maybe U.S. industries too are
similiarly compromised. Still, it's a mystery....
Dr.
Hamza also points out that removing Saddam is not enough. The will to go nuclear comes from the entire
Baath party, and that huge edifice would have to be removed in post-invasion Iraq if we are to sleep well at night.
In my mind, it's likely that Iraq will go nuclear against U.S. troops participating in an invasion, and maybe against Israel too. In turn, we'll go nuclear too. In some sense, the current debate may already be too late.
Nevertheless, the whole debate is hobbled by lack of information. Does Iraq have nuclear weapons? The lack of a hard answer causes no end of trouble.
To me, an invasion is justified only in the event that Iraq has nuclear weapons (not the much-less-dangerous chemical and biological weapons), or is about to get them, and will use them shortly. And we have to be clever about how we do it, or..., well..., there is Pandora's Box! Everything about the way Bush is going about this business, however, from the
slimeball election timing, to the efforts to evade the need for Congressional approval, to the contempt shown for the (often-contemptible) Europeans, to the failure to better-prosecute the War on Al
Qaeda, demonstrates that he's in way, way beyond his skill level.
