- The previous day (March 1) the Turkish Parliament refused to allow U.S. troops to attack from the north. Despite the fact that an estimated 80% to 95% of all Turks oppose war, U.S. officials were surprised. If some 62,000 U.S. troops cannot come through Turkey to attack Iraq from the north, the basic invasion strategy must be reconfigured. This will take time, and time weighs against the Bush war plan for a variety of reasons.
- The cover article of the current Newsweek spotlighted the religious fervor of the Bush White House. That article concluded, "For many Muslims, especially Arabs, he (Bush) looks like a New Crusader, bent on retaking the East for Christendom." At the magazine’s home page, sidebar articles to the lead are accessed by clicking on headers with labels like "Pride & the Vision Thing" and "The Sins of Pride." In one, Christian scholar Martin Marty "wonders whether Bush has the humility to see the nuances of this conflict."
The vote of the Turkish Parliament and the serious questioning at home of the roots of current U.S. policies are just the latest indications of the depth of the world’s case against the president’s war. Further evidence that the tide was turning against war seemed to come from the radio talk show of Bob Brinker, a personal finance guru whose radio program airs in Fairbanks on Saturday and Sunday afternoons. On that happy Sunday, the economic pundit dropped his strong support of war in favor of a three-point plan to avoid war. That plan, which he discussed at length, would: (1) triple the inspectors, (2) expand the bombing in Iraq’s no-fly zones and (3) focus on pursuit of terrorists elsewhere.
But the president implacably pushed an increasingly dubious nation toward an attack on Iraq. I believe the president’s war to be ill-conceived. The reasons for my opposition to the president’s war follow.
The Doctrine of Preemption
The president has adopted a doctrine of preemption that I believe to be an ugly abuse of power and an unfortunate departure from history and common sense. Consider: When confronted with the installation of nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962 (and at all other times during the Cold War), this nation eschewed the use of preemptive force. The current plan to wage war in the name of peace is doublespeak straight from the Orwellian nightmare.
The president’s unilateralist bent is more disturbing than his rhetoric. He did not make a serious attempt to work through the United Nations until long after he had declared war on an Axis of Evil. When the president finally went to the UN, he did so with marked reluctance, making it perfectly clear that he does not intend to be bound by that body.
Axis of Evil: At first, that phrase seemed to be more a construct of speech writers than a seriously thought out concept of foreign policy concern. After all, weren’t we primarily concerned with the terrorist threat? The connections have never been made in a convincing manner.
But very quickly we were planning to invade Iraq to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction held by one member of the axis. Soon it became evident that we were really out to oust Saddam. Only recently, with some 200,000 troops in the war zone and more arriving daily, we were told that the U.S. military will rule a conquered Iraq for an unspecified period.
If the United States has a meaningful plan that is likely to allow Iraq to sprout democracy and extinguish radical Islam in the post-Saddam era, that plan does not have a component for explaining or representing itself. It is appealing to think that by waging war against Iraq we can convert militant opposition to Western democracy into support and leave quickly. But this notion, when viewed in the context of recent history, appears to be wildly unrealistic—the product of foreign policy pronouncements, not foreign policy.
In the constantly changing panoply of reasons the Administration has given for a preemptive strike, the president now asserts that the invasion will stem the tide of radical Islam. Yet wreaking great physical and human damage on the people of that region can only strengthen the irrational fundamentalism that has spawned the terrorism that spurs this nation toward war. In Central Eurasia during the middle of the last century, Islam flourished in the face of Soviet repression. Near the end of the century, when the Soviet Union attempted to subdue Afghanistan, the blunt use of military force only added nationalist fuel to the flourishing fires of radical Islam. One of the major attractions of Osama Bin Laden’s world view is his adamant opposition to the U.S. military presence in that region; a preemptive invasion of Iraq, however well intentioned it may (or may not) be, appears to increase Bin Laden’s appeal.
In order to succeed at nation-building in the aftermath of a military attack, the invasion needs the mantle of a broad international coalition. Does President Bush realize that, in the absence of strong and widespread international support, the United States is liable to be regarded as another abusive invader and our actions will only fan the flames of radical Islam’s hatred for the US? Even before setting this course, the president displayed an insouciant disregard for international convention in his rejection of the Kyoto Treaty on global warming and the ABM treaty.
Bush Makes Even His Supporters Blanch
Those in the seat of power often face constraints of which the general public is unaware; moreover, our leaders may have access to information that is not available to the general public. Does this mean that the members of the public are not entitled to an opinion? To the contrary, the principles of democratic government place considerable value on the judgment of an informed electorate. That is why I listen very closely to the policy debate on Iraq—to what is being said, and how it is being said.
A special case can be made for attacking Iraq, for there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is an evil despot. But instead of making that case, this nation has loftily predicated its argument on the doctrine that this nation has the right to conduct preemptive attacks based on nothing more than the arbitrary and poorly supported views of its leaders. Instead of reasoned discourse, President Bush has given the public a steady diet of scripted platitudes, grotesquely simplistic cowboy homilies, and religious rhetoric that seems calculated to convince moderate Islamic persons in the region we would attack that they are facing new Crusaders. Meanwhile Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld deflects critical questions from the press with avuncular witticisms.
On the other side of the equation, even many of the experts who back an Iraq attack find it necessary to criticize the heavy-handed Bush war plan on key points. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman believes we can liberate Iraq and that democracy will sprout. Others from that region have countered that such idealistic expectations are not grounded in reality. For example, an Iranian diplomat challenged Friedman on this point (without naming him) on public television recently. The Iranian envoy pointed out that his country was attacked by Saddam Hussein and fought the resulting war with Iraq for a decade. Iranians died at the hands of Saddam’s chemical weapons, and still neighboring Iran does not support a military attack on Saddam Hussein.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about Friedman’s position is his own doubts. According to Friedman, the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the United Nations—arguing that Iraq was thwarting U.N. inspections and closely linked to Osama Bin Laden—was faulty and unconvincing. "You don’t take the country to war on the wings of a lie," Friedman observed. Most recently, Friedman described U.S. foreign policy on Iraq as "two years of gratuitous bullying" of the international community by an administration "big on attitude, weak on strategy and terrible at diplomacy."
Kenneth Pollack, a veteran of the Clinton National Security Council, laid out the case for attacking Iraq in Foreign Affairs in March 2002, and in a recently published book. Last month Pollack stated that he thinks there is little likelihood that Saddam will develop a nuclear weapon in the next year, and that the attack he favors should await an international consensus.
Even Lawrence Eagleberger, Secretary of State under President Bush's father, has acknowledged that post-invasion Iraq could be a disaster, with Turkish troops in the north, Iranian in the south, conflict among the Iraqi Sunni Moslems, Shia Moslems, and Kurds—all restive under U.S. occupation of an Arab nation.
These informed cross-currents were evident before Turkey balked at admitting U.S. troops, who need to come through Turkey to open the northern attack as U.S. troops invade Iraq from the south through Kuwait. The first press accounts portrayed the plurality in Parliament as a victory; then it was reported that Turkey might reconsider. After all, the U.S. was offering Turkey upwards of $21 billion—in direct compensation and loans for the economic and physical destruction the war might cause—to become an active member of the Coalition of the Willing. Two days later, it was clear that the opposition in Turkey was so strong that its Parliament saw no point in reconsidering the issue on short notice.
On the eve of the vote in Turkey, a State Department representative in Greece resigned after twenty years in the Foreign Service. John Brady Kiesling advised Secretary of State Colin Powell that he leaves his dream job with a heavy heart. "My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal," Kiesling wrote. But, he continued, "the policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests.... We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.... Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?"
Under these circumstances, it should come as no surprise that the French delegate to the U.N. Security Council received an unprecedented spontaneous ovation for his opposition to the U.S. war policy. Yet the war juggernaut rolls on. With a few exceptions (most notably, the speeches of Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia), Congress appears unwilling to play its traditional role of providing a check on the Executive Branch. Instead, Congress has given the authority to decide to go to war (a power reserved to Congress except in a self-defense emergency) to the president.
A Ticket to Baghdad
What can concerned individuals do to alter the course of this nation’s seemingly inexorable march toward war? In response to the massive worldwide anti-war demonstrations Feb. 15, President Bush indicated that he would not be influenced by public demonstrators. But it remains possible that saner heads within the administration understand the importance of obtaining broad support for the proposed war. And the president, as a skilled politician, must recognize that public sentiment against the Viet Nam war forced two of his predecessors from office, while public opinion turned his father out of office ten years ago. In this situation it is conceivable that public demonstrations might help deter our leaders from waging war.
Perhaps the most remarkable demonstration of opposition to the war is the small number of individuals who have gone to Baghdad to bear witness. Since September 2002, the Iraq Peace Team (IPT)—a project of the Chicago-based peace group Voices in the Wilderness—has been sending people to Baghdad in an effort to call world attention to the plight of the people of Iraq. According to its web site, IPT adheres to principles of nonviolence and screens its applicants carefully, requiring character references for its applicants, who are warned to expect tense situations and an uncomfortable hotel.
Getting there may be half the fun. You can’t hop on a plane to Baghdad because the airport has been virtually closed for some time. These days, a ticket from Fairbanks to Amman, Jordan, goes for upwards of $5,000. From there, you have to travel overland. Getting home is no snap, either; the IPT site warns that disruptions may prevent individuals from returning home on schedule. And once you’re home, you should be prepared for the possibility that the government could bring legal charges that could be expensive to defend and could result in a felony conviction, fines, and twelve years in prison.
IPT has about 40 people in Iraq at this time, some planning to stay indefinitely (the group stopped taking applications Feb. 24).
What about protests closer to home that might be easier to manage? During previous wars, individuals wishing to express their public opposition found it necessary to join group demonstrations to make others aware of their concerns. Today, a war protester can use the internet to inform others of his or her feelings and intentions. In the case of civil disobedience, the internet creates an unprecedented opportunity to link people around the world by providing immediate, global information concerning actions taken at remote locations.
For those considering civil disobedience here at home, timing and location are critical. If one waits until the bombs fall to register protest, it will be too late for the action to prevent the death, injury, and physical damage associated with war. From this perspective, anticipatory civil disobedience may be the most appropriate response to the current situation. To ensure that the general public does not confuse conscientious protest with terrorism, care must be taken to select a protest site that does not have direct military, strategic or economic value.
It must be stated clearly that civil disobedience is not a course of action that one should undertake lightly. An individual who commits non-violent civil disobedience must be prepared to accept the legal penalties for opposing government policies. It should also be recognized that after one is arrested, the actor is no longer in control of the situation. Today’s war protestors face strengthened police powers to combat terrorism; moreover, law enforcement and jail personnel may extend the limits of their already considerable authority to impose formal and informal punishment on protestors. Similarly, the legal system may impose unduly harsh sentences whose long-term consequences for the individual are difficult to foresee. Under these circumstances, individuals should deliberate carefully before deciding whether to commit an act of civil disobedience.
Monday, March 3
Today Ari Fleischer, the president’s spokesman, said there is nothing Iraq can do to avoid war. Meanwhile the Pentagon has warned journalists, relief workers, human rights workers, and others to leave Baghdad within three days.
Why the rush? Since the United States claims to be far stronger and Iraq far weaker than in 1991, when we forced Iraq from Kuwait, I tend to think the driver is that the Bush Administration fears further setbacks in the court of world opinion. In sum, the president and his advisors are eager to start a war to staunch the political bleeding.
Sunday, March 10
This weekend, Bob Brinker is once again berating callers who appear to be criticizing the president. The pendulum swings and war looms.
Even though I believe the president is bent on launching a poorly justified war that is much more liable to strengthen the anti-American sentiments of radical Islam than to establish democracy and further peace in the Middle East, I wish our troops well. But I am sick at heart. I treasure that fine day earlier this month, when I believed in the possibility of peace.
Richard A. Fineberg of Ester, who conducts research and writes on North Slope oil development, provides this glum perspective on the pending U.S. military campaign against Iraq.
home
Republic welcome
top
Richard A. Fineberg
archives
