Observer
Active member
I have debated with myself whether to become embroiled in this forum on the US/Iraq/war debate. On the one hand, it seems unlikely that what I write will persuade the diehard, anti-war and/or anti-US contingent, which is clearly substantial. On the other hand, I believe that the issue has vital significance and that the better view of the arguments is under-represented. Therefore, I feel compelled to express the views I believe in.
So, here goes.
Q. What right does the US government have to act as policeman of the world?
A. None, except as mandated by a majority of the world's inhabitants or their representatives (which purpose the UN could be be taken to serve). But that does not preclude its obligation to protect its own citizens or to take action unilaterally if the UN fails to mandate action. As it happens, there is, undeniably, a need for the "world policeman" role. International terrorism and despotic heads of state who torture and murder their own people have proved that. The US is uniquely capable of fulfilling that role. The US government does not HAVE to do it and the US taxpayers do not HAVE to pay for it, but I am grateful that it and they do. The US has its faults, perhaps many faults, but for all of them, it is a largely free and democratic country and George Bush was democratically elected (on which more below). Taking the argument a step further, the US is, whether I or anybody likes it or not, the only superpower. Given what is happening and has happened around the world - the propensity for human beings, as a species, to kill each other - whether in the last few years or the last 60 odd years, I am happier that there is a superpower which has the ability to project force and police the world (if the absolute need arises) than I would be if no such superpower existed. And I am infinitely happier that it is the US than any of the other possible candidates (the old Soviet Union, Russia, China?). And, yes, I am also happy that the country of which I am a citizen will stand with the US and play a part.
Q. Was GWB democratically elected?
A. The election may have highlighted anomalies in the US electoral system, but the issue was examined and tested in law right up to the Supreme Court. Far from it being, as some have claimed, a travesty of democracy, I believe it was a triumph for democracy and the rule of law. The losing side, as they were entitled to do, contested the issue to the end; but when the final decision was made against them, accepted it. The ultimate rule of law, as framed by elected representatives and applied by independent judiciary, is, in my view, the ultimate test of a free and democratic society.
Q. Why pursue Iraq and not other countries which also pose a threat to others? The US has double standards.
A. Possibly, but not necessarily, true. And, even if it is true, irrelevant. The fact that the US does not (either can not or does not choose to) tackle all threats (or potential threats) with equal vigour does not make it wrong to tackle any one or more of them.
Q. Does the threat that Iraq represents justify going to war?
A. Neither I nor anybody without access to all the intelligence material available can answer that on a fully informed basis. We elect politicians to make those judgements on our behalf. Absent that information, I answer the question thus:
(i) The extent of anti-war sentiment in the UK and the US makes it clear that George Bush and Tony Blair are taking a serious political risk in pursuing their joint policy on Iraq. That risk will become extreme if war is commenced without the backing of a further UN resolution (I do not think it will be but acknowledge the possibility). Imagine, for example, if things went badly and huge numbers of US/UK servicemen, or Iraqi civilians, were killed. I do not believe that either Bush or Blair will lightly commit armed forces. For anybody who asserts that is not true, I can have no respect. I do not believe that war is inevitable. I do believe that Iraq will certainly NOT disarm if it is not obliged to do so either by the use of force or by the sure knowledge that force will be used if it does not comply.
(ii) It is not in the nature of political leaders to take unnecessary political risks. If they take an extreme political risk, they will have extremely good reasons to do so.
(iii) By contrast, the political risk of doing nothing (against Iraq) is small. Even if there is credible intelligence which, for obvious reasons, cannot be made public - perhaps that Iraq does have or will develop the means to inflict serious damage on the US or the West or its neighbours? Or has sponsored or is sponsoring terrorism? - the POLITICAL risk of doing nothing arguably remains low. So, if Bush and Blair, supported by their respective cabinets, are convinced of the need to threaten the use of force and to actually use force, then again, I believe they will have very good reasons to do so.
Second-guessing the politicians we have elected, when we do not possess, and cannot expect to possess, the information on which we have elected them to make judgements in our best interests, is not an itellectually sustainable position to occupy. Expressing grave concerns and reservations; asking probing questions; testing the strength of conviction; that's all fine. But the only totally anti-war position which it is possible to occupy, as a not-fully-informed member of the public, is: "Regardless of the seriousness of the perceived threat, I do not support pre-emptive action to neutralise it". I disagree with that position but accept it is as intellectually valid.
Q. Would the US take action against IRAQ if it wasn't for oil?
A. Who knows? It's a hypothetical question. But say the answer is "No". It doesn't matter. The US is not obliged to act as policeman only for humanitarian reasons. The fact is that Iraq, apart from possessing massive oil reserves, sits (figuratively if not also literally) in the middle of the largest oil-producing region on the planet. It is not just in US interests for there to be political stability (or no worse instability) in the middle-east. The economies (and therefore the prosperity of all of us) of the whole of the developed world (perhaps with some individual exceptions but it's a reasonable generalisation) and, to an increasing extent, the "second world" and the "third world" relies on continuity of oil supplies and stability of oil prices. It may be an unhealthy reliance but it is a fact. And that being the case, it is to be expected that the US will be more ready to take action where its vital national interests are at stake than where they are not. It is not reasonable or sensible to expect any person, organisation or state to act only for altruistic reasons. We should encourage and support them when they do and hope they will do so more often.
So the case for supporting the US/UK policy on Iraq is:
1. Iraq is ruled by a ruthless tyrant who would not hesitate to use whatever means available (including the cliched "weapons of mass destruction") against the US and its allies, subject only to the deterrence of retaliation. If Saddam could make available those means to terrorists who have no "return address", it is difficult to believe he would refrain from doing so. As the first duty of a government is to protect its people, if the intelligence available indicates that the threat is OR MAY BECOME real, that government is obliged to take action. In my view, that can and should include pre-emptive use of force, if considered necesssary.
2. The terror Saddam has visited on his own people is enough justification on its own to have him removed, if it could be done at less human cost than that of allowing him to remain in power. The fact that there are other good reasons, security and economic, makes it easier to come to that decision.
3. Saddam's Iraq is a proven threat to the security of its neighbours.
4. Iraq has consistently and repeated violated UN security council resolutions. The fact that it re-admitted UN inspectors recently is solely due to the threatened use of force. It must be concluded that as soon as the threat is removed, or is perceived to become less real, the compliance with UN resolutions will cease.
So, here goes.
Q. What right does the US government have to act as policeman of the world?
A. None, except as mandated by a majority of the world's inhabitants or their representatives (which purpose the UN could be be taken to serve). But that does not preclude its obligation to protect its own citizens or to take action unilaterally if the UN fails to mandate action. As it happens, there is, undeniably, a need for the "world policeman" role. International terrorism and despotic heads of state who torture and murder their own people have proved that. The US is uniquely capable of fulfilling that role. The US government does not HAVE to do it and the US taxpayers do not HAVE to pay for it, but I am grateful that it and they do. The US has its faults, perhaps many faults, but for all of them, it is a largely free and democratic country and George Bush was democratically elected (on which more below). Taking the argument a step further, the US is, whether I or anybody likes it or not, the only superpower. Given what is happening and has happened around the world - the propensity for human beings, as a species, to kill each other - whether in the last few years or the last 60 odd years, I am happier that there is a superpower which has the ability to project force and police the world (if the absolute need arises) than I would be if no such superpower existed. And I am infinitely happier that it is the US than any of the other possible candidates (the old Soviet Union, Russia, China?). And, yes, I am also happy that the country of which I am a citizen will stand with the US and play a part.
Q. Was GWB democratically elected?
A. The election may have highlighted anomalies in the US electoral system, but the issue was examined and tested in law right up to the Supreme Court. Far from it being, as some have claimed, a travesty of democracy, I believe it was a triumph for democracy and the rule of law. The losing side, as they were entitled to do, contested the issue to the end; but when the final decision was made against them, accepted it. The ultimate rule of law, as framed by elected representatives and applied by independent judiciary, is, in my view, the ultimate test of a free and democratic society.
Q. Why pursue Iraq and not other countries which also pose a threat to others? The US has double standards.
A. Possibly, but not necessarily, true. And, even if it is true, irrelevant. The fact that the US does not (either can not or does not choose to) tackle all threats (or potential threats) with equal vigour does not make it wrong to tackle any one or more of them.
Q. Does the threat that Iraq represents justify going to war?
A. Neither I nor anybody without access to all the intelligence material available can answer that on a fully informed basis. We elect politicians to make those judgements on our behalf. Absent that information, I answer the question thus:
(i) The extent of anti-war sentiment in the UK and the US makes it clear that George Bush and Tony Blair are taking a serious political risk in pursuing their joint policy on Iraq. That risk will become extreme if war is commenced without the backing of a further UN resolution (I do not think it will be but acknowledge the possibility). Imagine, for example, if things went badly and huge numbers of US/UK servicemen, or Iraqi civilians, were killed. I do not believe that either Bush or Blair will lightly commit armed forces. For anybody who asserts that is not true, I can have no respect. I do not believe that war is inevitable. I do believe that Iraq will certainly NOT disarm if it is not obliged to do so either by the use of force or by the sure knowledge that force will be used if it does not comply.
(ii) It is not in the nature of political leaders to take unnecessary political risks. If they take an extreme political risk, they will have extremely good reasons to do so.
(iii) By contrast, the political risk of doing nothing (against Iraq) is small. Even if there is credible intelligence which, for obvious reasons, cannot be made public - perhaps that Iraq does have or will develop the means to inflict serious damage on the US or the West or its neighbours? Or has sponsored or is sponsoring terrorism? - the POLITICAL risk of doing nothing arguably remains low. So, if Bush and Blair, supported by their respective cabinets, are convinced of the need to threaten the use of force and to actually use force, then again, I believe they will have very good reasons to do so.
Second-guessing the politicians we have elected, when we do not possess, and cannot expect to possess, the information on which we have elected them to make judgements in our best interests, is not an itellectually sustainable position to occupy. Expressing grave concerns and reservations; asking probing questions; testing the strength of conviction; that's all fine. But the only totally anti-war position which it is possible to occupy, as a not-fully-informed member of the public, is: "Regardless of the seriousness of the perceived threat, I do not support pre-emptive action to neutralise it". I disagree with that position but accept it is as intellectually valid.
Q. Would the US take action against IRAQ if it wasn't for oil?
A. Who knows? It's a hypothetical question. But say the answer is "No". It doesn't matter. The US is not obliged to act as policeman only for humanitarian reasons. The fact is that Iraq, apart from possessing massive oil reserves, sits (figuratively if not also literally) in the middle of the largest oil-producing region on the planet. It is not just in US interests for there to be political stability (or no worse instability) in the middle-east. The economies (and therefore the prosperity of all of us) of the whole of the developed world (perhaps with some individual exceptions but it's a reasonable generalisation) and, to an increasing extent, the "second world" and the "third world" relies on continuity of oil supplies and stability of oil prices. It may be an unhealthy reliance but it is a fact. And that being the case, it is to be expected that the US will be more ready to take action where its vital national interests are at stake than where they are not. It is not reasonable or sensible to expect any person, organisation or state to act only for altruistic reasons. We should encourage and support them when they do and hope they will do so more often.
So the case for supporting the US/UK policy on Iraq is:
1. Iraq is ruled by a ruthless tyrant who would not hesitate to use whatever means available (including the cliched "weapons of mass destruction") against the US and its allies, subject only to the deterrence of retaliation. If Saddam could make available those means to terrorists who have no "return address", it is difficult to believe he would refrain from doing so. As the first duty of a government is to protect its people, if the intelligence available indicates that the threat is OR MAY BECOME real, that government is obliged to take action. In my view, that can and should include pre-emptive use of force, if considered necesssary.
2. The terror Saddam has visited on his own people is enough justification on its own to have him removed, if it could be done at less human cost than that of allowing him to remain in power. The fact that there are other good reasons, security and economic, makes it easier to come to that decision.
3. Saddam's Iraq is a proven threat to the security of its neighbours.
4. Iraq has consistently and repeated violated UN security council resolutions. The fact that it re-admitted UN inspectors recently is solely due to the threatened use of force. It must be concluded that as soon as the threat is removed, or is perceived to become less real, the compliance with UN resolutions will cease.
