What Else Can Be Done About Iraq?
There are still—and always have been—alternatives to war

For a different flavor—arguments in FAVOR of the war, please see these pages.

For a reader's thoughtful response to this article, click here.

For some good, relevant other articles, see:
http://mondediplo.com/focus/iraq/ and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4638796,00.html

by Ian Kleinfeld

Discuss this in our online forums

Let's make no mistake: Saddam Hussein is a violent dictator who probably would provide Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) to terrorists wanting to attack American interests and targets. And if he had the power, he would no doubt dominate and terrorize the region, and even attack the U.S. However, he does not-and the world community must ensure that he remains that way.

The best way to achieve this, in our opinion, is not to bring the world to war through a unilateral American action. Any military action other than a defensive response to an attack must be approved by the U.N. and carried out through international law-which the U.S. only seems to recognize when it suits us.

Bush and his administration challenges the U.N. By saying, "if this body wants to remain significant and not go the way of the league of nations, it must enforce its resolutions"-a painfully true point. However, to go on to say that if the U.N. doesn't do what the Bush administration wants, the U.S. will unilaterally attack Iraq in the name of "enforcing" these resolutions anyway, is hypocritical and ironic, because it would be ignoring the authority of the UN just as blatantly as Saddam Hussein. In fact, the U.S. has a long history of this. He is, in the false name of preserving the U.N.'s authority, subverting its authority and making it less significant. The hypocrisy-and arrogance-is incredible.

The U.S., as the world's only superpower, must be an example of a good international citizen. There is no place for isolationism or unilateralism in this 21st century. We must abide by and support international law, and not just when it suits us. It's unacceptable when Police or the FBI ignore the law when it's inconvenient; it's not acceptable when nations do it either. If we skirt around international law, use it when convenient, and flaunt our subversion of it, other nations will follow and use our actions as a defense. It undermines any moral authority the U.S. Has left, alienates our friends, further alienates our foes, and makes us less and less trustworthy in the eyes of all nations. We have been, for short-term gains, spending our long-term credibility. And it hasn't just been this administration. It's been our direction for some time.

Numerous intelligence authorities-from the CIA, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, to name a few-believe Saddam poses no immediate threat. Israel, whose intelligence in the region is far better than ours will ever be, had no qualms bombing an Iraqi nuclear reactor it believed to be a threat back in the 80s, despite international condemnation at the time. They have no such anxieties now. We have no need to rush to war to defend our home and interests abroad against Hussein.

While Saddam does actually pose a threat, we believe It's overblown for the sake of an old agenda of many Bush administration members. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and friends have been wanting to overthrow Hussein for years. He's no angel, but honestly, when he was doing all the things that they are using as rationale now (gassing the Kurds, killing his people, etc.) we did nothing. After the original Gulf War, we did nothing as his armies slaughtered civilians during the cease-fire. Furthermore, chances are that most of the weapons, including gas, biological stocks, certain nuclear equipment, and other military equipment and technologies came from the U.S. in the first place. Where was this "moral imperative" then? There were plenty of Americans and American politicians who were happy with selling these items and technologies to Hussein while he was actually using them against his own citizens.

Some counter me that we should blame Clinton for this. While Clinton did not use the same strong tactics as Bush is now, it would be shortsighted to stop there, because it was originally Reagan and Bush, and a little bit of Carter (I believe) who started the ball rolling. To fail to acknowledge this makes us question the administrations true intentions in the region.

It's also folly to say it's all about oil. While we have satirical pieces insinuating that, the real situation is far more complex. It is, of course, a lot about oil, just as Kuwait was. Back then the main marketing of the war was "the liberation of Kuwait," making it seem noble. The real reason was a protection of our vital interests in the region, oil. No one admitted it back then, but it's said in public now. We were defending our vital interests. Humanitarian issues, liberation of the Kuwaitis, all that, were nice side benefits. (Note, by the way, that Kuwait has not supported our rush to war against Hussein this time. And it's not because they're "ungrateful." They, in their close proximity, believe that it would do more to destabilize the region than help it).

Since 9/11, the security issues have changed. Hussein is dangerous and unpredictable. He would no doubt love to both dominate the region and destroy the U.S. if he could. I'm sure he has no qualms about passing weapons and technologies to terrorists. He sponsors terrorism. He supports suicide bombers in Israel. He is a megalomaniac obsessed with his place in history. He is a brutal dictator. But the U.S. Has a long history of aiding brutal dictators and regimes who later come back to bite us. See: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bin Laden, Pinochet, Contras, Somalia, Indonesia, Grenada, and on and on. We continue to support brutal dictators. It's not a matter of morality or doing the "right thing." It's for sure not a matter of "liberating the people of Iraq." The administration doesn't give a rat's ass about the people of Iraq, regardless of what they say. It's spin.

This is about geopolitics and who controls the regions resources, and it is about the idea that we can achieve more security by being belligerent and hard-line than we can by being consistent and firm, and dealing fairly with the rest of the world.

What must happen is a disarming of Iraq-as Bush is so fond of saying. But it must happen without increasing the violence and chaos in the region if at all possible. There are ways to do it.

Inspections do work. While the U.N. weapons inspectors were in Iraq, the destroyed literally thousands of tons of chemical and biological weapons. They destroyed nuclear production facilities. They were able to, under ridiculous conditions, to do their job finding and destroying nearly all the prohibited weapons. They are world-class experts in their field, not a bunch of Keystone cops. However, there were big weaknesses in the way it was done. They were played with by Iraqi authorities, refused entrance to many areas, misled. The terms of inspections need to change. Inspectors need complete access to all areas of Iraq, the ability to interview anyone they need to, in private, and out of the country if need be to ensure the safety of witnesses. We have seen a continuous improvement in what Hussein is allowing. Even things he refused originally, he is acquiescing to now.

Much of that is due to the threats of war from the U.S. And continuing pressure from the international community. However, that doesn't mean it's the only or best way to go about achieving disarmament. Brinkmanship is a risky business, and should not be taken lightly. That's what we are doing. And if you look at North Korea, they are using the same tactics. Are we setting the example? Are we following theirs? Either way, it's poor policy.

I have heard over and over again from people that "the inspections don't work. We tried that for 12 years." We did not. The inspections, as I mentioned, were hindered by all sorts of Byzantine guidelines, noncooperation by Hussein, and not the least of which, the fact that the completely American team was being used as spies for the U.S. And though Rumsfeld and friends are so fond of saying that the "Inspectors were kicked out," that's nothing but an out-and-out lie. They were not kicked out. They were ordered to leave-by the U.S., so we could begin bombing. They were then refused re-entry. That's a far cry from "being kicked out." Yes, they were having a hard time doing all they were charged to do because of noncooperation, but they were not kicked out. That's spin and an outright lie that has been repeated in the hopes that it would begin to take on the authority of fact. It's not.

But it is also a fact of history that nations use lies and misrepresentations, fear mongering, painting new adversaries as old adversaries, (Hussein is not Hitler, and this is not 1939) and the tactic of questioning patriotism to lead their people into war. We only have to look as far back as the Gulf of Tonkin to see how casually a government will lie to its people, a President will lie to congress, to engage in a war for the wrong reasons. And that was not the only time. In nearly every war, this has been the case. Perhaps it could be the case now?

If there had been real attempts to resolve the situation other than ongoing bombing and "enforcement" of the "no-fly zones," I would be more amenable to a military solution straight out. However, that wasn't the case in anything but the current framing of the situation by the administration. They continue to misrepresent the facts to make their case more popular, forced it through congress before an election, and bully the international community to foment "regime change." Neither I, nor the CIA, nor the FBI, nor Israel, nor Saudi Arabia, or any reliable intelligence authority, believe that there is an imminent threat to the US or US interests on the part of Hussein requiring the high-speed legislation that's been happening.

We don't' disagree with everything the Bush administration is doing in this situation. Using military troops as "incentive to cooperate" is a great strategy. However, I don't believe that this is the intention. I believe that the administration wants to go in militarily and take over, change the regime by force, and that has been its plan from the start. That puts their rhetoric and action in an entirely different light than if this were simply a bluff or convincing the UN that force might be necessary to achieve compliance.

I am not, and this site does not hold that there is no place for military action. There are plenty of situations that call for it, but it must ALWAYS be the failure of all other options before resorting to force. In the long run, diplomacy and engagement is more effective policy and better for the security of the nation-and the world, not to mention the soldiers and civilians who die or are injured by war.

I worked for a number of years as a psychiatric nurse, and there is a core philosophy-and law-in treatment. When dealing with dangerous behavior by psychiatric patients, it is required that staff use the "least restrictive means necessary" to curb the behavior and provide for the safety of the client and those around him. That means verbal intervention before drugs, weaker drugs before stronger drugs, stronger drugs before physical restraint. This preserves not only the dignity of the patient, but their safety and the safety of the staff, in addition to creating a relationship of trust between staff and patients. It is far less threatening to start at the bottom and work up as needed, and it minimizes the likelihood that the situation will escalate into violence that needs the most restrictive (and violent) means. And it is far more likely that a patient who knows their medical staff will not jump to the most repressive remedies at the smallest provocation will cooperate and work more effectively with that staff.

We should follow the same approach with Iraq, and indeed, in all areas of international law. While it might seem to be more effective in the short run to have a U.N. resolution incorporating an invasion force if these inspections were not complied with (or do it unilaterally), it's better in the long run to begin with the least violent means, and to progress in severity only as warranted.

Many international conflicts have been resolved by patience, and we cannot know if a moderate, firm path will succeed if we don't try it first.

Even if Saddam is not likely to allow inspections of sites that are crucial to his weapons programs without harassing the inspectors, there needs to be some kind of military muscle accompanying them. This is what's referred to as "Coercive inspections." It would, we've heard, most likely be a group of up to 50,000 troops, who could put whatever pressure needed on those preventing access to questionable sites. And this group would need the authority to use military force to access sites if need be. However, they do not need to be backed up by unilateral American violence.

In a more responsible and less unilateral and militaristic administration (although none of them but the reluctant Powell have actually served-interesting, yes?), it would be wise to call for the UN to create a new resolution calling for Coercive inspections to begin with (backed up by some 50,000 INTERNATIONAL troops if necessary) and dealing with the issue of noncooperation when it comes up.

As it would show up here in congress, it would be something more like the Spratt option that was sidelined. A One-step-at-a-time approach.

I truly believe that in the long run the current administration's unilateralism, especially unilateral militarism will threaten our security more than it will provide for it. With rare exception, violence always begets more violence. An attack on Iraq will result in more immediate and severe terrorism for us, more strife in the region, and more hatred of the US, not less.

There are many reasons to avoid war, and most of them are not as simple as the desire to avoid civilian casualties in open conflict. The long-term aftermath of war is continued horror, illness, hunger, chaos, and conflict. The cancer rate for children in Iraq is arguably the highest in the world. Most experts believe it's because of the depleted uranium that was used in tremendous amounts during the original Gulf War. It could also be due to the fantastic environmental destruction and poisoning by petroleum fires, toxic waste from the war, fuel and oil spills, poisoning of the land… the list goes on and on. Cluster bombs continue to be used in war by the U.S.—despite international condemnation of their use-and leave many unexploded, bright yellow packages for children and civilians to come across and be killed by. It happens all the time in Afghanistan now.

There are plenty of ways to succeed militarily without using things like depleted uranium, land mines, cluster bombs, and other weapons that leave a long-term danger primarily to civilians and specifically, to quite innocent children. I believe the reason these are used are often "because we have them" and that men like their new toys, and on a darker note, because of the relationship of the government with certain companies who provide these weapons. Remember where Cheney and Rumsfeld were coming from before they were most recently in public office.

I am not naive. I understand the need for a strong military. But unfortunately, our administration doesn't understand the need for restraint and wisdom, and the consequences of the use of force. I am also not a conspiracy theorist. But I understand that money rules power, and this administration is far more connected to that money than any administration in history. I also know money, military contracts, and oil are not the only reasons for their enthusiasm towards removing Hussein. But it the more those elements are in the fray, the more it makes me question their integrity and intentions. Especially when they are so eager to use the most heavy-handed tools at their disposal first.

International cooperation must be the guideline for the new century if we are to avoid repeating the bloodshed of the past century. This is not 1939. There are better tools for shaping the world than sheer force. We are, supposedly, more sophisticated and wiser, the world is more interdependent than ever. Why then are we using a 60-year old framework for our international relations? Let us use the imagination and ingenuity of America to find a solution to this that doesn't require bloodshed, if at all possible. When that fails, and it's clear to all that it has, then military action is a sad necessity. But we're not there yet.

For some good, relevant other articles, see:
http://mondediplo.com/focus/iraq/ and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4638796,00.html

-----

A reader responds:

Dear democracymeansyou.com,

I stumbled upon your website through an email forward I received. First off, I would like to express how proud I am to live in America where several opposing views regarding the government can be advocated. Although I do not agree with your anti-Bush/ anti-war sentiment, I find it very informative and interesting to acquire views differing from my own.

In you website, you have outlined some alternatives to going to war (in “What Else Can Be Done About Iraq”) with Iraq which I would like to discuss. I fail to understand how the U.S unilaterally attacking Iraq and therefore enforcing several U.N resolutions is hypocritical. In order to maintain legitimacy, these resolutions must be enforced. Since our “allies” (France, Germany, and Russia) threatened to veto any new resolution, the U.S has no choice but to “take matters into its own hands”. Apparently, France’s, Germany’s, and Russia’s investments in Iraq’s oil fields and nuclear programs take precedence over American security.

Hopefully, this legitimacy in America will be restored after this conflict is over. Middle Eastern governments, paramilitary organizations, and radical Islamic groups will realize that the U.S isn’t messing around with empty threats. For the past 24 years, several terrorist attacks have been sustained on Americans and on American soil. The U.S has failed up until now to take decisive action aimed at eliminating these attacks. It is obvious that the severity of these acts of violence has increased exponentially since they began in 1979. I don’t see any reason why they would subside without a more significant action than has been taken in the past.

Regardless, we are involved in this war now and the post-Saddam Iraq provides a more legitimate debate. I was very interested by your “When Democracy Failed” article. However, I am unaware of concentration camps in operation today under G.W. Bush. It seems a parallel between Hitler and Saddam could also be easily illustrated, if by the writers choosing- The genocide of an ethnic group blamed for a countries problems (Kurds, Shiite Muslims), the frivolous invasion of neighboring countries (Iran, Kuwait). Also in this case, I don’t agree that Democracy failed. Hadn’t Bush been elected by the system put in place by the democracy? Weren’t the majority of Americans in support of a war on Iraq? As admitted in your “What Else Can Be Done About Iraq” it is clear that Saddam Hussein poses a threat to America and it’s way of life. Did Austria pose as much of a threat to Nazi Germany?

I am very receptive to any retort you may have to my counterpoints. Your very website is testament to the freedoms we have as Americans. As opposed to lying down in the street, or spitting on our servicemen and women, this is a very constructive and interesting method of conveying your message. Thank you for your time in reading my feedback.

*paul

----

Our response:

Hi Paul, and thanks for your respectful discourse. I get a lot of moronic hate mail, as you can imagine.

In brief, to reply,

1) If the U.S. unilaterally decides to "enforce" a U.N. resolution that the U.N. doesn't it is on it's face a usurpation of U.N. authority and hypocritical. How can one say that one believes in the authority of the U.N. then thumb one's nose at it when it doesn't do what you want? That said, my opinion is that the only reason the administration went to the U.N. was to try to get a fig leaf for what it was going to do anyway. I am glad, and respect the other powers for not succumbing to U.S. bullying.

2) Absolutely a response to terrorist attacks is needed. However, there is more than one response. Europe has decades more experience in dealing with terrorism than we do. And frankly, they are more effective. Israel is not a great model. What they've done clearly hasn't worked yet.

Maslow said, if the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as some sort of nail. Likewise, if what you spend your money on and owe allegiance to is your military-industrial complex (a term President Truman coined, to warn Americans of the danger of such an entity), you tend to see solutions as military in nature, for the benefit of industry. I do not believe for a moment that the "liberation of the Iraqi people" was anywhere near the top of the agenda for this war. If you look at the changing rationales for the war, it appears that the administration kept trying on reasons until the ones they used got a good response. A combination of "Homeland Security" and "Freedom" seemed to work wonders.

3) Concentration camps. The author is making a comparison, not saying they are exactly the same. However, there are up to 3000 people being held with no public knowledge of who they are and why they're being held. There are thousands of Afghanis in camp Xray... carefully chosen for its location off the mainland U.S. so U.S. laws do not apply. It's fishy. It's not Hitler, but it's similar enough to warrant a comparison and thought about it--the author's intent.

A parallel between Hitler and Saddam has been made repeatedly in the mainstream media (ahem, "Liberal Media," I should say...) to the extent that the coalition forces are referred to as "Allies" and the bad guys are referred to as "The Axis Powers." This was done first by the administration. I don't doubt for a moment that it was marketing, and carefully chosen for its impact. Hitler, by the way, was also a master of propaganda, if you recall.

Also, recent surveys show some very interesting results about the effect of the marketing. From the UK Guardian:

According to a New York Times/CBS News survey, 42 per cent of the American public believes that Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. And an ABC news poll says that 55 per cent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein directly supports al-Qaida.

The full article can be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4638796,00.html

As we know, none of those things are proveable, and likely not at all true.

4) The idea that France, Germany, and Russia are trading their oil investments for our security is foolish, not in the least because we are acting as much on our oil investments and interests in the region as we are for "security," if not more so. To believe this is only about security is as shortsighted as believing it is only about oil. They are doing just as we are doing, protecting their interests, with the exception that they were also trying to prevent an unjust and unnecessary war.

5) We will never really know if other alternatives would have worked, because we didn't really try them, and weren't willing to from the get go. That is one of my biggest issues with the way this was handled. In law, you must go from A-Z, or it is illegal. Period. Using lethal force when other options exist is not only poor judgement but illegal and punishable, whether you are a police officer or a civilian. It should be the same for our government.

Howard Zinn: "There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of spilling innocent blood."