U.S. FOREIGN POLICY = THE POLITICS OF FEAR
No American would dare to suggest that, in the name of society, everything was permitted.
Alexis de Toqueville Co-opting Todd Beamer from the doomed United Airlines Flight 93, President Bush after September 11 announced what he called a new national ethics: “Let’s Roll!” And true to his words, Roll the U.S. did: we have detained suspects, identified targets, and waged war on the Taliban; now, with our army still engaged in Afghanistan, we are preparing for war in Iraq, while a future threat arises in North Korea.
We are rolling so hard, I’m getting dizzy.
For a breathless year and a half, politics have moved at a clip where we’ve hardly had time to react. As the world gets scarier every day, we take on threats no one knew existed, in a war that “might not end in our lifetime,” according to Vice President Dick Cheney.
So perhaps we should stop rolling for a bit, to reflect and consider.
We might find things roll out of sheer momentum.
Despite occasional talk about liberating Iraq, support for war seems to be mainly based on fear — fear of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. Of course, given the trauma of September 11, Americans have every right to feel alarmed; no one can blame us for being scared after such horror in our own country. The question is rather how are we going to deal with this fear, and of what do we really have to be afraid?
We live in a media culture where terror sells news, because anxious people make loyal customers. The more scared we are, the more information we like to have. Similarly, fear yields political support, because people condone whatever promises relief. In face of these gains, it is crucial for us to examine our fright, as well as the actions that it supports.
Our military wields terrible, devastating force — a force that must never be triggered by fear.
Fear-based decisions are often irrational — the overwhelming desire is for unease to go away.
Being afraid makes us blind, both to the larger picture and the consequences of our actions. Therefore, if we’re going to war over supposed Iraqi weapons, accepting the death of American soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians, we must ask ourselves: is this rational policy or a panic reaction?
THE THREAT FROM IRAQ
To look objectively at what threat Iraq really poses to the U.S., one first needs to do something very difficult: separate this war from September 11 and the war on terror. After extensive investigation, the CIA cleared Iraq of any suspicion in the attacks. Even Cheney and Rumsfeld admit that no connection has been established. Nonetheless, people support invading Iraq for fear of future attacks, and we fear future attacks mainly because of September 11. Shaken with fright, we make an unconscious, irrational connection, and regardless of blame, Iraq is paying the price. No one talked pre-emptive strikes before September 11. No one, including the president, worried about Iraq, which hadn’t threatened the U.S. since the Gulf War.
Secondly, fears of Hussein giving weapons to al Qaeda are baseless. A year ago, Britain’s prime minister Tony Blair announced a dossier detailing Iraq’s terrorist links. Despite great international pressure, he never delivered — for a reason. Not only has Iraq never dealt with terrorists of this nature, but al Qaeda hates the secular tyrant, who has a history of crushing Islamic fundamentalism.
Osama bin Laden has wanted Hussein killed for years, viewing him as a Western-created dictator, the evil incarnate. Clearly, to protect ourselves from al Qaeda, we don’t need to see the regime change in Iraq.
The U.S. war on terror has become a murky affair, where enemies and objectives are shifting without notice. Just like striking against al Qaeda morphed into liberating Afghanistan, some people believe that invading Iraq will protect us from terrorism.
The opposite is the case. War on Iraq will boost al Qaeda recruiting offices, and almost certainly lead to retaliation in the U.S. In the name of protecting the homeland, it is the worst approach possible.
As for the weapons Iraq actually posesses, again, the CIA assessed that Hussein poses no immediate military threat to the U.S. Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, a Republican and expert on-site, concludes: “90-95 percent of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capability have been verifiably disarmed. This includes all of the factories used to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. There’s absolutely no evidence Iraq worked on smallpox, Ebola, or any other horrific nightmare the media likes to talk about… The vice president’s continued claims about Iraq’s nuclear weapons capability are unsubstantiated speculation.”
Therefore, if Bush presses for war “unless Saddam disarms,” it is not clear what the president expects him to do. Without evidence of existing weapons, the administration hasn’t specified what Iraq should get rid of.
“Time’s running out,” Bush says, but why the rush? We have Hussein cornered, with a gun pointing at his head — you would think we had all the time in the world. Commenting on whether Iraq might re-establish a nuclear weapons program, Scott Ritter says that “this is not something that could happen overnight, nor is it something that could happen as long as weapons inspectors were inside Iraq.” It follows that, using inspections and containment, the U.S. can defuse whatever threat might exist. If it spares tens of thousands of lifes, let the inspectors work as long as need be.
ALTERNATIVES TO WAR
Of course, Hussein lies and deceives. People favoring an invasion have compared him to Hitler — who was first appeased and then caused worldwide destruction — saying diplomacy won’t work with dictators. But if a country had sent weapon inspectors to Germany in 1938, demanding to search any place, any time, they would have been scoffed at and war declared the next day. As for Iraq, here is a dictator who lets inspectors turn over every stone in the country. Not half-bad for an evil madman. Granted, the U.S. complains about lack of co-operation, and sure enough, we can’t trust the word of a tyrant. But even if there are hidden weapons or programs to build them, the U.S. completely controls the situation. Regardless of Hussein’s deception, inspectors can verify what he has and closely monitor him in the future. To be safe from Iraq, a peaceful solution is entirely feasible.
If war is a last resort, it is also a concession of failure — no solution has been found to resolve a conflict. Consequently, force can only be justified when every peaceful effort has failed. For Iraq, this effort mean weapons inspections, to ensure it can’t harm the U.S. Yet while inspectors are still at work, without producing any hard evidence, Bush has surrounded Iraq with the most fearsome war machine in history, preparing attack to the point of no return. This procedure upends any legal notion of “innocent until proven guilty:” it’s like accusing someone of a crime, putting all burden of proof on the suspect, while at the same time warming up the electric chair.
That’s not due process.
It’s deliberate escalation.
By the time you are reading this, the decision will have been made. If indeed the U.S. invades Iraq over empty chemical warheads, it will not be the result of failed diplomacy. It will be the failure of not being honest about diplomacy. Bush is turning the inspections into a farce, declaring them irrelevant once they can’t find what the administration owes us and our soldiers: convincing proof that this war is necessary.
After September 11, it is crucial and legitimate for the U.S. to protect itself. We have the right and the obligation to prevent future attacks on our country and citizens. However, though vulnerable and disturbed from our loss of safety here at home, we mustn’t blindly sign death sentences abroad, violating international law and the justice we hold dear. Like a wounded bull in a global china shop, the U.S. is turning the world into a battlefield, rounding up random suspects to eliminate at its whim. As difficult as it is, we’ll need to learn to live with ambiguity and doubt, in a world we cannot make safe by force alone. We need to learn how to deal with threats peacefully, which we never attempted with Iraq. Invading countries on suspicion isn’t part of any U.S. mandate, nor is it going to protect Americans. Instead, what the U.S. needs in these trying times is true leadership, a calm, rational approach with skill for diplomacy and a vision for peace.
In the name of such leadership, let’s not roll into Baghdad. Let’s not slaughter civilians for a false sense of security. It’s un-American, if anything ever was.
Chester