Bush, Warmonger?

by Bill Creasy

This essay was written in October 2002, for the November 2002 issue of WASHline. It is reproduced without editing.

President George W. Bush (Bush II) is using his considerable salesmanship skills to get the U.S. to attack Iraq. He claims that a pre-emptive attack on Iraq is necessary to remove Saddam Hussein from power and prevent chemical and biological weapons (CBW) from being used by terrorists. Is this really a good idea, and does the rationale make any sense?

Some humanists would oppose initiating a war for any reason. Some would reluctantly agree with war if it is necessary for self-defense after a direct provocation, or if there were no other alternative. Even this weaker condition does not seem to be the case for the current sitation in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein has given no open provocation. He has had chemical weapons for twenty years and there is no substantial evidence he has given them to any terrorists. In fact, the last time he used them on his own citizens and in the Iran-Iraq War. During this time in the 1980's, Iraq was a U.S. ally and the event passed almost without comment by the U.S. government, including the first Bush Administration. There is little or no evidence that has been made public that Saddam has any connection to Osama bin Laden or al Queda. He has few allegiances to Muslim fundamentalists and is quite secular. Recently, he has offered to allow the resumption of UN weapons inspections, although this is still under negotiation (as this is written).

A new invasion of Iraq is being compared to Desert Storm, the war that President George H.W. Bush (Bush I) executed successfully and popularly. However, that war was precipitated by Saddam, who invaded Kuwait. There was massive international support, and Bush I made a political judgement to end the war without invading Baghdad. This decision was rationalized that the allied coalition would have been fragmented if this action had been taken.

A new invasion proposed by Bush II should be compared to another war: Vietnam. Like Vietnam, a new attack on Iraq is being planned by politicians for political motives without strong input or support from the military. Like Vietnam, the enemy resistance is being underplayed, to attempt to suggest that the war can be carried out with minimal expense and loss of life. Like Vietnam, there is no direct provocation against the U.S. and little international support by allies. Middle Eastern countries are strongly opposed to an unprovoked invasion of Iraq. Like Vietnam, there is no clear objective, aside from a "regime change." There is no clear indication of when our troops could leave the country successfully.

An invasion of Iraq could depose Saddam Hussein. However, what type of government would take his place? All the Iraqi resistance is divided. Possibly a new fundamentalist Islam government would come to power, like it did in Iran. Such a government could be another oil-financed ideological enemy, even if it were democratically elected.

Even if a pro-U.S. government were installed and supported, another significant risk is possible. Iraqi citizens would rightly perceive this military action as an invasion of their territory and an attempt to control their government, perhaps for the benefit of American oil companies. Islamic or nationalist guerrilla groups could arise to fight a resistance against the American invasion, even after the regular army is defeated.

Saddam is portrayed as an evil monster in the U.S. media. He is certainly a ruthless thug in using violence and repression to keep his political power. However, he has used an extensive propaganda campaign for decades to portray himself as a heroic figure to Iraqis and Arabs. Some Iraqis may be glad to see him go, but others could be outraged about his overthrow as an act of foreign imperialism. This resistance, even if it weren't by an organized military force, could produce significant conflict and casualties. A friendly government would be viewed as a puppet, making it almost impossible for U.S. troops to be withdrawn. Problems in Afghanistan are indications that keeping the peace could be a bigger difficulty than ousting a government.

It would be a shame if the legacy of the Bush II Administration was to start a second Vietnamese War. Even worse, it would be terrible for the people whose lives are lost and for the loss of American moral leadership and integrity.

It is hard to denigrate Bush's motives for advocating war with Iraq. He is probably sincere in his effort to make the world safer and reduce the risk of terrorism. He no doubt bears a heavy responsibility to prevent another attack like those on 9/11/01. But it seems that he doesn't have a deep understanding of history. He seems to want to use warfare as a first resort rather than as a last resort, which makes him look like a warmonger. In order to claim a moral high ground, he must be able to argue that an attack is unavoidable because there is absolutely no alternative. He has not shown that.

The so-called war on terrorism can't be used as an excuse for initiating pre-emptive warfare. In the opinion of the author, this invasion must be opposed on humanist grounds unless a true provocation by Saddam Hussein is found and publicly documented.