I received an interesting email from an American named Paul. He has an interesting perspective on how we should attack – if and when the decision to attack has been made.
At some point in time we need to answer the question: Is war with Iraq inevitable?Once we can, in good conscience, answer "yes" to that question, we have consigned many people to death. That being the case, we have the most capable Air Force and Navy in the world, either of which is capable of reducing Baghdad (and in fact all of Iraq) to rubble, while minimizing the risk to American Troops. Why send 100's of thousands of American men and women into harm's way when we have this alternative? True, the civilian losses would be very high, but their side seems oblivious to our civilian losses (in fact civilians seem to be their preferred targets). One doesn't produce Biological and/or nuclear weapons to take out military targets.
The Iraqi people have had ample opportunity to depose Saddam Hussein and have chosen not to. (and I don't want to hear about how they are afraid to move against him. If 100,000 civilians rose up en masse he could be easily put down. Hell, get someone in his kitchen and poison his dinner. He uses fear, I have to think that if the Iraqi people truly believe that we would rather blow up a good number of them, rather than suffer Mr. Hussien to live, that their attitude would change dramatically.)
On this point, I would strongly disagree with Paul. We Americans were fortunate enough to be born into a relatively free country and this has shaped our thoughts. We know revolutions are possible and – other than the poorest among us who live in high-crime areas – most of us do not fear for our lives on a daily basis. The Globe and Mail has a detailed background article on Saddam Hussein and the political environment in which Iraqis are raised.
In perhaps his most famous episode of political theatre, Mr. Hussein summoned 350 members of his Revolutionary Command Council to a meeting in 1979. A one-time intimate associate was pushed on to the stage; for two hours, he named names and gave details of a putative plot against Mr. Hussein. As he reeled off the list of his alleged co-conspirators, guards appeared and dragged away the weeping or screaming party members, 60 of them in all. Mr. Hussein took the stage afterward and wept over their treachery; thoughtfully, however, he recorded the whole episode on video, rounding it out with footage of the men, their mouths taped, being executed. But it was not long before another side of Mr. Hussein began to show. He undermined the army, and immediately started to create a network of state police apparatuses, and to eliminate potential rivals. His appointed thugs began their reign of torture and murder; they have killed thousands of Mr. Hussein's opponents over the years. The one undisputed fact about Saddam Hussein's years in power is his monstrous cruelty. He has forced suspected traitors to watch videos of their wives being raped or their children tortured. "From 1982 on, it's been known that any opponent of the regime will not only be jailed, shot and tortured, but their family will suffer the same fate," Mr. Cockburn says. "Consequently, it's very difficult to organize an effective opposition. People just won't do it, for perfectly understandable reasons." His relationships with his children are predictably fraught. His eldest son, Uday, is a drunken thug, almost as feared in Baghdad as his father. He maintains his own jail for people he dislikes in his office at the Iraqi Olympic Committee, which he heads. Uday was paralyzed in an assassination attempt in 1996, and his father appears now to favour his more level-headed second son, Qusay, as his heir. Mr. Hussein also has three daughters with Sajjida; in one of his better known incidents of public brutality, he had their husbands killed in 1996 (not a banner year in the Hussein family). The sons-in-law, brothers Saddam and Hussein Kamal, defected to Jordan and told tales about their father-in-law's biological and chemical weapons programs. A few months later, Uday was sent to tell them they could come home and be forgiven; apparently unfamiliar with their father-in-law's feelings about betrayal, they did indeed return home, to an affectionate welcome -- and then were shot to bits, days later, in a mighty gun battle. And he is positively obsessive about the possibility of assassination, employing three surgically altered body doubles and fleets of decoy cars, and obliging staff at his numerous palaces to prepare meals each day, to give the appearance he is in residence. He employs food testers, sheet testers, clothing testers, ink testers. He is said to never sleep in the same place for more than a day or two, and never for more than four hours at a time. He has rarely travelled outside Iraq, and neither have his advisers. He is isolated as a result, and capable of grave miscalculations such as the invasion of Kuwait that precipitated the Gulf War. Those around him know better than to give him critical advice, so he hears only what they believe he wants to hear; he makes most decisions alone. But Mr. Hussein has clung to power through every disaster. The war he launched against Iran in 1980 left 400,000 Iraqis, mostly conscripts, dead in the course of eight years. His Kuwait adventure in 1990 brought the total humiliation of the Gulf War, with Baghdad in ruins and rebels in control of 14 of the country's 18 provinces. He has outlasted innumerable coups and plots; the country cannot muster an effective opposition against him.
I do not believe the Iraqi people have the capability to rise up against Saddam Hussein without help. In a shameful episode of Western history, many nations (including the US) encouraged Iraqis to revolt during the Gulf War and strongly implied military support would be available. Many Iraqi tried to revolt, the West protected the Kurds, but merely imposed sanctions on the rest of Iraq. Saddam then killed those who revolted (including torturing the families of the rebels).
However, my disagreement with this point does not answer Paul’s main question – why risk American lives for Iraqis? I’ll post the rest of Paul’s comments and then respond.
Many will point out that it is impossible to hold territory without a Ground Force Presence. To which I respond - Who said anything about holding territory? I thought all we were interested in was removing Iraq's leadership and its ability to cause harm to others?I'm sure our Turkish friends would be overjoyed to take possession of the Iraqi oil fields.
Let's move our thinking into the 21st century. We have planes/missiles/bombs, why not use them?
I'll leave the rationale behind whether or not we SHOULD attack to whomever wants to take up that topic. I have concerns over HOW we should attack. We are the most powerful nation in the world, but the world perceives us as being impotent. It is obvious that they don't/won't love us. Alright then, let them fear us. Whatever it takes to ensure the safety of OUR people.
Paul
Paul’s main point is very pragmatic. The US has the power to bomb Iraq to rubble at a very low risk to American lives. Once a decision has been made to eliminate Iraq as a threat to the US, why not do this in the matter that least threatens US lives, no matter how high the cost to the Iraqi people? Machiavelli would probably have approved. The early Roman Republic would certainly have approved. I don’t.
I’ll offer several reasons. The first reason is a Christian argument. (Whether or not my readers are Christian is not relevant to this point – President Bush is certainly a Christian and his views on morality will influence his orders.) The Christian concept of a “just war” has been discussed since the time of Christ. Slaughtering innocent citizens is not part of a just war. Liberating the Iraqi people is much more in line with a just war and would be more appealing to a Christian like President Bush.
The second reason is long-term. If the West occupies Iraq and builds a stable democracy there, this should have a big impact on the region. It may encourage citizens of other Middle Eastern countries to strive for their own political representation. During the Cold War we supported a lot of dictatorships like Saudi Arabia. I think that was a mistake, but it is easy for me to say this after the Cold War is over. Nevertheless, the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria are not pleased with the idea of a democratic Iraq. This is not a surprise. I suspect President Bush and his advisors have been doing a lot of planning over the future of Iraq. If successful, Americans and Iraqis will be the better for it over the long-term.
For these two reasons, I support liberating the people of Iraq as well the elimination of Saddam Hussein.
