A Libertarian's Thoughts on Whatever

Tuesday, January 07, 2003

 
When talking about Iraq, the administration's stated reason for wanting regime change often changes. One day we are told it's because Saddam has or is close to having weapons of mass destruction. The next it's that he gassed his own people, and practiced genocide. Then it's that he tried to kill Bush I. Next we are told of his history of aggression. Also, he violates UN resolutions constantly and shoots at US planes enforcing these resolutions. Like most lies there are elements of truth in most of these allegations, but not like what we are usually told.
Did Saddam gas his own people? The incident in question involved a town that was caught in the cross-fire of the Iran-Iraq war. Kurdish residents of the town died from poison gas used during a battle between the two countries. Certainly a tragedy. If the gas used was Iraqi, it would be evidence of some immorality on Saddam's part. However, the evidence shows that the gas that killed those innocents was not Iraqi, but rather it was Iranian, as each side used different types of chemical weapons. One might argue that, even so, Hussein had his military use chemical and biological weapons in combat, which is bad enough. Which is true. Do you know who supplied Iraq with most of these weapons? That's right, it was the US. The US even shipped some of these supplies to Iraq shortly after the Gulf War wrapped up. If GW Bush were to state that the Reagan and Bush I administrations were either incompetent or immoral when they did this, he would gain some credibility, but that's not going to happen. As for the claim that Hussein ordered the murder of many thousands of Kurds, no evidence of this has ever been presented that I have ever seen.
Is Iraq trying to build weapons of mass destruction? I wouldn't be surprised, especially since they have admitted to trying to build nuclear weapons in the past. On the other hand, the administration has presented no evidence of an ongoing effort. Saddam talked to nuclear scientists? Wow. They've bought certain goods which are usually used for totally innocuous purposes but might also have uses as part of building a bomb? Still not much to go on. You might say that they can't tell us most of the information because it is sensitive. Granted, but our allies to whom they have shown the information have not seemed the least bit impressed. If Saddam is building a nuke, he will have to enrich uranium. The process of doing so is extremely energy-intensive, and is impossible to hide from our spy satellites. For a more complete discussion on the impossibilities of Iraq building nuclear weapons, I recommend Gordon Prather, who has written many articles on the subject.
GW also complains that Hussein tried to have his dad assassinated after he left office. While this would be a pretty bad thing to do, it is not really a reason to go to war with Iraq. Perhaps if GW really believes this happened, he should take up Saddam's offer to a duel between the two of them, as this would be more of a personal battle than something to kill Americans and Iraqis not involved over. In any case, this supposed attempt never happened. President Clinton indicated he was open to the idea of improving US-Iraqi relations if Hussein behaved. A few weeks later reports surfaced that of a plot on Bush I's life, and all talk of reconciliation ended. Doesn't sound very plausible to me, as Seymour Hersh pointed out.
Ok, but then there is his history of aggression. He attacked both Iran and Kuwait without provocation, and was planning on taking over Saudi Arabia. Yes, his attack on Iran was unprovoked and wrong. But it was done with the US' encouragement and support. And Iraq's reason for the attack was that they considered Iran a threat, as Iran had recently had a revolution where fundamentalists took over, while Iraq is very tolerant religiously. Not that this justifies the attack, but it does seem a bit similar to arguments put forth as to why we should attack Iraq. But then there was the invasion of Kuwait. Well, again Iraq was in the wrong, but not like it is popularly believed. Kuwait was also threatened by Iran and so greatly benefitted from Iraq's war. Yet Kuwait would not help Iraq with the enormous costs it incurred. Furthermore, Kuwait was cheating on its quotas and so pushing down the price that Iraq could charge for its oil. And there was a legitimate border dispute wherein Iraq believed the Kuwaitis were stealing their oil. After the US Ambassador told Saddam that we wouldn't get involved in the disputes, Iraq conquered Kuwait. The idea that Saddam had his eyes on taking over other countries was just propaganda to scare up support for US involvement.
To the extent that Saddam does violate certain UN resolutions is a credit to the man. The UN-imposed sanctions have wrought incredible suffering on the Iraqi people. Many UN members have tried to have the blockade at least eased, but have usually been blocked by the US. For a country founded on principles of freedom, our government has shown a great willingness to reduce freedom out of spite. The blockade principally hurts the civilians of Iraq, but they also hurt everyone else who would be trading with them. That we express surprise that the oil for food program is somewhat corrupt is strange, as we should know that central planning of this sort doesn't work. As for shooting at US Air Force jets enforce no-fly zones, this does happen. The Iraqi military, such as it is, does attempt to bring down our planes. Of course I hope they don't succeed, as the men flying those jets are simply following orders believing they are protecting America and probably don't know any better. However, they are flying in Iraqi airspace, and the UN never authorized the no-fly zones. They are an illegal infringement of Iraq's sovereignty and Iraq is acting in self-defense. We won't let anyone fly near our borders without permission, and rightly so. Iraq has the same rights as the US, or should, anyway.
Given what we have been told so far, there is no reason to attack Iraq. If the administration provides new information to substantiate some of their claims, perhaps there is, though I am skeptical. If Congress declares war and the President attacks, they all deserve to be voted out of office, at the very least. If Bush attacks without a formal declaration of war from Congress, an impeachment is in order. There are a number of alternatives to war, and all should be explored first. To those who say that we have tried diplomacy and it failed, I say "what the fuck are you talking about? That's diplomacy? Diplomacy isn't the absence of all-out war. Diplomacy involves both sides working to resolve their differences peacefully, not punishing and humiliating the loser."
Maestro 5:52 PM