Since today is the beginning of the Saddam Hussein trial, I thought I would focus on nationalism and utilitarianism. Simple question: Was the U.S. led invasion of Iraq the right thing to do? It seems the argument breaks into two lines of thought: Yes, it is our duty as the leading superpower in the world to either 1) protect our interests/citizens (terrorism argument), 2) spread freedom/democracy to all dictatorships on earth (utilitarianism) --OR-- No, the U.S. led invasion of Iraq was against international law. I am going to go with yes (I think nationalism is dead, the U.N. needs more strength) and hope someone argues the counterpoint in a comment or post.
I was not always willing to take the side of the "coalition of the good", but I was reading the front page of the October 18, 2005 Kansas City Star and had a change of heart. The article was titled Hussein's Reckoning, and went into detail about the tactics former President Hussein used to stay in power. Torture was the main method.
Before I go any further, I want to note that for better or for worse, I found Abu Ghraib to morally reprehensible, but it didn't seem to be torture. I'm not saying I would WANT to be put into any of those situations (rabid dogs barking inches from my body, Metallica at all hours, naked man-piles, etc.), but it wasn't exactly Dante's Inferno.
That being said, Hussein's torture was more in line with Dante. Examples the U.S. State Department gave were: medical experimentation, rape committed while a victim's spouse watched, and scorpions used to sting naked children in front of their parents. That does not include the attempted genocide of the Kurdish minority (for siding with Iran in the 1980 Iran-Iraq war). Strictly from a numbers standpoint this has to be a better Iraq (Hussein's ruling Baath party was a minority), right?
There seems to be but one negative (and a 400 pound gorilla, at that) from the ousting of Hussein. The power vacuum left has the Sunnis pouting (out of understandable fear) which creates the possibility of a civil war. Previously life was rough, but you knew who not to cross (Saddam's Baath party). Now with corruption and guerrilla war rampant in the country, people don't have a clue how long they will live (48 hours or 48 years). Even so, if Iraq is able to stabilize itself (even after a civil war) and include that Sunni minority, it could be an example for an extremely volatile region, and that would be a good thing.
I have a mix of opinions that were never really adopted by either side in the debate:
ReplyDelete1) National sovereignty died in WWII. There should be some presumption of sovereignty, but any country engaging in systematic oppression or crimes against humanity begs international intervention. Saddam's was such a regime.
While uprooting all such regimes is outside our means, I don't mind wide discretion in priorities. (So "Why Iraq and not ____?" doesn't give me much pause.)
2) Before military solutions should be explored, diplomacy should be exhausted with finality. To me, the administration appeared to fail this test.
3) Relying upon false evidence as justification for an otherwise justifiable war indicates the administration doesn't understand when wars are justified. The administration was greatly incompetent here.
So in essence: War in Iraq good, administration bad.
I'm still not convinced the war in Iraq was "good".
ReplyDeleteI grant that Saddam's regime did horrible crimes that required intervention. However, the sheer number of civilian casualties during the war and now after are sickening. Our "smart" bombs caused thousands of casualties and did nothing to make us look better than what Saddam did. I know there is an intention difference, we weren't meaning to kill civilians, we just happened to, but we still did murder thousands of innocent people. I'm going to take the utiltarian route here and say numbers-wise our invasion is as bad as Saddam's massacres. I know this seems a bit absurd, but the dead people don't care about our intentions, nor do their families.
Another issue I still have with the war that no one seems to want to talk about is our violation of international law. We attacked a country without approval from the UN Security Council. If the biggest kid on the block can ignore the rules then what good are they? Our disregard for international law infuriates me, but no one seems to care.
I also take issue with the puppet government we have set up in the aftermath. This never turns out well for us (Iran for one). In this new age we simple set up a "democracy" that still has all of the corruption of the previous regime, people simply have the facade of being able to change things. In 20 years (or maybe sooner the way things are going) when the government is overthrown by extremists what will we do then?
It seems to me in this day and age there are always alternatives to military action.
I know I bounced all over the place, but I'm tired and can't make a coherent argument.
I'd also like to contribute this to the argument. Saddam can never be considered a good man, I don't care how you dress him up, or what light you put him in. However, as I understand it, Iraq is populated by three different groups (Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds) who all seem to want the other dead. While Saddam was leader of the country, there was no open fighting in the streets between these people. His tactics for keeping the peace were brutal, yes, but there was a semblance of peace. Considering the level of violence US troops are facing over there, one must wonder if Saddam applied just the right amount of torture to keep the country in line?
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, Saddam didn't really seem to care that much for religion. So long as you didn't oppose him politically, he could care less if your wife walked around without a burka. Unfortunately, a lot of the newly elected officials seem to want to drag Iraq back to a more fundamentalist state. To me, it seems a question of is it better to have a tyranical dictator who grants some civil rights, or a democratically elected government who denies people those rights? While "Rape Rooms" never have an excuse for existance, the reports I've been reading in the news seem to indicate that women's rights on the whole have been severely limited under the new government. Saddam's obsession to keep absolute power did have the side effect of taking his people out from under the power of fundamentalist Muslims in the region, and ironically making it an almost progressive country when compared with others, such as Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.
So many excellent comments! I would like to respond to some of them.
ReplyDeleteThomas--I think your comment on nationalism and sovereignty being dead addresses Ryan's issues with violating international law (our tactics have grown more quickly than our international legislative power). I also agree with the "Why Iraq and why not___?" comment, but I would question what you would consider finality in diplomacy. As I understand it, Hussein has flaunted international protocals for about 10-12 years. There are only so many times you can say "Stop it! Stop it! No really, I mean it this time..." The administration did fail though in its attempts to provide evidence (false) and execute (or even have) its war strategy.
Ryan-- I agree, if the U.S. can flaunt the U.N. security council, what's the point? Unfortunately I think this means we need to rework the U.N. Oil-for-food showed rampant corruption (and I'm not going to blame Annan for it all). As for collateral damage, this seems to be the key turning point in the argument. Is it a good idea to take out 10 innocent people to get at the one guilty party? I agree that it is not, but that seems to only show a tactical flaw, not an overarching reason to not overturn Hussein. Finally, I currently disagree that the U.S. is attempting to install a puppet government, but this does not mean that the whole project is extremely volatile (with the chance of a worse scenario developing: coup, civil war, etc.)
Josh-- Sunnis and Shiites can live in peace (maybe). The problem lies in the power structure of the country. Shiites were the majority, but were oppresed by Saddam's Baath Party (populated entirely by Sunnis). Now that Saddam is out of power, the Sunnis fear reprisal to the point that they refuse to be a party to Constitutional talks (fear of legitimizing a Constitution that might oppress them unknowingly). The Kurds want to set up a separate nation based on their ethnic group in the north, and nobody wants that because it would take valuable resources away from the country. To the REAL question though: democratic fundamentalist state, or benevolent dictator. I vote for democracy no matter what Plato says, because I fear consolidated power.
Engel--I made the comment up when I was speaking to Thomas, but you are right: Just poor execution in this war. That will make it more difficult the next time around (when there will hopefully be less of a gray area).
I thought for sure the Kurds would be setting up their own nation about now, however all evidence points to them accepting the new government quite more readily than other regions of Iraq. Why is that? Is it because the proposed constitution contains a great deal of federalist power left to regional leadership?
ReplyDeletep lacz-- to answer your questions (the best I can), I found a blurb from Yahoo:
ReplyDeleteFittingly for a constitution inspired by the United States, the new Iraqi document begins with a series of three prohibitions on government power: "No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established."
In addition, I found a blurb from outlookindia.com:
But whereas participation of the majority Shia Arabs was constant – roughly 70 percent – there was wide variation among the two minorities, ethnic Kurds and Sunni Arabs, each of them forming one-fifth of the national population.
Last time, Kurds turned up in huge numbers at the polling stations whereas most Sunni Arabs stayed away. This time the roles were reversed. Kurds were lukewarm towards a constitution that lacks a provision for an independent Kurdistan in the near future.
I hope this helps, it helped me because I couldn't explain it on my own.