Is Invading Iraq a Humanitarian gesture?
Posted by
After announcing that the war will begin in eight weeks, Hoagland goes on to say that Bush needs to make the case in clear terms. Since Hoagland likes Bush, he figured he would be nice and try and do it for him.
The article is pretty mush the same arguments that we have failed to be convinced by before, but I want to address something, briefly:
The removal of the Baathist regime should therefore be an act of humanitarian intervention, similar to military actions in Kosovo, Bosnia, East Timor and to some extent Afghanistan a year ago. Freeing a nation of hostages in this uniquely savage case is a realistic war aim. Achieving nirvana in Baghdad is not.
Aside from the fact that he seems to be implying its will be fine if we replace Saddam with a nicer dictator, there is the germ of a justification here - but only a germ. What Hoagland and everyone else who has suddenly discovered humanitarianism for Iraq (but not North Korea, see, because the potential death at the hands of Saddams secret police is much worse than the almost certain death by starvation combined with the potential death by North Korean secret police. Apparently, since you are probably going to starve to death in North Korea, the uncertainty is reduced, making your situation bearable. Or something. Look! Saddam is eating a puppy!) neglects to mention is an Invasions effect on the region.
The Kurds already have an autonomous state, and they are building themselves a free and open society. If we invade, what happens to them? Will their society be allowed to continue, or will it be surpressed? If it is supressed, how violently? How much suffering do we bring upon their heads? If we invade Iraq, and their is a backlash, how much worse does the inevitable suppresed make the lives of the people in Saudi Arabia? If American troops are tied down in Iraq, how can we prevent the countryside of Afghanistan from slipping into the control of warlords or the Taliban? If there is a coup in Pakistan or Qatar, how much worse have we made those lives?
The hawks do not address those questions. You cannot justify an invasion of Iraq on humanitarian grounds until you look at the humanitarian effects such an invasion would have on its neighbors. Until the hawks start doing that, I am afraid that I will have no choice but to believe their sudden concern for the people of Iraq is nothing but a cheap ploy to justify the unjustified.
Kevin, much the same arguments can be made, and were made, before our interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, among others. The removal of Hussein does not guarantee a better government for Iraqi’s, but failure to act does guarantee continued misery for the Iraqi people at his hands. The autonomous Kurdish region you allude to exists only through the continued intervention of the UN and the no-fly zones. Their “state” would be crushed instantly by Hussein if those barriers were removed. Arguing that removing a dictator might expose them to worse is disingenous.
As for North Korea, everything in it’s time. Unless you are suggesting we get involved simultaneously in two conflicts in two regions? If North Korea already has nukes, which I find to be likely, we certainly are justified in moving with extreme caution. In addition, North Korea is not currently at war with the US, nor are they in breach of Cease Fire accords with the UN. Iraq is, on both counts, and therefore is the higher priority.
Comment 10/27/2002
Rich, the situations are completely different. Stopping gneocide in Bosnia and Kosovo was welcomed by everyone but the nation backing one of the genocidal parties. Intervention was welcomed by a large portion of the affected population and by all the neighboring nations but one. The situation in Iraq bears absolutely no resemblence to to Bosnia or Kosovo, and to pretend otherwise is disengenous.
You are doing exactly the same thing this columnist did - asserting an unknown and uncertain outcome will absolutely turn out good, without addressing legitimate concerns.
Comment 10/27/2002
Kevin, the situations are indeed similar. Saddam Hussein was carrying out a genocidal attack on the Kurdish peoples, which led directly to the establishnment of the Northern no-fly zone. Had the US and it’s allies not acted, the events of Bosnia would have been repeated. If the US were to abandon the no-fly sone, there is no doubt that Saddam would erase any autonomy the Kurdish people have gained.
As for the rest of your argument, you seem to be saying that the proper course of action is determined solely by a consensus of opinion. Need I ppoint out the obvious? For three years, the consensus was that the Holocaust was not worth action. For decades, the consensus held that slavary was acceptible. For generations, the consensus held that sexual discrimination was acceptible. Right and wrong exist beyond consensus opinion.
In addition, we have to consider why European opinion does not favor calling Hussein to answer for his crimes. Are they acting out of principle, or self-interest? As some folks are fond of saying, follow the money to find the truth. Who buys the most oil from Iraq? Who stands to benfit from Husseins continued existence? Who looks to gain in power and prestige by opposing the US? The answer to all the above is the EU. It isn’t conclusive, but it is enough to make me question thier “principles.”
As for your assertion, it is completely false. Nowhere do I claim that removing Hussein is gauranteed to have a positive outcome. What I did say is that leaving him in place does gaurantee a bad outcome. Change offers a chance for improvement.
Comment 10/28/2002
Rich
First, I am not opposed to conntinuing to support the Kurdish proto-state. Frankly, Bush I’s apparent abandonment of the Kurds and Shi’ites it encouraged to rebel was one of the darker moments in American foreign policy.
As for your European comment, it seems amusing that you would attribute fincial motivations to the Europeans, but none to the oilmen occupying the White House.
All of this is besides the point, though, becasue you missed the central argument. I was not saying that consensous is always required. I am saying that to say something is a humanitarian gesture, you MUST take into account all the possible effects. We have reason to believe that the humanitarian situation in other nations will significantly deteriorate. In order to say that invading Iraq is a humanitarian gesture, you must show that the cost of the war and the deterioration of other nations is offset by the benefits of invading Iraq. No one has done so.
Comment 10/28/2002