War always means failure." So says Jacques Chirac, President of France. Perhaps he is extrapolating from his nation's recent military history, but as a global truism his statement fails. The fact that his remarks were made in French, not German, is proof of this. I reference his pacifist-type views because they are all too typical of the arguments used by those who oppose war against Iraq. There are many good reasons not to go to war with Iraq but the air of moral superiority that pacifism seems to afford isn't one of them.
What's wrong with pacifism? After all, most of us would like to see a pacific settlement to the Iraq conflict, so why is it unreasonable to use peace as the starting point for negotiation? It is imprudent because it eschews the potential for armed conflict from the outset. Peace is a great endpoint for which negotiators should strive. It is not a great starting point, assuming one party wishes the other to modify its behavior, because there is no incentive for the recalcitrant party to change. For example, let's say the police were to renounce the use of force in all kidnappings. In this scenario, the police would still attempt to apprehend the criminals, but they would be prohibited from using guns, batons or other weapons. That knowledge, if known by the kidnapper, would likely have a substantial effect on the number of kidnappings and the difficulty in apprehending criminals and saving hostages, as criminals would likely behave more recklessly in the absence of the threat of force. So it goes with international relations. As Pascal said in the 17th century, "Law, without force, is impotent." Surprisingly little has changed since then.
The problem with pacifism is that it is objectively pro-dictator. Insofar as no one is willing to challenge an oppressive government, with violence if necessary, change is impossible. The strongest will stay in power, not because they are more legitimate or more just than their competitors, but because they are willing to act violently to hold power while their pacifist opponents are unwilling to act violently to seize it. I am the product of Quaker schooling so I understand pacifists would disagree with my characterization of their position. "We challenge all oppression," they say, "we just do so by resisting non-violently." Against an enemy with a conscience and respect for civilian life this is a reasonable position. Against Saddam Hussein it is not.
I understand why France and Germany have become pacifist states: they have no choice. Were they to approach negotiations with Iraq as the United States has, with a preference for peace but with the threat of war if Iraq does not disarm itself of its Weapons of Mass Destruction, they would be in a bind if Iraq remained recalcitrant. Because those nations have not elected to spend nearly as large a share of their budgets on defense as the United States, they could not remove Saddam Hussein from power if they wished to do so. Given this constraint, pacifism is the easy way out. They believe their strategy is more moral than the bellicose statements that continue to emanate from Washington. Indeed, so long as the United States is there to counter the threat, pacifism is fairly costless from the European perspective. It may make for a good strategy for Europe, but it would make for feckless U.S. foreign policy, as it would leave us defenseless against those who refuse reasonable overtures to disarm.
One of the arguments bandied about by the pacifist-set is that a war against Iraq would be illegitimate, especially if the UN did not give its seal of approval. Why it would be illegitimate is rarely articulated. Saddam Hussein has approximately the same right to the oil that lies under Iraq as I do, which is to say none. He has maintained power by gassing his enemies, invading his neighbors, and ignoring the suffering of his own people. He has had no free elections. Heck, the state of New Hampshire has more elected officials of Middle Eastern descent than does Iraq. The resources of Iraq belong to the Iraqi people, and if one of the results of a war with Iraq is that their property is rightfully returned, rather than pilfered by a corrupt despot, then so much the better. The idea that a democracy could overthrow a dictator and replace him with some form of representative government that places the nation's treasure with its rightful owners seems to me far more legitimate than the status quo. This is not an idea that you will hear coming from diplomatic channels because it would implicitly threaten our friends, the Saudis. But it poses an interesting question: if we buy oil from non-representative forms of government that oppress their people, then aren't we, in effect, supporting the theft of resources from those people?
To pacifists who disagree with my criticisms, I'd like to offer a question: how would you deal with the status quo? Lift sanctions to help the starving people and Saddam's quest for WMD will only be quickened. If the sanctions are maintained Saddam will eventually purchase the weapons he desires with money he skims off the U.N. Oil for Food program. Some argue that containment could work because Saddam would not dare attack us for fear of retribution. But how would we know the identity of an attacker? We have many enemies and we still don't know who was responsible for the anthrax letters sent to the Capitol; why would a new biological or chemical attack be any different?
The French are forced to take a pacifist position because they lack the wherewithal to counter the threat from Iraq. Americans are more fortunate: we can tailor our approach to the actions of Saddam Hussein. Already we are beginning to see signs of progress as a direct result of President Bush's forceful stand. The Times of London has reported that Mr. Hussein paid $3.5 billion to Libya in exchange for safe haven for his extended family in the event he is exiled from Iraq. The Saudi royal family has made overtures to Iraq about the possibility of abdication with immunity from prosecution. None of this would have happened if the United States had renounced the use of force as a way to settle the conflict.
I do not wish to discount the case against war with Iraq. There are many good reasons for opposing U.S. military intervention, such as fears of American casualties, destabilizing the region or the costs of rebuilding Iraq. But the pacifist approach " and the related argument that an American war to depose a dictator would be illegitimate " are not sound approaches to the situation. I genuinely hope there is a pacific settlement to this conflict with Iraq. But if there is to be a chance for an acceptable peace then we must be willing to wage war.
