The current anti-war demonstrations in several European capitals notwithstanding, America is on a path to war in Iraq. I say that we are going to war "in" Iraq rather than going to war "with" Iraq because President Bush has made it clear in his speeches that America's quarrel is not with the people of Iraq but with the head of their government. In saying this, the president knows that he must carefully toe the line between nurturing the good will of the Iraqi people and making this war explicitly about liberation rather than disarmament. Bush knows that the American people favor war when it makes them safer but not necessarily when it liberates an oppressed people. After all, if America decided to go to war with every country that denies basic human rights to its people, we would be fighting dozens of wars all over the world. Yet for me there is still a strange appeal to going into the very part of the world where we are most despised and showing the people there that we care enough for their well being to fight a war for them.
International terrorist organizations pose a greater threat to our safety than Iraq does, and most intelligence experts see no hard evidence that Saddam Hussein, a secular dictator, has taken up arms with Al Qaeda -- though this remains a possibility in the near future. However, to paraphrase New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, I think I get this war. You see, terrorists have to operate out of countries, and the fewer countries that accommodate them, the better off America will be. Iraq happens to be the only terrorist state against which the United States and the international community currently have a legitimate case for war -- one that has little to do with terrorism. Yet our reasons for pushing this case have a lot to do with the war on terrorism. We are dipping our toe into the water over in the Middle East in order to introduce liberalism into the political and economic systems of the region.
Pundits and experts cannot accurately predict what will happen when our troops walk down the streets of Baghdad for the first time. The notion that they will be showered with praise and gratitude from the Iraqi people is probably too optimistic, even if we believe that Saddam is truly despised by his people. On the other hand, if we are careful to minimize civilian casualties in the air strikes and if we make it clear that we are there to help them, it is difficult to imagine that every Iraqi woman and child will take up arms against our Rangers.
When John Zogby, Founder of the Arab American Institute, spoke at Dartmouth last week he chided President Bush for thinking, in his arrogance, that by conquering Iraq he could persuade the Iraqi people to "buy what he is selling," namely capitalism and democracy. Zogby also indicated that if weapons inspections continued in Iraq for another two years, that would be just fine with him. It is bewildering that any advocate for the Arab people would be willing to have Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq for another two years given his regime's record of murder. To say that we must respect the pride the Iraqi people take in their right to self-governance implies that they currently possess such a right. I dare say a temporary government headed by General Tommy Franks will be more respectful of the Iraqi people's right to exist than the Hussein government currently is.
I have intentionally over-emphasized the importance of liberation in the thinking of America's foreign policy officials. Our chief purpose in any conflict with Iraq would be to disarm a regime we feel is dangerous to our continued security. However, the long-term effort to introduce democracy and individual rights in the Middle East is certainly something President Bush is thinking about. We hear every day that the conflict with Iraq is part of the war on terror. This point -- that we have more than one good reason to confront Iraq -- is an important one to make. Too many of those who accuse the president of being simpleminded end up making simpleminded arguments of their own. To say that the war is about oil or the failings of Bush's personal intelligence ignores the truly important points and stifles intelligent debate. Poking fun at Bush's SAT scores or comparing him to a character from Lord of the Rings is a sophomoric way to say something about the war without having to confront any of the difficult and important questions about America's role in the Middle East or in the international community.
The war on terror is a war on ignorance, a war on hatred and a war on despair. One point John Zogby made was that in order for terrorism to flourish in a region, the people living there must be filled with both hatred and despair. It is possible that an American war in Iraq will spawn a new generation of hatred in the region. It is also possible that in the long run Iraq, with a liberalized economy and a government accountable to its people, will achieve unprecedented economic prosperity, making it the envy of its neighbors. It is also possible that this envy will be the catalyst for reforms in other nations and serve to lift the cloud of despair that, as Zogby said, torments the people of the region. It is this very despair that endangers the American people. While the war protesters in Europe may despise what America is doing, the fact that they enjoy freedom and prosperity in their own countries makes it unlikely that they will ever go so far as to take up arms against our citizens.
