On the Iraq issue, I have some serious reservations about the war, but I have even more reservations about the opposition.
I often hear that the U.S. should not trade “blood for oil.” This suggests that the United States is going to oust Saddam Hussein in order to control the second largest oil reserve in the world. This betrays some very soft thinking. Iraq would be more than happy to sell us all the oil we want. We have, in fact, strongly defended sanctions on the country which prevent Iraq from producing at full capacity.
Say, for the sake of argument, that we hope a new Iraqi regime would flout OPEC and flood the market with cheap oil. That’s unrealistic. A new Iraq would be compelled to join OPEC for the same reason everyone else does: price controls and amicable relations with its neighbors. Why would a new Iraq sell oil for less? It’s going to be the lifeblood of the new country, and making itself a bargain on the world oil markets is self-defeating.
The U.S. has stated often and publicly that Iraqi oil will be used to finance the rebuilding of Iraq. I have every reason to believe this, because the alternative is for the United States to finance reconstruction — and that’s just not going to happen.
The other argument from the opposition is “let the inspections work.” There was a full-page MoveOn.org ad in the NYT yesterday encouraging the reader to imagine thousands of inspectors with access to U-2 spy planes and US intelligence, which would presumably be able to uncover any violation of UN sanctions and eventually disarm the country. It’s a lovely sentiment, and completely unrealistic.
Conspicuous by its absence is any plan for an exit strategy. How will we know when the inspectors are finished? 10 years? 50 years? How do we know when they’re done? Iraq has already demonstrated that it can pursue its WMD programs with inspectors in the country.
France and Germany have endorsed this path — a massive inspection regime, backed by armed UN peacekeepers. This is a mistake that the UN has made before. In Bosnia, UN peacekeepers were put in place to defend civilians against the Serbs. Those peacekeepers were unable to attack the Serbs for fear of choosing sides. They eventually held hostage and slaughtered, complicating American bombing campaigns and eliminating Europe’s political options. If peacekeepers were placed in Iraq, what are their rules of engagement? What purpose would they serve? Could they attack any uncooperative factory managers? Can’t we expect the Iraqis to hold them hostage to prevent an American attack? It’s a foolish plan.
When Iraq lost the war in 1991, they pledged to disarm themselves. After 12 years of threats from the UN Security Council, they still haven’t reformed. Comparisons to Germany in the 1930s are not out of place. From where I sit, this is a continuation of the Gulf War.
I despise the deceit, the international strong-arming and the bellicose tone from Washington. I think it’s counter-productive and very damaging. I think the timing of this war is cynical and political. On the other hand, the UN Security Council has spoken. Resolution 1441 was an unambiguous warning, and it must be backed by force if the Security Council is to command any authority in the future. I believe in the United Nations, and I believe it can be a powerful vehicle for creating peace all over the world. In order to make that happen it must, from time to time, enforce its authority through member states’ armies.
I want more than anyone to have an alternative. I want another idea, another plan that will prevent a war. The silence from the opposition is deafening. They have thrown up nothing but soft thinking and tired anti-war slogans. In the absence of alternatives, this is a just war.
a technology job is no excuse 