Let us try first to clear the air, and list some areas where we
agree: For example, Saddam Hussein is evil, but much of the peace
movement is fueled more by anti-Americanism than anything else, and
is willing to excuse his behavior; also, the French, as they so
often do, are acting badly, and while it is good to have allies,
the U.S. must never renounce its right to take unilateral action.
There are other areas where we can agree, but those will do for a
start, and they are cited now to show that conservatives need not
march in lockstep. That is, no matter what neocon editorial writers
and other ideologues may say, opposing the Iraqi invasion and
regarding Administration foreign policy in general as a mistake
does not automatically make you a peacenik or lefty; you may only
be an intelligent conservative.
It should not be necessary to point that out, but it is. Little
dissent is tolerated these days in official conservative circles,
and so very little is found. The bully boys are in charge, and
watching foreign policy unfold is very much like watching a train
wreck in slow motion. Disaster seems inevitable, but still the
train moves on. It has been clear for some time now that no matter
what the inspectors find, the White House will have its war.
But the war will have unintended consequences. The invasion of
Iraq is supposed to deter terrorism, although more likely it will
promote it. There are some 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, many
of them restless young males already indoctrinated with the idea
that America wants to wage war against Islam. The invasion, of
course, will confirm their belief.
Meanwhile many of the restless young males live in unstable
countries where the governments tend to support the West — think
Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Jordan — but the general
populations do not. The leaders of these countries fear, with good
reason, that the invasion will increase the pool of recruits for
terrorist organizations. Bear in mind now that terrorism is a
low-tech operation, and that terrorist organizations do not need
many participants to carry out their missions. The old-fashioned
bomb that killed at least 19 people in the Philippines yesterday
was carried in a backpack.
The Egyptian, Pakistani, Saudi and Jordanian leaders also fear,
with equally good reason, that in the wake of an invasion they may
be overthrown by an inflamed Muslim leadership unless they alter
their pro-Western policies. The fragile Pakistani government, which
has nuclear weapons and the rockets to deliver them, is at
particular risk. And if the government there is overthrown, radical
Muslims will have access to what so far has been denied them:
weapons of mass destruction.
But the bully boys will not be deterred, and they insist on
pressing ahead, even as they show a stunning ineptitude in carrying
out their plans. The miscalculation on Turkey that left 26 ships
wallowing in the water outside the port of Iskenderun is almost
black comedy. The ships apparently have now turned around, and will
go to Kuwait. The Pentagon, however, insists this is of no
importance, and that it will now institute Plan B.
The bully boys, meanwhile, are angry with perfidious Turkey. How
could it have sold America out? Various explanations are now being
offered, although the most logical one is ignored. Islamic Turkey
is a democracy, and in declining to accept the ships and U.S.
troops, the Turkish Parliament was simply listening to the Turkish
people. They overwhelmingly oppose a war.
But the hawks both inside and outside the White House are
staying firm. Plan B may not be optimal, and the schedule may be
delayed, but the war will still take place. Iraqis supposedly will
throw flowers at our Marines, and we will have a quick and easy
victory. Then we will transform Iraq into a model democracy.
And, in fact, many Iraqis, grateful that Saddam is being
overthrown, may welcome the invasion, and there may even be a quick
and easy victory. The confident assertion, though, that we can
plant a democracy in a region that has never known one is an
exercise in neocon self-delusion. The idea that Iraq’s disparate
population — Kurdish, Sunni and Shi’ite — will put aside their
bloody differences, and under the tutelage of an American military
occupation embrace one-man, one-vote, is fanciful to say the least.
The Sunni are fearful that a Shi’a government in Baghdad would ally
itself with Iran, while Iran has said that it would rather have
Saddam in power than an American military viceroy. Even the Saudis
have said they do not want us in the area.
The bully boys, however, decline to recognize complications.
After Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, told the Senate
Armed Services Committee that he thought a military occupation of
Iraq would require “several hundred thousand soldiers,” Paul
Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, shot him down. He told
a House committee that Shinseki’s estimate was “wildly off the
mark.” Shinseki, though, is a former commander of the peacekeeping
operation in Bosnia, and he has had some experience in these
matters. Wolfowitz also told the House committee, unbelievably,
that Iraq has no history of ethnic strife.
But it is clear now that we will go into Iraq, presumably with
Britain as an ally, although if we have to we will do it alone. Our
principal reason for this, frequently stated, is that only by
invading and occupying Iraq can we prevent Al Qaeda and other
terrorist organizations from getting weapons of mass destruction.
But much of the rest of the world, including some of our
traditional allies, takes issue with this, and as hard as it may be
for the bully boys to acknowledge this, it seems they have a
point.
No Western intelligence agency has found evidence that Al Qaeda
has ever been able to obtain weapons of mass destruction, although
no doubt it tried to buy them, and approached Iraq as a likely
seller. Given Osama bin Laden’s wealth and the support Al Qaeda
apparently received from rich Saudis, it was under no financial
constraints. Nonetheless Al Qaeda was never able to get the weapons
it wanted. Whatever his hatred of the West, Saddam Hussein turned
Al Qaeda down.
Consequently the attack on September 11 used the same tactic
that terrorists had employed for years. The terrorists brought
explosive material close to the targets, and ignited it. In the
attacks on the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam they
used cars or trucks packed with bottled gas or conventional
explosives. In the attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon, they used aircraft as delivery vehicles for the aviation
fuel.
And the attacks were devastating, although none of them involved
weapons of mass destruction. But as devastating as they were, they
would pall compared to the havoc al Qaeda could unleash with
weapons of mass destruction. It is a supreme irony now that in the
apparent attempt to prevent that from happening we may, in fact, be
bringing it about. If Saddam Hussein knows his regime is ending,
all constraints on his behavior will evaporate, and he may give Al
Qaeda what it wants. After all, he no longer will have anything to
lose.
