So, why exactly are we going to war on Iraq? Tom Friedman has an answer.
Condi Rice has another. Tom seems to think that Condi's is just flat
wrong; Condi doesn't talk much about Tom's directly, but she certainly
isn't acting like someone who takes much stock in it.
Since she speaks for the warmongers themselves, let's start with
Condi:
- Eleven weeks after the United Nations Security Council
unanimously passed a resolution demanding --- yet again --- that Iraq
disclose and disarm all its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
programs, it is appropriate to ask, "Has Saddam Hussein finally
decided to voluntarily disarm?" Unfortunately, the answer is a clear
and resounding no.
There is no mystery to voluntary disarmament. Countries
that decide to disarm lead inspectors to weapons and production sites,
answer questions before they are asked, state publicly and often the
intention to disarm and urge their citizens to cooperate. The world
knows from examples set by South Africa, Ukraine and Kazakhstan what
it looks like when a government decides that it will cooperatively
give up its weapons of mass destruction. The critical common elements
of these efforts include a high-level political commitment to disarm,
national initiatives to dismantle weapons programs, and full
cooperation and transparency.
In 1989 South Africa made the strategic decision to dismantle its
covert nuclear weapons program. It destroyed its arsenal of seven
weapons and later submitted to rigorous verification by the
International Atomic Energy Agency. Inspectors were given complete
access to all nuclear facilities (operating and defunct) and the
people who worked there. They were also presented with thousands of
documents detailing, for example, the daily operation of uranium
enrichment facilities as well as the construction and dismantling of
specific weapons.
In short, the South Africans had their paperwork in order. The
Iraqis do not. Therefore, the army's on the march.
To be fair, Iraq's cooperation with the inspections regime has in
fact been grudging at best. And there are troubling gaps in their
declarations (or at least, the edited versions which the United States
finally released to the rest of the Security Council) --- it doesn't
say, for instance, where all the biological war materiel which we know
they had at one point actually went. And Condi makes the most of
that.
But her argument, at best, shows that there is a problem. She
doesn't even try to argue that the right solution to that problem is
an immediate attack with 150,000 American troops, no matter how many
promises we have to break or how many alliances we sunder in the
process, nor how badly we will piss off people around the world whose
cooperation may be needed for the next crisis.
Besides, given the fuss the Americans made over a dozen empty
warheads in a box, the current Iraqi regime has every reason to
believe that if they described how the stuff was destroyed, it would
just be called more lies, and if they did lead the inspectors
to really substantial stocks of war materiel (if they even exist!),
Dubya's crew would point to that as the long-sought concrete evidence
of WMD programs justifying an attack. They really can't win.
Saddam may retain the relics of an active weapons program --- or he
may not. (And we still have nothing to show skeptics around the
planet who suspect he doesn't, and that the United States is grabbing
oil fields on a pretext). But that's different from having a program
that's in full force. Which brings us to Friedman, who just
takes
it as a given that:
- ... what really threatens open, Western, liberal societies
today is not Saddam and his weapons per se. He is a twisted dictator
who is deterrable through conventional means. Because Saddam loves
life more than he hates us.
So, Friedman thinks the administration's official case just doesn't
make sense. If an attack is to be justfied at all, then in his view,
"Regime change is the prize". Why?
- What threatens Western societies today are
not the deterrables, like Saddam, but the undeterrables --- the boys who
did 9/11, who hate us more than they love life. It's these human
missiles of mass destruction that could really destroy our open
society.
So then the question is: What is the cement mixer that is churning
out these undeterrables --- these angry, humiliated and often
unemployed Muslim youth? That cement mixer is a collection of
faltering Arab states, which, as the U.N.'s Arab Human Development
Report noted, have fallen so far behind the world their combined
G.D.P. does not equal that of Spain. And the reason they have fallen
behind can be traced to their lack of three things: freedom, modern
education and women's empowerment. ...
It is not unreasonable to believe that if the U.S. removed Saddam
and helped Iraqis build not an overnight democracy but a more
accountable, progressive and democratizing regime, it would have a
positive, transforming effect on the entire Arab world --- a region
desperately in need of a progressive model that works.
That's the New York Times' resident Deep Thinker, studiously
ignoring the role of the United States' current allies in stoking up
anti-Western jihaddi war fever, from the state-sponsored mullahs of
Saudi Arabia, to the sponsors of the Taliban and Kashmiri separatists
in the Pakistani ISI. Nor, it seems does he take much notice of last
Sunday's declarations from Powell, Rumsfeld, and of course, Ms. Rice
that an indigenous coup leaving another strongman in power would be
perfectly fine with them. Whatever is motivating Dubya's crew, they
are not burning to create a beacon of democracy.
Besides, mere exposure to Western ways of doing things does not
damp the fervor of the Muslim fanatics that Friedman wants to control.
Remember that Al-Qaeda has actually had success recruiting from
Muslims who have lived in Western democracies all their lives.
(Remember Richard Reid?) As far as Al-Qaeda is concerned, they are
explicitly fighting a clash of cultures. They aren't fighting because
they want democracy. They're fighting because they want their own
brand of vicious theocratic dictatorship.
That means, among other things, that no matter what the United
States occupying army does in Iraq, Islamist propagandists will have a
field day portraying them as colonial overlords, and trumpeting
American disrespect for Muslim culture (which they will be sure to
find --- remember how appalled the Saudis are by female troops?) As
lefty bloggers have been pointing out for months, an American puppet
regime in Iraq is what Osama bin Laden wants. Simply as a government,
it would be no more objectionable to him than the current, largely
secular Baathist regime, which he already regards as an enemy. And it
would be an endless source of useful propaganda. A more powerful
recruiting tool would be difficult to imagine.
Aside from a naked oil grab, the WMD case for attack is the only
one that makes even a glimmer of sense. And as in North Korea (which
has been rather less cooperative with their own inspections regime of
late) the sane course of action in dealing with the WMD problem would
be to keep up the pressure, and let the inspectors do their work.
The war starts in February.
