The Whether, Why, and How of War

An American invasion of Iraq now seems certain, its start just a matter of days away. While the 17th March deadline has slipped, time for peace has only been extended by a few days. There seems little chance that the Bush administration can be restrained for another two weeks. At this point, arguments need to be not about the justification for the invasion, but also the nature of the war that seems so inevitable. Broadly, there are three areas that need addressed : whether we should go to war, the objectives of that war, and the way in which that war should be fought.

To arbitrarily take these in reverse order, a "coalition of the willing" that claims to fight for freedom, democracy, and an end to world terror, must themselves respect the rule of law. Or, put another way, a war crime does not cease to be a war crime because it saves American troops' lives or American tax payers' money. Even if the pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign country can be justified, the reported plans for that invasion cannot. The mass bombing of largely civilian Baghdad will inevitably result in massive civilian casualties and cultural devastation. The use of depleted uranium shells will render the areas fought over unfit for habitation for millennia. No short-term tactical or strategic advantage can justify such acts. By contemplating them, America and its allies are not only offending the sensitivities of liberals in their own countries, but handing ammunition to their enemies. Actions that bring a strongly worded letter to the newspapers from westerners will be used by organisations like Al Qaeda to recruit new terrorists. The war against Iraq can only be justified to Iraq's neighbours as a war with humanitarian aims, relieving the Iraqi people, and removing a threat to those same neighbours. Such justifications will not be believed by the ordinary people, by those from whom the ranks of Al Qaeda are drawn, if the prosecution of war does not make every effort to minimise civilian and cultural damage. Holding to the rule of law is, in this case, not just the moral but the pragmatic course of action.

A moment ago, I mentioned justifying the war to Iraq's neighbours. While it is possible to justify military action on humanitarian grounds, that is not the case here. Saddam Hussein's abuse of human rights is not in doubt, but if that were our main concern, we would be targeting other countries first - Syria, Somalia, China. It is also difficult to believe in the humanitarian concerns of an administration that will allow prisoners to be tortured to death, as America has effectively admitted doing in the case of two prisoners taken during last year's war in Afghanistan. There is no human rights aspect to the Iraq crisis, no resolution specifically requiring standards of Iraqi behaviour, no human rights monitors deployed alongside the weapons inspectors.

There is not and will not be any UN resolution authorising military action to stop Iraqi human rights abuse. Nor is there or will there be any resolution authorising regime change. The proposed invasion of Iraq has only one possible justification under international law - the "serious consequences" mentioned in resolution 1441 if Iraq does not destroy any weapons of mass destruction it may hold. Even after hostilities begin, an Iraqi surrender based on the destruction of such weapons must be accepted, regardless of who that leaves in charge in Iraq, and regardless of President Bush's personal feelings. Anything else will place American expediency above international law, again fostering hatred of the west.

Which just leaves the justification for war. Strangely, the last few days have seen some of the strongest evidence for peace. Almost lost in the push for war, one small, but vital, piece of information has emerged. Most of the evidence against Iraq has been about weapons programs that existed before they became a pariah state. Discussion is of research conducted, biological and chemical agents stockpiled before 1991. The fact that these capabilities are the same ones previously allowed, even supported, by the leading proponents of war seriously undermines their argument. There was no evidence since 1991 of new programs, of attempts by Iraq to gain new capabilities. Except one.

British intelligence claimed to have evidence of Iraqi attempts to buy enriched uranium from Africa. Documents from Niger relating to these attempts were passed to the UN weapons inspectors, and formed the basis for government disclosures to both parliament and the British people. Enriched uranium would have allowed Iraq (or anyone else) to construct a nuclear weapon in a matter of weeks. This was perhaps the single most damning piece of evidence for the pro-war position, and the only evidence that related to events that occurred in the last decade. It was also faked.

While the UN weapon inspectors have stopped short of accusing the British intelligence community of playing an active role in producing the fake evidence, they have described the papers as a transparently obvious fabrication. British intelligence is either knowingly supplying false evidence, or refusing to confirm the providence of evidence supporting the will of the government. In either case, we have been lied to, and the pro-war party has no evidence to offer that did not exist when these same people were happy to support Hussein in power.

Which is perhaps why the arguments for war have changed again. Jack Straw has stated that the security council should support an American led attack on Iraq purely because America says so. The choice is not, he claims, between war and peace, but between a multilateral or unilateral American foreign policy. In short, America will attack anyway, but by supporting the war, we may gain some measure of diplomatic control in the future.

Sorry Jack, but you do not control a bully by appeasement, but by standing up to him. The Bush administration plans an illegal, unjustified war, where no diplomatic attempts have been made to secure the stated aims, and which will be fought by illegal, morally repugnant means. If we cannot prevent US aggression in such circumstances, it is hard to imagine the circumstances in which we will make a difference. A vote for the proposed second resolution will severely damage the UN Security Council, given the public evidence of American spying, bribery, and blackmail. A UN held hostage to the whim of the Bush administration is not a body worth sacrificing our principles for.

The truth is that America needs us, the rest of the world, more than the current president seems to realise. American military dominance relies on bases maintained in Britain and other countries, American economic dominance on trade with these other countries. The current world order is based on treaties negotiated in America's favour. By withdrawing from the international community, America would destroy its own power base - the international institutions that have served American interests so well in the last six decades. Control of America will not be gained by appeasement, but by occasionally reminding the president that America maintains its premier position in the world at our sufferance, and that its power is not unlimited.

Graham Robinson. 12th March 2003.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.