I’m going to try to put this subject to bed — at least for a while. I’ve decided to attend the White House event because I’m curious, because I can sing for W and still feel the way I do about the man, his war and his Administration, and because I can bring Lily with me. I’m no longer as angry as I was at the stupidity of the adventure because the cost in human life and suffering (so far) has been near the lower end of the range of possibility. So far as that goes, as I wrote a few weeks ago, I still feel like Grandfather in Peter in the Wolf, skulking at the rear of Peter’s victory procession and mumbling, “Yes, but what if Peter had not caught the wolf? What then?”
But I still have a list of gripes against the man, the war, and the Administration, and I’m going to write them down here once again, and then get on with my life:
Bait and Switch
Unilateral, pre-emptive military force to eliminate a threat against a nation’s security is much easier to justify than the use of force to bring freedom and democracy to another nation that’s ruled by a tyrant. Before 9/11, a very small minority of Americans thought that regime change was a sufficient cause for war in Iraq. But within days after 9/ll, this Administration began beating the drums of war in Iraq with the justification that this was an integral part of the war against Islamic terrorism – meaning that USA national security was at stake. In speech after speech, the people were told that if we didn’t rid the world of this man now, sooner or later he would wreak havoc on us all.
The Administration never produced a shred of evidence for any connection between Saddam and Islamic terrorism (not for lack of trying) and by now most everyone understands that Saddam’s regime was no more compatible with organisations like al-Quaeda than it was with things like free press and elected parliaments. But a majority of Americans decided they didn’t need any evidence, because terrorism had become a reality on American soil, and the Commander in Chief had to be given the benefit of the doubt. (After all, he has so much more information than we do…). The bait of national-security-war-against-terrorism was set, and two-thirds of Americans took it.
But not the Europeans. The Europeans challenged the logic of the Administration’s call for war, insisting that before a war to eliminate the threat could be justified, we should first find evidence of the threat and, if we could find it, see if it could be eliminated without war.
This sounded pretty reasonable to just about everyone in the world except two-thirds of Americans and half the Brits. The Bush Administration branded the European objection as treacherous because Americans fought and died at Somme and Omaha Beach. The Administration launched the war, eliminated Saddam’s regime in three weeks, and is now working to rebuild Iraq into a democratic society ruled by law (but not by Islamic law) and respecting human rights.
So far, however, no WMD. So now the Administration’s supporters (e.g. Tom Friedman writing in the NYT) are telling us that even if no WMD are ever found, the war was justified, because it eliminated a brutal tyrant who caused unimaginable suffering to his people. Though this bait attracted little interest before 9/11, the game is now afoot to switch it in place of the national-security-war-against-terrorism bait which appears to have vanished along with the WMD.
Was It Worth It?
OK, so maybe the Administration can be charged with slight of hand[1] to build support for regime change, and maybe the Administration’s outrage and contempt at the European stance (“they oppose us only out of frustration at their own weakness…”) was a bit unfair, but isn’t Friedman now right? Won’t the war have been justified if we succeed in replacing Saddam’s regime with democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights?
My answer is, well, yes, I suppose so, but I can think of many things the Administration could have done in the world that would have been more justified than this war – things that would have yielded much greater benefit than a successful rebuilding of Iraq, and would have cost a lot less. The reason I can only say, “I suppose so,” rather than “of course,” is because some 150 American and British soldiers and several thousand Iraqis were killed, and to me it’s not obvious that this price was worth paying to buy freedom for the Iraqi people. I suppose so, but I’m not sure how to weigh these things together.
So what could we have done that would have made the world better off than this war has done, and cost less? Well, for example, this morning I read in the Economist that health experts have calculated that over the next twelve years, over five million lives could be saved from death by malaria by spending $25 billion, which is around one-third of what the war in Iraq will cost this year. We don’t yet know what the rebuild will cost, but let’s guess $50 billion (Rumsfeld got very upset a while back when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Congress he thought it would be $400 billion). That makes a total cost of $125 billion for the war. Now, suppose we can find four other diseases like malaria (I bet we can if we look) where we can save 5 million lives for a cost of $25 billion. We could then save 25 million lives for the same amount of money it cost to buy the freedom of 25 million Iraqis. If you look at it this way, the war may have been justified, but was it a wise use of $125 billion???
Who Do We Want to Be?
There are plenty of other things the taxpayers might rather do with their $125 billion: a free year at college for every student in America; a year of job training for every unemployed person in the USA; a year of free drugs for all Americans over 60? This Administration did not want to define these choices. It opposes Big Government to solve problems at home, but embraces Big Government to solve problems abroad.
The most disturbing thing for me is the way in which this Administration has played on the people’s fear, insecurity and anger in the aftermath of 9/11, has set about making this the defining issue of the Administration, and been so successful in doing this that victimisation has become the defining characteristic of Americans in their relations with the rest of the world. We have become what the Administration wants us to be: a nation with a chip on its shoulder – haunted by the conviction that we have been unfairly targeted by terrorists, and stabbed in the back by former allies for whom we have made sacrifices in the past.
A man was walking to his car in a dark parking lot one night, and noticed another man searching the ground on his hands and knees beneath the streetlight illuminating one corner of the lot. The first man asked the second what he was doing. “I’m looking for my wallet,” was the reply. “Where did you drop it?” asked the first. “Over there,” said the second, pointing to the darkness on the other side of the lot. “So why are you looking here?” asked the first. “Because this is where the light it,” replied the second.
In going after Saddam, the Bush Administration picked a fight it could expect to win, rather than the fight that needs winning. The elimination of Saddam Hussein has accomplished nothing at all in the struggle against Islamic fundamentalist terror that brought us 9/11. It has distracted attention and diverted resources from more pressing problems at home (education, jobs, medical care and deficits) and abroad (Israel and North Korea). It has enshrined unilateralism, even where national security is not threatened, as the guiding principle of American foreign policy. And it has destroyed the global consensus on the moral authority of the USA that began with our entry into World War I.
In short, it was a foolish and irresponsible thing to do. But that’s no reason not to sing.
________________________________________________________________
[1] Perhaps a more apt analogy than bait-and-switch for an administration led by the former owner of the Texas Rangers would be the hidden ball trick. In his own playing days, W was a pitcher, and I’m sure he used this trick many times. It works like this: the opponents have a man on first. The first baseman goes to the mound to have a little huddle with the pitcher (W). While this conference is going on, W slips the ball into the first-baseman’s glove without anyone noticing. The first baseman returns to first base. W goes into his stretch, pretending to have the ball in his glove. The runner takes his lead, and the first baseman tags him out. Voila! The hidden ball trick.
No comments:
Post a Comment