A Global Citizen Thinks About War
Published February 04, 2003
Those in the (B) camp, meanwhile, see the war's main purpose as maintaining global stability by eradicating Saddam as an agent of global terror. The bible to this group is "The Threatening Storm" by Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst in the George H.W. Bush administration, who offers extensive documentation of Saddam's long efforts to acquire nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. If Saddam had the bomb, Pollack argues, he would almost certainly use it to seize Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti oil fields, or to destroy them while trying. The only real disagreement in this camp is over how much time the U.S. should spend to develop domestic and international support for the war and to work with Iraqi opposition groups before sending in the troops.
Two camps favor answer (C) - libertarians, always wary of foreign entanglements, and geopolitical thinkers who see Saddam as a brutal yet eminently rational and self-protective man who is, therefore, deterrable. To these folks, the likelihood of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction will actually increase if the U.S. strikes now, perhaps by activating sleeper terrorist cells in the United States, or by launching chemical or biological weapons against Israel once a war starts. Those who chose answer C also chide the administration for justifying its war plans with principles it would be impossible to follow consistently, such as neutralizing every possible nuclear power and deposing every nasty dictator in the world.
The partisans of answer (D) are a passionate assemblage of unreconstructed leftists, progressives, idealists, and politicized artists and writers who paint the perpetrators of the possible war in cartoonish grotesques. America is the new global empire and a bloody capitalist crusader; George W. Bush is a reckless cowboy, a malleable dunce, the pet of a Texas oil cabal; Rumsfeld is the devil incarnate; Powell is a noble man sadly corrupted; and etc. These are caricatures, yes, but they are not for that reason necessarily wrong.
V
Who can doubt that George W. Bush, who slurs his words to sound like a swaggering Texas Ranger, in some part of his soul is itching to avenge the man who tried to kill his pa? "Saddam's misfortune is to sit on the second biggest oilfield in the world, and Bush wants it," writes the British spy novelist turned global citizen, John le Carre. "If Saddam didn't have the oil, he could torture his citizens to his heart's content. Other leaders do it every day - think Saudi Arabia, think Pakistan, think Turkey, think Syria, think Egypt." More nuanced liberal critiques, such as Michael Walzer's, actually favor a forcible ejection of Saddam, but one that is mounted by the UN to enforce its inspections, as opposed to a police action to further the American ruling elite's "aggrandizement of their wealth and power." Says Walzer: "There can't be any disengagement from the war against privilege and corruption, both of which are embodied in our current government."
- A Global Citizen Thinks About War
- Published: February 04, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Writer: Doug McGill
- Doug McGill's BC Writer page
- Doug McGill's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Nice utopian worldview, oh citizen, so full of holes I can't address it here, I should start my own blog, I suppose. Go out and do a few of those things you suggest, and if that causes Saddam to step aside and let his people live their lives freely, and causes terrorists to stop attacking us around the world, I will say you are correct. You won't of course, and neither Saddam nor the terrorists will either. In short, great ideas on paper, not likely in real life. You may have all the benevolent goodwill in the world, but not everyone does, and those people mean harm to others like you.
It may be idealistic but I don't think it's utopian. The suggestion that we all try to be good neighbors is practical and idealistic at the same time, and is something we can all do to help.
Interesting analysis, and one I applaud in principle. However, it seems to me that the assumption that "this war is for oil" is necessarily a bad thing might be just a tad irrational. In other words, so it's about oil. So what? As a good friend of mine put it, "If you thought about it for a while, you might find one or two reasons to put a steady, guaranteed supply of petroleum as the second most important natural resource need in the world, but most likely, you'd have to put it right at the top of the list."
Surprisingly, the "humanitarian angle" still works admirably well even from this perspective. Not only do we liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator (which, by the way, is still a noble pursuit regardless of whether it is a primary casus belli.) but we at least partially secure the Arabian Peninsulaand all its vast oil reserves. Now when we do that, we guarantee that 1) Oil is available all over the world for direct concerns such as moving products to and from markets, thereby directly keeping world infrastructure alive, and 2) America's infrastructure is kept alive and working at a reasonable level of efficiency.
Now, the first point is self-explanatory, but the second, as self-serving (not that there's anything wrong with that, necessarily) as it seems, also has a profound effect across the world. To wit: if the American economy is damaged, you can expect worldwide economic devastation. A dip in the stock market here gives brokers in London and Tokyo the cold shivers. A fluctuation in price here means people in our enormously affluent market quit buying quite so much, which means that folks in Venezuela experience untold economic hardship. People starve. Riots occur.
Now, as a global citizen, I view this little matter to be just as much a reason for action as any other. "No blood for oil?" Ha. Strategically guaranteeing that a madman can't choke off a significant part of the world's petroleum supplies, and that he can't destroy those reserves, AND that he can't indulge his expansionist tendencies to cover the Arabian Peninsula may be the most humanitarian approach we could possibly take.
Would you believe I'm not even a Republican? :)
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/3015)
Very thoughtful and balanced look at the most difficult topic of our time. I very much like your ideas on personal responsibility. Thanks!