12 Reasons to Oppose War on Iraq
by
Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
Dissident Voice
February 21, 2003
Millions
of people around the world last weekend demonstrated against a war on Iraq.
There was no mistaking the
message: No war.
But, particularly with the
airwaves and op-ed pages dominated by war-mongers who mock and mischaracterize
the burgeoning peace movement, there remains a need to continually reiterate
the common-sense reasons to oppose a war. Here are a dozen:
1. Iraq is no threat to the
United States.
With one of the weakest
militaries in the region, Iraq is surely no threat to the world's lone
superpower. There is no evidence it has or is close to having a nuclear
capacity. There is no evidence that it has the means to launch a chemical and
biological attack against the United States, if in fact it has such weaponry.
There is no evidence of any Iraqi connection to al-Qaeda.
2. Iraq is deterrable.
Even if it had the means to
threaten the United States, Iraq would be deterred by the certainty of an
overwhelming military response in event of any attack on the United States.
That Iraq is deterrable is shown by its decision not to use chemical or
biological weapons (CBW) against the United States or Israel in the Gulf War.
3. Iraq's only conceivable
threat to the United States is in event of war.
"Baghdad for now
appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with
conventional or CBW against the United States," wrote CIA Director George
Tenet in an October 2002 letter to Congress. "Should Saddam conclude that
a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much
less constrained in adopting terrorist actions."
4. Other terrorist risks
rise in event of war.
A U.S. attack and subsequent
occupation of Iraq will provide new inspiration -- and new recruitment fodder
-- for al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups, and will stimulate a long-term
increased risk of terrorism, either on U.S. soil or against U.S. citizens
overseas.
5. U.S. soldiers are
vulnerable to chemical or biological attack in a war.
Although there is little
reason to doubt the U.S. military will triumph relatively quickly in event of a
war, U.S. soldiers face non-negligible risk of casualty. House-to-house
fighting in Baghdad would be perilous.
If Bush administration
accusations that Saddam maintains a CBW capacity are true, and if its claims of
intelligence showing Iraqi plans to use CBW in event of war are both
non-fabricated and accurate, then U.S. soldiers are at major risk. Last Sunday,
60 Minutes reported that army investigations show between 60 and 90 percent of
its CBW protective gear malfunction. A Pentagon spokesperson actually suggested
that holes in gas masks could easily be covered by duct tape.
6. Inspections can work.
To whatever extent Iraq
maintains weapons of mass destruction, it is clear that the previous
inspections process succeeded in destroying the overwhelming proportion. Iraqi
intransigence notwithstanding, inspectors are now making progress. Despite the
histrionics of the administration, past experience suggests the inspection
process can work and finish the job.
7. Common sense says: Err on
the side of non-violence.
Since Iraq poses no imminent
threat to the United States nor any of its neighbors, it makes sense to
continue to give inspections a chance. War can always be resorted to later. But
once a war is commenced, the opportunity to achieve legitimate objectives without
violence are lost. In addition to the obvious costs, the use of violence tends
to beget more violence, spurring a highly unpredictable cycle.
8. The doctrine of
preventative war is a threat to international law and humanity.
Conceding there is no imminent
threat to the United States, the administration has sought to justify the war
under a doctrine of preemptive, or preventative, action. But if it were
legitimate to start a war because of what another country might do sometime in
the future, then there would be very little legal or moral constraint on
war-making. This proposition is dangerous and immoral.
9. Reject empire.
Many of the leading
proponents of a war are motivated by desire to demonstrate U.S. military might,
and commence an era when U.S. military power is exercised more routinely to
satisfy the whims of elite U.S. factions. Many proponents now overtly defend
the idea of U.S. imperialism, justified on the grounds that the United States
-- apparently unique among all previous aspirants to imperial authority -- is
motivated by promotion of democracy and human rights. But all empires have
proffered such self-serving rationalizations to legitimize narrow
self-interest. The present case is no different. Imperialism is fundamentally
incompatible with democracy.
10. Revenge is not a
legitimate motive for war.
There seems little doubt
that part of the Bush administration motivation for war is the desire to
"get" Saddam, since he refused to go away after the Gulf War and
allegedly targeted the president's father. Saddam is an awful and brutal
dictator, and an assassination attempt, if there was one, is a heinous act. But
revenge should be no basis for war.
11. There are better
solutions to our energy problems.
It overstates the case to
say a war with Iraq would be a war for oil. There are too many other
contributing factors to the rush to war. At the same time, it is not credible
to claim designs on Iraqi oil are not part of calculus. And it is hard to see
the United States caring much about Iraq if the country did not sit on the
world's second largest oil reserves. But it is past time for the United States
(and the rest of the world) to move beyond oil and carbon-based sources of
energy. Existing efficiency technologies and renewable energy sources, if
deployed, could dramatically reduce reliance on conventional energy sources;
and modest investments in renewables could soon move us away from an oil-based
economy.
12. Iraqi lives are at stake.
Unless a war brings
immediate abdication by Saddam, military action is sure to cause massive
casualties among Iraqi conscripts and especially among Iraqi civilians.
Solidarity with the Iraqi people -- not their brutal government, but the people
-- requires opposition to a war almost certain to cause them enormous
suffering.
Russell Mokhiber is
editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. Robert Weissman
is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor. They are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The Hunt
for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common
Courage Press,
1999; http://www.corporatepredators.org).