Congress is gingerly "debating" war against Iraq. There are sharp differences
over whether the timing is proper and about the balance between costs and benefits.
However, the accounting is so narrow that the biggest questions are mostly off
limits.
It's not only a matter of whether a US war for "regime change" in Iraq makes
sense. What ought to be debated is the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, a historic
shift in international policy and philosophy. Do the times demand so fundamental
a reversal? Where does it lead?
If a real debate shapes up, here are just a few matters of logic that Congress
might weigh:
1) The primary argument for the Bush doctrine and its implementation against
Iraq is that terrorists would be able to obtain weapons of mass destruction from
Saddam. If a terrorist group is bent on getting such weapons, is Iraq likely to
be the source? With all the attention on Iraq, there are unfortunately many more
convenient places to do nefarious business. Many countries have developed weapons
of mass destruction vastly more formidable than Saddam could achieve. It is not
rare for corruption to penetrate military and corporate circles, and organized
crime networks are global. A terrorist might do better in Russia, China, Israel,
Pakistan, and India. For that matter, the terrorist who mailed deadly anthrax
presumably found his source in the bowels of the US biological weapons program.
A cautionary tale about what money may buy is the recent arrest of Israeli settlers
and soldiers for selling arms to Palestinian groups. A new Gulf War, with all
its tragic consequences, doesn't answer the problem.
2) Beyond Iraq, the Bush Doctrine sets up a terrible dilemma for the future.
What if other countries, which (unlike Iraq) have established biological and nuclear
military capacities, undergo political changes antagonistic to supposed US interests?
We have never been short of designated "enemies" and "evil-doers", and that is
hardly contingent on the fate of Saddam Hussein. Are we prepared to handle disputes
that may arise with other nuclear powers on the basis of the doctrine of pre-emptive
strike? For that matter, can we entrust every future American chief-of-state (not
to speak of the current hawkish Administration) with the power of unilateral military
pre-emption?
3) Can the doctrine of pre-emptive war be a strictly American privilege? Henry
Kissinger has argued, "it is not in America's national interest to establish pre-emption
as a principle available to every nation" (Los Angeles Times Syndicate International,
August 9, 2002). How do we get ourselves a copyright on pre-emption? The almost
universal opposition outside the United States to war against Iraq is only a forerunner
of the international distrust that the Bush Doctrine will create. If pre-emptive
military strike is OK for the USA, will it be acceptable for China or Russia or
Pakistan or any other nation? No wonder the world is leery. As much as the power
of the United States is recognized by all, the rest of the world is not ready
to have its fate determined in Secretary Rumsfeld's war room.
The tragedy we're heading toward is all the worse because hope for a better
future is exactly in the opposite direction. Only serious international cooperation
can cope with the daunting problems of our times. The Bush Doctrine succumbs to
unprecedented alienation in a hostile world. It is the antithesis of a solution
to the horrors of terrorism and war.
Never was a thorough national discussion more needed. Congress should drop
the restraints and open the doors to real debate.
Leon Wofsy (issc2@socrates.Berkeley.edu)
is a Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at UC Berkeley and has written
frequently on social and political issues. Website: http://homepage.mac.com/leonwofsy
###
