Thursday, August 29, 2002

In The Case Against the Iraq War Matthew Rothschild lays out a list of reasons for which the war should be opposed. Please allow me to play the role of Prosecutor (assuming Matthew Rothschild is defending Saddam).

This invasion would be unconstitutional

This is a blatant misrepresentation. The War Powers Act of 1973 very clearly grants the President the power to use force. Throughout the history of this nation Presidents have used the military for operations to defend America and to defend innocents and oppressed people abroad 125 times. Only five of which carried a Congressional declaration of war. Before and after WWII. This has been before the Supreme Court (the first time was John Adams) and in every case the President’s Constitutional authority to send troops into combat as Commander-in-Chief without a declaration of war from Congress has been upheld.

Saddam has been linked to financial support for Palestinian terrorist organizations. These organizations have murdered Americans. Five of them just recently at the University cafeteria bombing in Jerusalem. There is also evidence he planned an assassination of a former American President. Going after Saddam as the financial backer of these organizations is fully in the President’s Constitutional powers. Just like Cuba the murderers themselves are secondary to the backers.

It would be against International Law

He follows this with Country A may not attack Country B unless country B has already attacked Country A. Not sure exactly where he got that. But I will use something more concrete. For starters the original UN Security Council Resolution that allowed the US action against Iraq in 1990 is, despite what Matthew Rothschild thinks, still in effect. It is by that authority that we still carry out air patrols in Northern and Southern Iraq. UN Resolutions do not have expiration dates. Just because they remain un-enforced, or enforced with collective UN scowls does not render them expired. This UN Resolution calls on us to not only liberate Kuwait, but also “to restore international peace and security in the area”. Something Matthew Rothschild admits later does not exist. The Congressional act that give the President authority to enforce the UN Resolutions also still apply.

The UN Charter, which he points out we have signed and must obey, prohibits the use of force for three reasons: (1) to seize territory; (2) to impose a colonial-style government; and (3) in a manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. Well lets take those. We plan to keep no territory. Although people like Matthew Rothschild will claim we have colonial aspirations, this is manifestly untrue. Just look around the world. If we were a colonial power, all of our ‘colonial administrations’ would be falling into line behind us. And finally the Purpose of the UN is the “maintenance of international peace and security”. Saddam oppresses his people brutally and has begun two wars of aggression in order to annex land. His removal and replacement with more representational government would reflect the highest spirit of the UN.

And finally no international law, by the tenets of our Constitution can abridge the ability of the United States do defend itself.

It would violate the Christian doctrine of a “just war”

I will let Matthew Rothschild debate this point with the Shia Muslims, Kurds and other oppressed people living under Saddam’s murderous rule.

It would further damage U.S. relations with its allies, relations that are already frayed by Bush’s mindless unilateralism

I will ignore the slur and move onto the accusation. It is preposterous on its face. Afghanistan was far from unilateral. A Canadian sniper team had the highest kill ratio in combat. French fighter planes flew missions supporting US, British, Australian and Canadian troops. Japanese ships helped support and supply troops in the theater. An international force made up largely of Turks now helps keep the peace in the country. Or perhaps he is referring to the ABM Treaty. Which so far has not resulted in a mad arms race. And more grumbling from Matthew Rothschild and chatterers like him than Russia and China. Or maybe he means Kyoto, which Japan has already announced they will not meet, Australia has no plans of signing and may be signed, unilaterally by the way, by Chretien. And of course China, Russia and India have signed it. They pollute more than anyone and have no obligations under the treaty.

When these same allies faced annihilation at the hands of the Soviet Union, Saddam Hussien or Nazi Germany we did not worry that friendly countries that chose not to join us in liberating them would think any less of us. Perhaps Matthew Rothschild should worry that the most powerful economy in the world may start looking unfavorably upon the nations and institutions, supported by that economy, often show nothing but hatred, contempt and disdain for America.

It would wreak havoc in the Muslim world, where there is plenty of havoc already

“We should not enter the war with Nazi Germany where there is plenty of war already”. Yep, sounds just as sophomoric either way. How much havoc does Matthew Rothschild assume will be wreaked when Saddam has a nuclear arsenal to use for deterrence as he moves again on the Gulf States? This is a really poor argument for inaction. There is a much stronger case that once Saddam is gone and a rational non-murderous government is in place in Iraq the region will become much more stable.

It could shake the US economy, which is trembling right now

What exactly would happen to the economy if there is a Bio/Chem/Nuclear attack on US soil? I would argue that the opening of the Iraqi people as a market for American and international companies and the free flow of newly liberated oil fields would help stimulate the economy.
Here is the NY Sun’s take on the economic impact even if we must go it alone.

And most importantly, it could result in the deaths of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of innocent people
For on thing, this is the same argument they used to try and stop America from toppling the Taliban. It proved false then and will prove false in Iraq. The US has shown time and again since Vietnam that we do not make it a policy to murder and bomb civilians. Yes some innocents will die. Probably, as in Afghanistan, far fewer than would have been murdered by the despots themselves or as an extension of their policies. Does Matthew Rothschild know the full American battle plan? Does he believe we will be firebombing Baghdad? This is the eternal call to inaction. It is the same pacifist rationale used to prevent people from defending themselves even in the face of an immanent threat. While it may be fine for you to apply that in your personal life Matthew Rothschild, it is wrong to enforce it on others as a national policy.

Worst case: It could end with the United States dropping a nuclear bomb on Baghdad

Does he really believe this? Even if we were to be attacked with a WMD during the course of a campaign, I find it inconceivable that the President or his Advisors would even consider dropping a nuclear weapon on a city filled with civilians. One may be used against troop deployments, but the odds of one being used against a non-military target seems small indeed.

In fact it is more likely that inaction will eventually result on an Iraqi initiated nuclear attack on New York or Tel Aviv.

Having gone through his points, let us look at some of the other ‘facts’ he presents.

President Bush acts as though he has the right to attack Iraq any time he wants to

As long as Iraq poses a threat or helps or harbors those who do, the President does indeed have this right as laid out in the War Powers Act of 1973. The UN Resolutions and accompanying Congressional act at the time as well as the Congressional act following September 11th support the President’s Constitutional right to do this also.

That means Congress, not the President, has the sole power to declare war.

Matthew Rothschildis right, but clouds the issue. Congress has the sole power to declare war but, the President holds the power to initiate war. As Commander in Chief it is the President’s prerogative to move American troops as he sees fit. If the situation calls for it, Congress can declare war or refuse to support the action by refusing to allocate funding necessary to continue the action.

But how open-ended is this authorization? Congress did not intend to give the President a blank check to wage war against Iraq forever or any time he happened to feel like it

Congress granted the power to enforce the UN Resolutions. The conditions have never been met by Saddam, therefore the Congressional authority still stands. It does not expire just because Saddam has dragged his feet and the world has refused to punish him for it. If they did not mean for it to continue to this point they would have ended support for the air patrols of the no-fly zones.

Furthermore, for the United States to take this aggressive action without the approval of the UN Security Council would be a violation of the UN Charter, which the United States has ratified.

I addressed this above. For one, the UN Security Council gave the authorization 10 years ago and continuing resolutions stating that Iraq is to in compliance with those resolutions give Bush all the authority he needs.

The United States has a $400 billion Pentagon budget; Iraq’ military budget is about $4 billion

What is Matthew Rothschild’s point? Actually he makes a case against himself. Saddam, by the rules of the cease fire, should not even be expanding his military. Nor is he supposed to be working on missile or WMD technology. Defectors have repeatedly testified that he spends exorbitantly on both.

The United States has thousands of nuclear weapons; Iraq doesn’t have one yet, much less the means to deliver it

I would like Matthew Rothschild’s source for this information. The International Atomic Energy Agency, in 2000, said that based on intelligence and other information that Saddam was within two years of possessing a nuclear weapon. And again numerous defectors have stated that he is close to his goal.

And even if Iraq obtained one nuclear weapon or two, would that present a “mortal” danger to the United States.

It could be mortal in two ways. There is proof that Saddam supports terrorist groups his payments and arms to Palestinian groups and has harbored international terrorists. This was highlighted by the recent ’suicide’, in Baghdad, of Abu Nidal. A terrorist leader who planned and carried out international terror attacks. The weight of evidence would say that Saddam would not hesitate to give supply a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group. Or to give a Palestinian terrorist group a biological agent that would cause a plague in Israel. But it all depends on one thing. Saddam needs a nuclear missile for deterrence. As was proven in the Cold War. Nuclear missiles are a very effective in this capacity.

Once Saddam has a nuclear missile and he again decides to ‘reclaim’ Kuwait, which he considers a province of Iraq, by what means can he be stopped. The threat of a nuclear missile in Tel Aviv or Berlin or Paris, will be a threat that must be weighed. When he decides he no longer wants to acknowledge the no-fly zone, how will we continue to enforce it for the protection of the Shiite and Kurds? What will stop him from claiming the Gulf unless we are willing to face a nuclear attack on Europe or Israel?

Even the Archbishop of Canterbury says so

Ha! Just had to throw that in for a little light relief.

First, on the diplomatic front, a unilateral war against Iraq—or even one with our viceroy (ha!) Tony Blair on board—would drive a wedge between the United States and many of its allies in Europe and around the world

Not likely, they are too addicted to our money and the gobs of free aid and material they get from us. He points to the Gulf and Arab states being against a war on Iraq. What would you say with a murderous thug on your border while the course of action was still undecided?

Scenes of innocent Iraqis being killed on Al Jazeera will not, it is safe to say, enhance the image of the United States in the Muslim World, an image already badly, badly smeared by Ariel Sharon’s offensive against the Palestinians and the 11 year embargo the U.S. insists that the UN impose on Iraq, an embargo that has killed thousand of Iraqi kids.

The first part is the same dire warning given about the rising ‘Arab Street’ at the thought of the US bombing innocent Afghanis. More likely the images of cheering Iraqis as Saddam’s body is dragged through the streets of Baghdad would make the other dictators in the Arab world very uncomfortable. And enhance America’s image among the people oppressed in Iran and elsewhere. A bold statement that if you murder your own citizens and threaten the peace and stability of the world, you will have to answer for it.

Then there is the bone thrown to the Jewish Lobby and its domination of American policy. I don’t need to deconstruct it anymore than has been done in the past few months.

The embargo exists because Saddam refuses to allow inspections. This should frighten any thinking person. He has refused to allow inspectors at the cost of billions of dollars in oil exports. What could he be doing that he is so desperate to keep inspectors out, when he has already shown an aptitude for keeping the inspectors constantly on a wild-goose chase. The UN Security Council (not just the US) has voted to extend the embargo. The lie has been put to the claims of 500,000 dead Iraqi children.

Well, for starters, the despotic rulers of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt, stooges of the United States…

I love this line. Absolutely adore it. Matthew Rothschild Can’t make up his mind. Either they are brave and worthy allies for standing up to the President and his proposed attack on Iraq or they are our stooges. If they were our stooges wouldn’t they be lining up to support our efforts? Which is it?

…if the US invasion galvanizes what Robert Fisk (Double Ha!) calls the sleeping Arab masses.

Same fatuous warning we got before going into Afghanistan and again while continuing the attack during Ramadan. BlahBlahBlah. Try to think up a new one, it can only sound original a limited number of times.

And, secondly, the more brutal the United States appears in the Muslim world, the more likely it is that suicide bombers will come to roost in the United States.

I’ve been thinking about this for months. I find this a minimal threat at best. A network of suicide bombers requires a sympathetic population, willing to support an harbor them. Any networks would be easily traced within the United States and the supply of bombers within the States, without nearby populations of willing bombers, would not be able to sustain a protracted campaign.

On the economic front, another war against Iraq is sure, in the short term at least, to spike the cost of oil, since Iraq is a leading oil supplier, and since the other big oil suppliers--Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran—are right next door.

This is a bit of disinformation. The world’s major oil suppliers are now places like Norway, Mexico and the new world’s #1 Russia. Oil from the Gulf states was not cut off in the Gulf War and would not be cut off this time. Iraq carried out a unilateral oil embargo recently. Didn’t hear about it? Know why? It didn’t do squat.

Secondly, what would happen to the price of oil if a nuclear armed Saddam decided to annex the entire Gulf?

On the military front, and here's a sobering irony, Bush's invasion may actually increase the odds that Saddam Hussein would use chemical or biological weapons.

This is a threat we will face sooner or later. Matthew Rothschild does not do a good job explaining why waiting to face this threat at the time of Saddam’s choosing is better than dealing with it now, before (we hope) he possess nuclear weapons. Unlike the Soviet Union, which was the continuance of a murderous terror regime laid begun and established by Trotsky and Lenin and cemented by Stalin, Saddam is a lone madman with the desire to assure his place in history. His paranoia will not allow him to place his legacy solely in the hands of his sons. He is now 76 years old. What will he do to make his name remembered for all time?

The lesson of 1991 should be that Saddam Hussein knows not to use his chemical or biological weapons. What evidence is there that he's more reckless and suicidal today than he was back in 1991? He hasn't recently invaded another country. He hasn't recently gassed the Kurds or the Iranians (which he did, it must be noted, when he was receiving military intelligence from the United States).
He is still in that box that Colin Powell said he was in just a few months ago. He hasn't exactly been jumping out of it.

For starters is this same ‘box’ that Rothschild accuses the US of forcing the UN to maintain while Iraqi children die? Saddam is not stupid (megalomaniacal and murderous, yes). He is in his ‘box’ because he chooses to be even though it costs him billions in oil revenue. He is waiting to acquire functional nuclear warheads. How will we keep him in this ‘box’ when that time comes?

Back in 1991, the peace movement had a slogan: No Blood for Oil. It's a slogan that's even more relevant today.

I’m sure that is how the people of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (while living under their present rulers may not be wonderful, it is certainly better than being a citizen of Iraq) felt then and I am sure it is how the Kurds and Shiite people of Iraq feel today. In truth this slogan is just as hollow as it was then.
By the way. I have a degree in Near Eastern Studies. My Arabic professor was Iraqi and during the Gulf War he told us he wished to see Saddam hanging from a telephone pole. So thinking it is strictly a war for oil and Iraqis don’t want it, it to willfully ignore the pleas of those oppressed people.

Now Bush is dreaming of an antiseptic war, a quick strike that would topple the regime at little cost. This is the so-called "Baghdad First" strategy, but I doubt it will succeed. Instead, it could very well lead to some gruesome door-to-door fighting. And let's remember, Baghdad is a city of more than three million people, and they aren't all named Saddam Hussein.
This is the biggest reason to fear Bush's invasion of Iraq, whether it's Baghdad First or Baghdad Last: It is likely to lead to the deaths of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of innocent Iraqis.

Somehow I have trouble accepting Mr. Rothschild as a sound military strategist. This sounds more like the mantra of people like him during the campaign in Afghanistan. How many times did we hear “Quagmire” and “Brutal Afghan Winter”. This argument proved wrong in Afghanistan and it will prove wrong in Iraq.

< email | 8/29/2002 09:24:00 PM | link