20/20 Perspective: The Decision to Invade Iraq

Ironically, the best 20/20 analysis of the Iraq war that I have read was actually a work of foresight. It was simply titled "An Unnecessary War", and it was published in the January/February 2003 edition of the journal Foreign Policy. Even more ironic was the identity of the authors: John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen J. Walt of Harvard University are two of America's foremost academic proponents of "international realism", the theoretical approach that stresses the paramountcy of national interest and balance of power in international affairs--the very same fount of wisdom that many conservatives claim as their own. I used the article in my International Relations class in the spring of 2003 as the debate over whether to invade Iraq heated up and America began to prepare for an invasion. As a straightforward, textbook application of realist logic to a contemporary event, it is hard to beat.

Anyone interested in understanding the Iraq War should read the article in its entirety. I believe that it was reprinted in the New York Times, and is also available at http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/walt.htm and on several other websites.

Here are a few choice excerpts:

"Even many opponents of preventive war seem to agree deterrence will not work in Iraq. Instead of invading Iraq and overthrowing the regime, however, these moderates favor using the threat of war to compel Saddam to permit new weapons inspections. Their hope is that inspections will eliminate any hidden WMD stockpiles and production facilities and ensure Saddam cannot acquire any of these deadly weapons. Thus, both the hard-line preventive-war advocates and the more moderate supporters of inspections accept the same basic premise: Saddam Hussein is not deterrable, and he cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear arsenal.

One problem with this argument: It is almost certainly wrong. The belief that Saddam's past behavior shows he cannot be contained rests on distorted history and faulty logic. In fact, the historical record shows that the United States can contain Iraq effectively - even if Saddam has nuclear weapons - just as it contained the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Regardless of whether Iraq complies with U.N. inspections or what the inspectors find, the campaign to wage war against Iraq rests on a flimsy foundation. "

..............................................................

"Those who call for preventive war begin by portraying Saddam as a serial aggressor bent on dominating the Persian Gulf. The war party also contends that Saddam is either irrational or prone to serious miscalculation, which means he may not be deterred by even credible threats of retaliation. Kenneth Pollack, former director for gulf affairs at the National Security Council and a proponent of war with Iraq, goes so far as to argue that Saddam is "unintentionally suicidal."

The facts, however, tell a different story. Saddam has dominated Iraqi politics for more than 30 years. During that period, he started two wars against his neighbors - Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. Saddam's record in this regard is no worse than that of neighboring states such as Egypt or Israel, each of which played a role in starting several wars since 1948. Furthermore, a careful look at Saddam's two wars shows his behavior was far from reckless. Both times, he attacked because Iraq was vulnerable and because he believed his targets were weak and isolated. In each case, his goal was to rectify Iraq's strategic dilemma with a limited military victory. Such reasoning does not excuse Saddam's aggression, but his willingness to use force on these occasions hardly demonstrates that he cannot be deterred. "

{ Anyone who has followed Saddam's career since he was found hiding in a hole near Tikrit cannot help but be impressed by the unswerving nature of his lifelong instinct for self-preservation. That he is, in the language of international realism "eminently deterrable". Furthermore, Osama Bin Laden's recent video likening George Bush to Saddam Hussein just shows how fantastic was the suggestion that Saddam and Osama were close enough to actually share nuclear weapons--MC }

....................................................

"If Saddam's use of chemical weapons so clearly indicates he is a madman and cannot be contained, why did the United States fail to see that in the 1980s? Why were Rumsfeld and former President Bush then so unconcerned about his chemical and biological weapons? The most likely answer is that U.S. policymakers correctly understood Saddam was unlikely to use those weapons against the United States and its allies unless Washington threatened
him directly. The real puzzle is why they think it would be impossible to deter him today. "

.........................................................

"Ironically, some of the officials now advocating war used to recognize that Saddam could not employ nuclear weapons for offensive purposes. In the January/February 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs, for example, National Security Advisor [Condoleeza] Rice described how the United States should react if Iraq acquired WMD. "The first line of defense," she wrote, "should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence - if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration." If she believed Iraq's weapons would be unusable in 2000, why does she now think Saddam must be toppled before he gets them? For that matter, why does she now think a nuclear arsenal would enable Saddam to blackmail the entire international community, when she did not even mention this possibility in 2000? "

.................................................................

"The lack of evidence of any genuine connection between Saddam and al Qaeda is not surprising because relations between Saddam and al Qaeda have been
quite poor in the past. Osama bin Laden is a radical fundamentalist (like Khomeini), and he detests secular leaders like Saddam. Similarly, Saddam has consistently repressed fundamentalist movements within Iraq. Given this history of enmity, the Iraqi dictator is unlikely to give al Qaeda nuclear weapons, which it might use in ways he could not control. "

.................................................................................

"In sum, Saddam cannot afford to guess wrong on whether he would be detected providing al Qaeda with nuclear weapons, nor can he afford to guess wrong that Iraq would be spared if al Qaeda launched a nuclear strike against the United States or its allies. And the threat of U.S. retaliation is not as far-fetched as one might think. The United States has enhanced its flexible nuclear options in recent years, and no one knows just how vengeful Americans might feel if WMD were ever used against the U.S. homeland. Indeed, nuclear terrorism is as dangerous for Saddam as it is for Americans, and he has no more incentive to give al Qaeda nuclear weapons than the United States does - unless, of course, the country makes clear it is trying to overthrow him. Instead of attacking Iraq and giving Saddam nothing to lose, the Bush administration should be signaling it would hold him responsible if some terrorist group used WMD against the United States, even if it cannot prove he is to blame. "
...........................................................

"If the United States is, or soon will be, at war with Iraq, Americans should understand that a compelling strategic rationale is absent. This war would be one the Bush administration chose to fight but did not have to fight. Even if such a war goes well and has positive long-range consequences, it will still have been unnecessary. And if it goes badly - whether in the form of high U.S. casualties, significant civilian deaths, a heightened risk of terrorism, or increased hatred of the United States in the Arab and Islamic world - then its architects will have even more to answer for.

Regardless of whether Iraq complies with U.N. inspections or what the inspectors find, the campaign to wage war against Iraq rests on a flimsy foundation.

Nuclear terrorism is as dangerous for Saddam as it is for Americans, and he has no more incentive to give al Qaeda nuclear weapons than the United States does. "

---

{ Mearsheimer's and Walt's analysis is as useful today as it was at the beginning of 2003. It reminds us that whether or not the war is "justified" either in terms of humanitarian values or the threat of WMDs---the double-barrelled argument of the National Post, the Economist, Stephen Harper, Tony Blair, or Christopher Hitchens, to name some of the more estimable advocates of the war ---needs to be seen as just part of a larger calculus. Iraq was one of maybe half a dozen countries headed by violent dictators opposed to the United States, and one of perhaps two dozen countries that consistently violated human rights on a massive scale. If political capital (which was plentiful both domestically and internationally after 9/11) and financial and military resources are now extremely scarce, can we say that they have been wisely spent? The greatest tragedy of all would be if the United States proved unable to execute a necessary intervention in Korea, Pakistan, or Iran, or that such an intervention was made vastly more difficult, or that such an intervention was actually made necessary, because of an earlier, unnecessary war in Iraq. But then, hindsight is 20/20! ---MC }