[Reader-list] The Poverty of Debate on Iraq

[Jamie Dow]

Jamie StationeryI am against war on Iraq, on what I take to be some good
grounds. Those grounds are to do with what I think justifies going to war,
and why I think that this kind of justification does not exist.


What appalls me about the current debate is its poverty on both sides.
Reasons are advanced which are no reasons at all for or against, or which
are either woefully incomplete or in fact incoherent.

Let me start with the pro-war case:

- Human rights abuses in a country do not normally justify going to war.
This is because the harm done both to the country in war, and to
international stability by going to war.

- The advantages to Iraq of toppling Saddam do not justify going to war. No
doubt it would be rather better for America to have its regime changed, or
for Zimbabwe, or for Israel, but we do not take these as sufficient reasons
to go to war. Things have to get to nearer the levels of Serbia before we
think war is warranted.

- A link with Al-Qaida is more tricky. If a state is harbouring terrorists
and is complicit in activities like the twin-towers attack or the Bali
bombing, and is not open to a change of stance through other means, then I
think this does constitute a case for war. But this has not really been
shown. It is significant that the US and UK have been cagy about advancing
the case for war on this basis.

- Weapons of Mass Destruction: enforcing global disarmament does seem like a
good reason. The UN certainly thinks so, in relation to a number of
resolutions prior to and including 1441. But what is it a good reason for?
Presumably it is a good reason for doing things that will promote global
disarmament, and war is not the most obvious first move here. In order to
argue for war, one needs not just to show that there is reason to do
something, but that there is reason to choose war as the thing to do, in
preference over other options. There seems to me to be in this regard much
better reason to have weapons inspectors crawling all over Iraq, and opening
up Iraq to the world media, doing things that would make it impossible for
Iraq to use powerful and destructive weapons.

- Iraq and Destabilising the Middle East: that Iraq's regime threatens
middle east stability counts as a reason to do something that will restore
middle east stability, or improve it. To count as a reason for war, it must
be the case that war would improve middle east stability. It seems obvious
to me that it would have just the reverse effect. Seeking a political
coalition centering perhaps around the Emirates and Saudi to deal item by
item with the problems Iraq poses to the region would seem a much more
promising candidate.

- Iraq and Global Terrorism: the US and the UK are right to be extremely
concerned about this issue. And those that are not moved by the threat of
organisations like al-qaida ought to be. But here too, the wrongs of global
terrorism give reasons to do things that will reduce the threat of global
terrorism. Making war on Iraq is not one such thing. The threat just now
seems to centre around radicalised young muslims. War would radicalise more.
Providing an acceptable settlement for the Palestinian people would be much
more promising in drying up the support for radical islamic groups.

I am not saying these reasons count for nothing. But they are certainly
individually insufficient. Cumulatively they seem insufficient too, to me at
least. And there seem to me to be better other options - not that these get
discussed much in the YES vs NO debates!


The lobby anti-war

- Oil. It almost seems enough to mention the word oil to make the case, in
some people's minds. Such minds are debased if the mere hint of a slur
counts as an argument. To say that oil has something to do with a reason
against (see how vague the case is!) requires an argument that war would
bring some oil-related advantage to the US (and perhaps the west in
general). EVEN THEN, the case is insufficient, since all that would be shown
by that would be that there is a possible motivation for the US & UK. It
does not tell us ANYTHING about the rights and wrongs of war. (Let me
illustrate: suppose the police offer a reward for information leading to the
conviction of a serial rapist, does the advantage to me of the reward make
it wrong for me to bring forward the information? Does it make it wrong to
bring forward the information even if my ONLY motivation is the reward? The
answer to both is a clear NO. If I was only motivated by rewards, I would be
a sick sort of person, but if I helped in the conviction of a serial rapist,
I would have done the right thing, even though through base motives.) There
is an additional problem about oil. Even to show that the US has bad motives
is pretty tricky. The west needs low oil prices. War would raise the price
of oil. So where is the advantage? I'm not saying there's not a slur to be
made on America's motives here, I'm just saying that noone's making it! A
closer look at the facts on oil might make the slur difficult to
substantiate. And it horrifies me at how so vague a case is so easily
accepted.

- Global Imperialism: again the case here is at best eliptical. It looks
like another case of slurring motives, rather than dealing with the rights
and wrongs of the case. And again it is hard EVEN to establish the slur on
motives. Is it really thought that the US is trying to take over countries?
If something less than full-blown empire, then what? Establish & support
friendly regimes in countries throughout the world? Seems like a reasonable
thing to do..... doesn't every nation try to do that? .... and if they
don't, shouldn't they start?!! Again, we need better than a hint of a slur.

- "We aren't dealing with Israel's weapons of mass destruction." This looks
like either (a) a reason not to deal with anybody's weapons of mass
destruction; or (b) a reason FOR dealing with Israel's. Interpreted as (a),
it is a reason against war with Iraq, but is a plainly ridiculous policy.
Interpreted as (b), it would seem like no reason against war with Iraq at
all, just a reason for doing something else AS WELL. I can't help thinking
that the cause of global disarmament would actually be helped by trying to
tackle regimes one by one.

- "We aren't enforcing UN resolutions flouted by Israel". Parallel arguments
apply. This is either (a) a reason not to enforce any UN resolutions; or (b)
a reason FOR enforcing those against Israel, the US, etc. etc..

- "War should never be adopted as long as a shred of doubt remains, or
another option is left open." There is some truth in this reason, but it's
certainly not quite right as it stands. On this view, all that a Hitler or a
Milosevic would need to do (and they DID adopt these approaches) would be to
ensure that a glimmer of hope remained always to sustain the case for
appeasement. Real politics seems to me to involve taking some hard decisions
on the balance of probabilities. Risk is never altogether eliminated - bad
people will always ensure that a good gloss can be put on their actions.



The best case against war seems to me to start with the "burden of proof".
War involves killing people and destroying infrastructure, buildings, and
the like. It needs substantial and overwhelming reasons BOTH (i) for doing
something about a particular problem; AND (ii) that the "something" in
question should be war. If the case is not made on both counts, we should
not go to war.

I also heard a point made nicely on a BBC programme recently, by Maj Gen Sir
Michael Rose. He said that if the west focussed its mind on its overall
priorities they would see that a war made no sense. If the priorities lined
up something like the following:
Priority 1. Minimise Global Terrorism
Priority 2. Peaceful solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict
Priority 3. Oust Saddam Hussein, or End Iraq's Weapons programme.
then getting clear on the priorities helps us draw the simple lesson that we
should not pursue priority 3 in such a way as to jeopardise priority 1. War
on Iraq would do just that.


Finally, it is not enough to assert the case anti-war. Moral decisions and
political decisions are about "what to do". And they are about weighing
reasons. Sometimes it's right to do something that is in some respects bad,
violates some reasons, because it is the best available option. In order
really to establish an anti-war case, we need to show what could be done
instead. Nothing is not an acceptable answer, in my opinion, for some of the
reasons given above. I suggest the following lines of approach.

1. Weapons inspectors crawling all over Iraq
2. The power of investigative journalism unleashed on Iraq
3. A serious attempt to find a just settlement to the Palestinian / Israeli
conflict
4. A serious attempt at a pragmatic coalition between NATO-type countries
and the more influential of the Middle-Eastern states.

There are surely some more promising avenues of inquiry?

Jamie Dow








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20030219/19518952/attachment.html