ahead 1 page to

Part 8

Iraq & A Hard Place Part 7 - 

Give Inspectors A Chance?

23, 2003 41: AM CST

The single strongest argument against an invasion of Iraq is that we have not yet exhausted the alternatives. This argument seizes on our ingrained aversion to war and holds on tight. But even this argument is flawed. No meaningful alternatives remain. Solving problems through reason requires that all parties act reasonably. And some things are worse than war.

The “exhaust the alternatives first” argument seizes most of us at a gut level. Ours is a culture that strives to solve its problems through the rule of reason rather than violence. To paraphrase King Arthur, our might does not make us right. From an early age we learn that violence should be the last resort. We should exhaust every avenue to solve our problems through reason and mutual respect.

Beyond the obvious morality of this belief, it is also the single most important bedrock of modern civilization. By solving our problems through reason, consensus, and the rule of law, we make much more efficient use of our resources. Since we are not constantly destroying each other’s homes or bashing faces in, we spend far less on housing costs or health care. If we look to the recent history of Afghanistan, for example, it is all too obvious how much our current prosperity rests on this stability.

But there are no useful alternatives left. The international community spent twelve years trying them all. When the Iraqis actually allowed them into the country, inspectors have met with very poor results. They could not inspect many parts of the country, particularly Saddam’s palaces. They faced serious difficulty interviewing Iraqi weapons scientists. And in 1997, Iraq kicked out the inspectors altogether.

For twelve years Saddam Hussein consistently manipulated the international community while he sought out his weapons of mass destruction. He is continuing these tactics today. He ignores every demand until the last possible second. He capitulates only in the face of immediate threats. More recently, he distracted the international community with his al-Samoud missiles, a ludicrously minor violation, to keep their sights off the serious weapons.

Solving problems through reason requires all parties to act reasonably and in good faith. Saddam Hussein does neither. He consistently operates from a baseline of deceit, lying and misleading whenever he can. By refusing to comply with the UN resolutions, he irrationally fights against his own self-interest. His intractability brought Iraq’s economy to its knees and keeps it there today. There is simply no purpose to continued argument.

Some things are simply worse than fighting. Saddam very likely still has weapons of mass destruction. Even more certainly, he will seek every opportunity to acquire more. If we relent and allow Saddam to use these weapons, the price will simply be too high. Even one nuclear, biological, or chemical device used in a major city could kill more people than both the last Gulf War and the upcoming one combined. But these deaths would not simply replace the other deaths – they would be in addition to the costs of the purely defensive war we would then have to fight.

Everything in Saddam’s history suggests that exactly this scenario will play out, and nothing even hints that it might not. This is a fight that we know is coming – whether we seek it or not. The only thing we can hope to achieve by delaying the conflict is to make it far, far worse. What can possibly be worse than war? A longer, bloodier, and more intense war. We must act now, while we can act on our terms to keep the conflict short and casualties to a minimum.

Back to Intro

Part 8