Very philosophical!

So what does this have to do with Iraq?

Well, isn’t it possible that countries are involved in the same circle? After all a country consists of individuals, so why shouldn’t the same rules apply?

Probably most of you will agree so far. The problems, or differences of opinion, are likely to arise when we ask ourselves, “What are the lessons of Iraq?”

It all depends on where one is coming from. Some would say that the problem of Iraq goes back to the Gulf War of 1991-2. That the lesson was that we should have finished the job then and, since we didn’t, we were doomed to repeat the lesson. Hence the recent war. Others would say that we should never have gotten into the recent war without full United Nations backing. And that the lesson is that we should not do this sort of thing again without the UN. Some would even say that we should turn the whole thing over to the UN as quickly as possible. Others would say that we should never have helped Saddam Hussein in the first place in the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980s, helping him develop WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction), especially chemical and biological which he used on the Iranian border and against the local Kurdish population. The lesson would be not to help foreign governments develop WMDs. One could go back even further to the formation of Iraq as a country after the First World War. And I won’t even try to get into what the lesson of that might be!

So, it’s not simple.

But then who said that life should be simple?

Most people will agree that Saddam Hussein’s regime was a brutal regime of terror. With the exception of the close supporters in his family and the Baath party, he was a hated man. There is not much doubt but that he was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Could the lesson be that we need, as a country, to figure out what to do with this sort of person or regime?

There are a number of possible “solutions.” Here’s a few:

(a)        Remove the leader and the government by force. This was the approach used by the US and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

(b)        Use economic sanctions. We tried this in Iraq.

(c)        Support “opposition” groups. We tried this in Iraq.

(d)        Turn things over to the UN. We tried this with Iraq but finally gave up.

(e)        Do nothing. We didn’t try this in Iraq but historically we’ve tried it many times elsewhere.

Let’s look at these in more detail.

(a) The Use of Force.

This does have a degree of obvious workability. After all Saddam Hussein and his Baath party are no longer in power. But how workable is this as a broader solution? Iraq is a small country, some 20-30 million. It really did not stand a chance against the US and the United Kingdom’s military might. However, is this an approach that we could use with North Korea or Iran? Or China if they invaded Taiwan?

One of the problems of using force is that we are left having to clean up the mess. We are seeing this now in Iraq and Afghanistan. This costs money Ð lots of it! Another problem with the use of force is that it creates enemies. As I have argued in previous articles, the battle against terrorism can only succeed if we win over the hearts and minds of moderate Moslems (the majority). The “occupation” of Iraq is predictably being seen in the Arab countries as an infringement of the rights of Moslems. Whether we like it or not, or whether it is true or not, it looks like a modern Crusade Ð Christians and Jews against Muslims.

So what is the lesson? Maybe that force should only be used as a last resort with a full understanding and acceptance of the costs Ð both in terms of lives and money Ð and also with a recognition of the enormous job and difficulties of reconstruction.

Probably most of us would agree that the use of force is justified in situations where we are either attacked or directly threatened with attack.

Did Iraq fit these criteria? Probably not. The widely promoted claim that Iraq could use WMDs against us with 45 minutes notice was clearly spurious. Even assuming that they had an active WMD program Ð and the jury is still out on that one Ð it is unlikely, to say the least, that they would have ever used them against us, or Israel. To do either would have been an act of suicide. Did Iraq have links with Al’qaeda or other terrorist groups? Almost certainly, but so do many other countries which also have WMD programs.

What about the theory of a pre-emptive strike against a country or group that might attack us, or our interests? This, by the way, is now official government policy.

This may sound attractive, but who decides? Do you feel competent to judge how likely it is that China will invade Taiwan, which would be an attack on our “interests”? Or, and perhaps more likely, how probable is it that North Korea will supply terrorist groups with WMDs? And, if you don’t feel competent Ð and I certainly don’t Ð who is? The government? The CIA?

By adopting a policy of the pre-emptive strike we are setting a dangerous precedent. How do you think Iran or North Korea feel? Edgy, to say the least! And does that make us any safer?

(b) The Use of Economic Sanctions

This is one of the favored “weapons” when a country does not wish to take the risk of using physical force. It does sometimes, it appears, work. South Africa is an example. However, there are many, many examples of cases where it has not worked. It didn’t work on Iraq. It didn’t work on China. And, really close to home, it didn’t work on Cuba. The downside of economic sanctions is that it tends to hurt the wrong people. In Iraq it wasn’t Saddam and his cronies who suffered (witness the opulence of the palaces), but the poor, the sick and the hungry. It is a double-edged weapon. PR-wise it can easily be turned against the user. When people are poor or starving they are likely to blame the countries using sanctions rather than their oppressive government (which actually caused the sanctions to be applied in the first place).

So government sanctions are iffy to say the least. Probably the best kind of sanctions are those that can be applied voluntarily in a free market economy. If one does not like Cuban foreign policy, one can as a consumer decide not to buy Cuban products. We didn’t have to buy Iraqi oil. The consumer could have insisted on labeling of countries of origin at the gas pumps. The effectiveness of such actions are questionable but at least they don’t have the negative PR consequences of government regulations.

(c) Support Opposition Groups

Another tempting one, but how often have we seen the groups that we supported later turn against us? A classic example is the Taliban and Bin Laden in Afghanistan. We helped them fight the Russians. Now we risk that our shoulder-launched missiles will be used against us. As previously mentioned, we helped Saddam Hussein in the Iraq/Iran war. The problem is how to decide which groups to support and which not to support? Should one be supporting opposition groups at all?

(d) Turn things over to the United Nations.

I discussed this in my UnCommon Sense! article of May/June 2003. Apart from the fact that the UN has a dismal record of peacekeeping Ð witness East Timor, or Somalia for example Ð it is not, and probably never will be, a democratic organization. Unless the UN were to become a real military power it is simply incapable of larger peace-keeping operations (such as in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict). And, if it were to become a real military power, who would control it?

(e) Do Nothing.

What a horrible option! Makes one feel really powerless! But this is the option that we, and our government, commonly go for. Surely it is better to do something Ð anything Ð rather than nothing? Well, not necessarily Ð at least as far as our government is concerned. If any given action is likely to make things worse, then it is only common sense not to take that action. For example, the oil-for-food program in Iraq, supposedly supervised by the UN. It was pretty obvious that the money would never reach the people who needed it and that, instead, it would line the coffers of the ruling party. Obvious! Surely that’s a common sense conclusion. Then why did we support the oil-for-food program?

Probably the less our government does the better! But that is not the same as saying that WE should do nothing.

So, what are the lessons of Iraq?

Maybe that we all, as individuals, have to figure out exactly where we stand on any given issue and why. For the most part we let our government (and that’s not just the current administration) get away with all sorts of things that common sense says do not make sense. Whose fault is that?

If we just wake up and look around us, we can make a difference. The government is only there because we put it there (or allow it to be put there). Whatever your political affiliation, what happened in California recently showed clearly that people can make their voices heard.

How do we make our voices heard?

By expressing our opinions. There’s our families, our friends, our acquaintances, our business associates, our local newspaper or local TV stations, quite apart from our votes. Then, of course, if one wishes, one can become more active and support a particular group or cause.

We live in a wonderful country with wonderful opportunities. We have plenty of value to export peacefully to the rest of the world.