Former Presidential candidate Bill Bradley has penned an editorial saying that George Bush hasn't made the case for invading Iraq. I took a look at what Mr. Bradley had to say and wrote out a point by point response...
The State of the Union address was President Bush's opportunity to make the case for a unilateral invasion of Iraq. He failed to do so in a convincing manner. How we get rid of Saddam Hussein is as important in the long run as just getting rid of him. If we do it the wrong way, our action could seriously damage larger national interests.
Among the speech's failings:
1. The president did not demonstrate that a unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq will help in the fight against the ongoing, more serious, distributed threat of worldwide terrorism. To the contrary, it could well become a giant recruiting vehicle for al Qaeda and its imitators. Young Muslims around the world will see U.S. action without U.N. approval as neocolonialist, motivated more by a desire for Iraqi oil than Iraqi freedom. Many could become terrorists, striking at Americans anywhere in the world. If Americans are safe abroad only when they're accompanied by bodyguards, it will be difficult, among other things, for the United States to succeed in the world economy.
If we don't go after the regimes that actively support terrorist organizations, then we may as well quit the war on terrorism now, declare ourselves the losers, and sit back and wait for DC and NYC to disappear under mushroom clouds. The money, the training, the intelligence info, and the protection that rogue states give to terrorist organizations are what make them so effective. For example, Al Qaeda could not have pulled off 9/11 without their safe haven in Afghanistan where they were shielded from attack and given time to plan and a place for recruits to go and receive training. Invading Iraq not only removes one regime that supports terrorism, it sends a powerful message to other rogue regimes about the consequences of supporting terrorism. Two of those regimes, Syria & Iran, border Iraq which means that a large number of US forces would be in striking distance of their nations after an Iraqi invasion. That in and of itself could be a powerful motivator for these regimes. Obviously that isn't something the President wants to go into detail about BEFORE we go into Iraq.
Also, this idea that invading Iraq may become a recruiting vehicle for Al Qaeda is interesting. First off, are there not a lot of people on the anti-war side who have assured us that Al Qaeda hates Saddam Hussein? If that's true, Al-Qaeda will be cheering in the streets after Hussein is gone, right? But of course, that's not the case. Al Qaeda may not be fond of Hussein, but they'll ally with any enemy of the US right now.
But I digress, back to Bradley's little variant on the whole "violence only creates more violence" theme. Will defeating Saddam create more terrorists? Did defeating the Nazi Germany create new Nazis? Did defeating the Soviet Union in the cold war create more Communists? The answer is "no," and I doubt that defeating Saddam will create more terrorists, especially after Iraq becomes a fledgling Democracy and the horrors that he inflicted on his own citizens become common knowledge all across the region. Furthermore, by removing Saddam we're removing a safe haven & source of funding from terrorists as well as removing a belligerent anti-American regime from the region.
In fact, the one thing that we could do right now that would create more terrorists would be to back off. Osama Bin Laden would have never hit us in the first place if he didn't think we were a paper tiger that didn't have the will to destroy him. Proving that we are indeed "all talk and no action" is only going to encourage more terrorists to take shots at us.
"2. Bush did not acknowledge that a unilateral invasion risks destabilizing Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Egypt -- any one of which would be a major strategic loss for the United States. In Saudi Arabia, for example, the most benign potential change involves the overthrow of the current royal leadership by family factions that are much less pro-American. More serious would be a military coup led by an officer corps whose growing membership since 1991 has reflected the Muslim street more than the royal house. The worst scenario would be a radical Islamic revolt that could gain momentum from unanticipated developments in a U.S. conflict with Iraq. Likewise, any radical change in Pakistan could turn over nuclear weapons to Islamic terrorists -- the very thing the administration says it's trying to prevent by invading Iraq. Finally, any radical change in Egypt, however unlikely, could pose a mortal threat to Israel."
To begin with, I'm not interested in seeing stability in a region full of religious fanatics that are flying airplanes into our buildings, especially when they're working on developing nuclear weapons. I would argue that the most dangerous thing we can do right now is to continue to let the threats in the region metastasize.
Now on to specifics. The most likely country by far to be spurred on to revolt by an Iraqi invasion would be Iran. Moreover, it wouldn't be radical Islamists taking over, a pro-American Democracy would be likely to spring up. Considering that Iran is also pursuing weapons of mass destruction and that they're the world's foremost terrorist supporting regime, that would be an enormous positive that could help spur other nations in the region to move towards Democracy.
As far as the rest of the nations go, it's unlikely that Egypt is going to face a revolution. While I also think it's unlikely that Musharref would face a revolt if we went into Iraq, Pakistan is not and never has been a stable country. Yes, there's an outside chance that invading Iraq could be the spark that starts a revolution, but so could any number of things. No matter what happens, better than even money says Musharref won't be running the show five years from now and the change may very well be for the worse. That's just an unpleasant reality that we're going to have to deal with no matter what happens.
Saudi Arabia is less likely than Iran, but more likely than Pakistan or Iraq, to face upheaval if we invade Iraq. But again, we can't afford for the status quo to continue indefinitely in Saudi Arabia. Although Saudi Arabia has been minimally helpful in the war on terrorism, the oil wealth & manpower of their citizens are significant contributors to global terrorism. Perhaps more importantly, their virulent strain of Islam, Wahhabism, is being spread all across the planet. At some point, the royal family of Saudi Arabia is going to have to confront & crush the pro-terrorist Wahhabist forces in their country. If this brings that day closer, so be it. If Bradley's worst case scenario, a radical Islamist revolt were to occur, we will have tremendous firepower in the region and under no circumstances will we let a pro-terrorist radical Islamic regime take control of the world's largest supply of oil.
Now keep in mind, I think it's important not to overemphasize these "doomsday scenarios." As a matter of fact, we deal with situations like these all the time. China could decide to invade Taiwan, North Korea could launch a surprise attack on South Korea, Iraq could fire a chemical tipped weapon into Israel which might prompt a nuclear response, Pakistan and India could start a nuclear war, Zimbabwe could deliberately starve millions of it's people to death, revolution in Venezuela could disrupt a significant oil supply, etc, etc. Every one of these things COULD HAPPEN whether we go into Iraq or whether we don't. There are no "risk free" options out there in foreign policy and if you start basing your decisions on low probability "what ifs", you'll become paralyzed and unable to do much of anything on the foreign policy front.
"3. The president minimized the importance of allies in a war against Iraq, as he has in many other areas. The major foreign policy job of the American president is to maintain healthy relations with the great powers -- Europe, Russia, China and Japan. If the United States conveys a vision in which each power can find the realization of its own interests, that job is easier. At the moment, China, Russia and the core states of Europe (Germany and France) oppose a unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq, and, given U.S. positions on the Kyoto protocol, arms control treaties and the world court, they increasingly see America's world vision as diverging from their own. The administration ignores this opposition at America's peril. Those who preach American hegemony might well be trapped in the swamp of American hubris."
Bradley could not be more wrong than when he says, "The major foreign policy job of the American president is to maintain healthy relations with the great powers." The most important foreign policy objective that the POTUS has is to protect the people of United States from outside threats. Think about the implications of what Bradley is saying here. If he really believes his own words, then he considers making, "Europe, Russia, China and Japan" happy more important than stopping another 9/11 or worse.
Furthermore, the reason that the previously mentioned "great powers" (and let's be honest here, Bradley really means Europe) "increasingly see America's world vision as diverging from their own" is because our interests ARE DIVERGING. Europe has a myopic world view. That's because their security has been insured by the United States since WW2. They believe in international law, the UN, and negotiating disputes because it has worked for them. But, what they don't get is that they've been like fish in an aquarium since WW2. The US has not only protected them from outside threats, but we've also protected them from each other. No European nation would have dared to try to start WW3 because America and the rest of NATO would have crushed them. But, when you try to take the "law of the aquarium" into the outside world, where the law of the jungle is in effect, it doesn't work. Most people in the United States understand this, but it doesn't appear that Europe does. So because of that, we don't see things eye to eye on a lot of issues and chances are, that's not going to change anytime soon.
One more thing about this issue; we currently have Australia, Britain, Spain, Denmark, Italy, Albania, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Ireland, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey, the Czech Republic, and Hungary among others effectively on board for an Iraqi invasion. I'd hardly say that we're being, "unilateral" with all those nations backing our position.
"4. Bush's strong remarks ignored the fact that military actions often have unpredictable consequences. For example, the 1991 Persian Gulf War led to a continuing U.S. presence in the Islamic holy land -- something the British and French always avoided -- and radicalized a generation of Muslims, helping to create the atmosphere for the emergence of Osama bin Laden. This time, what will happen when the shooting stops is far from clear. If we are to be seen as more than transparent hypocrites, we will have to not only win a war and maintain a military presence in Iraq, but also to preside over the development of democracy in a country that makes the former Yugoslavia seem homogeneous. This is a multi-year commitment that could take thousands of U.S. lives and billions of dollars, yet there appears to be no plan for carrying it out. The president has not leveled with the American people about the cost of democratization, nor has he built popular support for occupation. By telling the American public only half the story now, he risks great national division later."
It's goes without saying that wars can, "have unpredictable consequences." That's just the nature of warfare. However, I think it's interesting that Bradley brings up the, "continuing U.S. presence in the Islamic holy land." That certainly was a recruiting tool that Bin Laden used, yet it's also something that could end if we invade Iraq. Those troops are there to help keep Hussein out of Saudi Arabia and if Hussein's gone, we could remove them which would give the terrorists one less significant recruiting tool to use.
Also, Bradley's assertion that, "there appears to be no plan" for dealing with post-Saddm Iraq is silly. What does he base that on? Since we haven't even definitively announced that we're invading Iraq, doesn't it seem a little early for releasing how we're going to handle things after Saddam is gone? We haven't announced what our battle plan is either, but that doesn't mean we don't have one.
Also, I don't think it's likely that we're going to see any "great national division" over what goes on in Iraq after the war is over. If there was going to be any "great national division," I'm sure it would have already happened over South Korea, Germany, Japan, Afghanistan, or some of the other 100+ nations where US troops are stationed. I'm sure that there will be criticism of Bush over whatever he does, that's just the nature of politics today, but it's not going to be a major issue.
"5. The president did not point out that the prospect of unilateral U.S. invasion has caused Iraq's neighbors to put away traditional animosities and begin to consult on what it could mean for them. When Shia Iran, Sunni Saudi Arabia, secular and authoritarian Syria, and secular and democratic Turkey all get together, we should pay attention. None of them has any love for Hussein, and they would welcome his demise, but at a minimum each could be overwhelmed by refugees in the event of war. They also have a common concern about a long, dominant U.S. presence in Iraq. To act without specific consultation with them on the structure of postwar Iraq invites their alienation and their adventurism among Iraq's ethnic groups, making it that much more difficult to establish a multiethnic, democratic Iraq."
I don't know why Bradley makes the assumption that we haven't consulted with these nations about the, "structure of postwar Iraq." To the contrary, I've seen numerous stories that claim we've assured Turkey that no breakaway Kurdish state will be allowed to form. So I'd say that it's highly likely Bradley is incorrect here. Also, we are at war and you'd think that a guy who wanted to be President would understand that it might not be productive to have press conferences dedicated to discussing the backroom deals we've cut with the nations that surround Iraq.
Furthermore, there's nothing unusual about Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey getting together to talk about this situation. Any nation that is going to have a war on it's borders has reason to be concerned and plan ahead for it. Planning ahead with your neighbors who are in the same situation makes perfect sense. So I'm not exactly sure why Bradley is trying to play this up as some sort of ominous sign.
"No one should underestimate the power of the U.S. military. We have highly trained and patriotic soldiers and the very latest technology. Secretaries Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell are enormously talented leaders. There is no doubt the United States can win a war with Iraq. Hussein can be made to pay in overthrow, exile or defeat for what appears now to be his flagrant noncompliance with U.N. Resolution 1441. Still, the timing of military action and the international consensus supporting it are critical. Throughout the Cold War, we spent billions of dollars to contain the Soviet Union. Presidents rallied international support, bolstered our defenses and built consensus, but they never committed forces to a European war. Containment worked. For most of the 1990s, we contained Hussein. The unwillingness of the Clinton administration to do anything decisive when Hussein ejected U.N. inspectors was a serious error that Bush, with a more robust approach, has now corrected.
The president should recognize what he has already accomplished and keep the pressure on Hussein until he disarms or we achieve international consensus (as I believe we can) for military action. Consensus sometimes takes longer. It often doesn't fit a political calendar, but it is far preferable to unilateral action that jeopardizes our long-term leadership abroad and our unity at home."
Containment did indeed work during the Cold War and the policy still has it's uses today. However, containment exclusively does not work with terrorist states. To come to that conclusion, one only has to look to pre-9/11 Afghanistan which was completely contained.
I also find it amazing that Bradley admits that the Clinton administration made a "serious error" by not doing, "anything decisive when Hussein ejected U.N. inspectors" and yet Bradley thinks Bush could correct that error without going to war at this point. If Bradley believes that, I have to wonder what Bradley's objective really is? It can't be to uphold UN resolutions because the last resolution demanded that Saddam disarm, which he's not doing. Likewise, Bradley's goal can't be to disarm Saddam because the inspectors aren't capable of combing through a police state roughly the size of France and finding highly mobile weapons of mass destruction that Saddam is trying to hide from them. On top of that, we have to consider that Saddam only allowed the inspectors back in because Bush threatened to invade otherwise. If Saddam came to believe that threat wasn't genuine, you have to think that he'd immediately kick the inspectors out again. So what exactly does Bradley believe we're accomplishing by letting the inspectors putter around Iraq until Saddam decides we're not serious and kicks them out?
Also, Bradley is again saying that Bush should, "keep the pressure on Hussein until he disarms or we achieve international consensus." I just cannot fathom how a man who was a serious contender for the Presidency could believe that getting international consensus is more important than safeguarding American lives. For example, Just think back to Afghanistan. If we made it known that we weren't going to hit Afghanistan unless we had "international consensus," we would have never been allowed to go into Afghanistan. The same thing applies to Iraq. If Bush hadn't made it clear that we were going to go into Iraq with or without UN approval, we would have NEVER gotten the first UN resolution passed. Even if Hussein somehow managed to NUKE America next week, we still wouldn't be able to get "international consensus" unless we made it clear that we were going to go into Iraq no matter what anyone else thought. That's just the reality of dealing with a world where different nations have very different beliefs and goals.
Finally, I'd like to take issue with a mistake Bradley and the rest of the anti-war movement commonly makes and doesn't get called on. That is the failure to recognize the consequences of non-action. You see, there are some very real dangerous situations that may occur at this point if we fail to act. In the end, Bradley's recommendations will lead to Saddam getting nukes. Is Bradley willing to accept that? I sincerely doubt that we'd be able to continue manning the "no-fly zones" if Saddam had nuclear weapons. Yet, if we leave, it would be highly likely that Saddam would massacre the Kurds that have been plotting against him with US. Is Bradley ready accept responsibility for that? It's also likely that Saddam would rearm and might very well swallow up Kuwait and Saudi Arabia within a decade giving him control of a large portion of the world's oil. We'd also have to consider that the radical Islamists around the world would consider the US backing down to be a huge victory for Saddam that would prove once and for all that we're a "paper tiger." That would encourage more attacks against US citizens. We'd also see MUCH LESS cooperation around the Middle-East if we were to back off at this point. That's because they'd know there would be nothing to fear from us militarily and they'd also see that we weren't dependable allies. Then there's the possibility of nuclear blackmail, & the fact that the global terrorist network would continue to operate largely unchecked by American power. We'd also have to consider that Iran and Syria would immediately work to build nuclear bombs of their own, not only because we'd have shown ourselves to be unwilling to stop them, but because they'd need to defend themselves from Iraq. Without us to fear, North Korea and Pakistan might very well start selling nuclear weapons in the Middle-East as an "Iraqi defense policy." Then we also have to consider that most of the nations in the region hate Israel. Wouldn't the chances of a nuke being launched at Israel or a terrorist sneaking a nuclear weapon into the US or Israel be increased astronomically then? Israel is capable of launching a nuke at every population center in the Middle East and I wouldn't be surprised if they did JUST THAT if they were ever nuked.
Now, Bradley talked about the possibilities of revolutions in Egypt, Pakistan, and Syria. But, for it to be an honest argument, we've got to look at some of these possible results of "not acting" and weigh them into our decision. I hope Mr. Bradley and some of the people who support him will take all of these things into consideration and will change their positions...
