Election 2002: Iraq
by Ted Galen Carpenter
October 8, 2002
Ted Carpenter, Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, was online to discuss Iraq, U.S. security strategy and the politics of going to war.
Should Congress grant the president broad powers to launch a military strike against Iraq? What is the role of the United Nations in such an engagement? Is the Bush administration's current push for a regime change politically motivated?
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Las Cruces, N.M.: Does the Bush Administration have any proof that it can present to the American people other than the constant rhetoric that Iraq is evil and must be destroyed? Where is the smoking gun? and how immediate is the threat if there is in fact a threat?
Ted Carpenter: The administration is now trying to establish the case that Baghdad has extensive contacts with Al-Qaeda. The evidence presented thus far seems very weak and general, however. In reality, the administration is determined to destroy Saddam's regime and will use any argument that supports that course of action.
Arlington, Va: I hate to see the war made into a campaign issue, primarily since I think a lot of Democrats will be cowed into going along. will we have an up or down vote on war?
Ted Carpenter: We will have a vote on a congressional resolution authorizing the use of force. That's not quite the same as a congressional declaration of war (which would seem to be required by the Constitution before the United States attacks another country), but it does at least mean the executive branch is not acting unilaterally. Most Democrats will ultimately support the resolution, albeit in some cases reluctantly
Orono, Maine: With polls suggesting that most Americans think that fixing the economy is more important than taking on Saddam, is President Bush taking a big political risk?
Ted Carpenter: He is taking a political risk only if the war goes badly. If it is quick, decisive, and with few American casualties, Bush will probably benefit politically. The greater danger to his administration may be the aftermath of the war. U.S. forces will be in Iraq for years, and trying to garrison that fractious country could be extremely difficult and frustrating--as well as potentially costly in terms of American lives.
Cumberland, Md.: In view of the actions of Germany and France and the EU has a whole, is it really worthwhile to even consider their point of view when US National Security is at issue?
Ted Carpenter: It's worthwhile to consider their views, but the United States must ultimately make its own decisions on national security matters. The key issue in this case is whether a war against Iraq would make matters better or worse from the standpoint of U.S. interests, not whether the policy we adopt is popular with other countries. There are many reasons to oppose war against Iraq, but international opposition is among the least important.
Maryland: How do you rate the UN and their reaction to Bush's desire to press the Iraq issue?
Ted Carpenter: Bush is essentially telling the UN: Support the policy Washington has already decided to pursue and the UN will at least preserve the appearance of relevance in international affairs. Or try to oppose U.S. policy, and Washington will then bypass the UN, making that organization's irrelevance apparent to all. The administration regards the UN as a potentially convenient prop in this drama, but nothing more.
Maryland: My concern about starting a war with Iraq is that it might push the Muslim world even further into anti-Americanism. The U.S. is clearly losing the war for the hearts and minds of Muslims worldwide, partly because of our abysmal handling of the Israeli/Palestinian situation. Many young Muslims already regard bin Laden as a hero. The Bush Administration seems to regard the issue with Iraq as a holy war, which is excatly what the U.S. doesn't need. If we attack Iraq, we could find ourselves at war with every Muslim from Morocco to Indonesia.
Ted Carpenter: An attack on Iraq will be a recruiting poster for Osama bin Laden and other Islamic extremists. Much of the Muslim world viewed the intervention in Afghanistan with skepticism, even though the United States was fully justified in taking that action. Invading and occupying Iraq will be seen as a blatant case of U.S. imperialism, and the longer we stay in a postwar Iraq the more acute that problem will become.
Harrisburg, Pa.: Do you believe the American public fully understands the potential for casualities in a war with Iraq? Also, do we have an exit strategy and long term goals for Iraq in a war with Iraq? What should we hope for in a post-war Iraq, and how do we get the Iraqi public to support a subsequent government that is willing to work with the United States?
Ted Carpenter: The growing uneasiness of the public (reflected in recent polls) suggests that people are concerned about potential casualties. The reality is that no one can predict how the war will go. There are simply too many variables: the loyalty of the Iraqi military, whether Iraqi forces opt to hole up in the cities and force the U.S. to wage urban warfare, whether Saddam uses chemical and biological weapons (and whether he can use them effectively), to mention just a few of the more important variables. This conflict could be a cakewalk similar to the original Gulf War, or it could turn into a very messy, bloody conflict.
The U.S. does not have a clear exit strategy. Most experts believe U.S. forces will have to stay in Iraq for years to stabilize a post-Saddam regime. Iraq has no democratic traditions or institutions, and even holding that artificial country together in the face of secessionist impulses by the Kurdish and Shia populations could take some doing.
Laurel, Md.: Hussein is routinely described using terms like "madman." Is he actually likely to act like an irrational person, such as firing missiles or releasing gas in his own country simply out of spite; or is he a rational actor within his defined interests, like the Soviet Union was?
Ted Carpenter: Saddam seems to be a rational, albeit ruthless, actor. A man who sleeps in a separate location every night to maximize his chances of survival does not appear to be the suicidal type. And he knows that he would be committing suicide if he attacked the United States--either directly or by passing along weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. One of the odd features of the administration's drive to war is that U.S. officials seem to have lost faith in deterrence. Yet the U.S. successfully deterred Josef Stalin and his successors in the Soviet Union (who were even more brutal than Saddam), and we deterred Mao Zedong--the architect of China's utterly bizarre cultural revolution. It is not at all clear why the administration assumes that the vast U.S. nuclear arsenal cannot deter a garden variety thug like Saddam Hussein.
Cologne, Germany: It seems a little as if President Bush were playing God. He wants to eliminate problems before they develop. Most of the countries around the world do not support President Bush's war campaign. What do you think motivates him so strongly to eliminate Iraq as a potential threat to the U.S. and the world?
Ted Carpenter: Iraq is just the first stage in implementing the new national security strategy document the administration released last month. Other nations will be targeted by the doctrine of preemptive war as well. Indeed, it is likely the United States will put Iran in its sights almost as soon as the guns fall silent in Iraq. Other countries, especially Syria, Libya, Sudan and (possibly) North Korea, also may be confronted. Coercing Iraq is part of a GLOBAL U.S. strategy.
Los Angeles, Calif.: Maybe I'm just way too far from Washington to think this is a serious topic, but most people out here could care less about the "political ramifications" of going to war with Iraq, we care about the chances of Iraq (or some terrorist group it provides) exploding a nuclear weapon in Los Angeles, New York, or some other American city. That's the real issue, not what party wins in November, not what the Europeans think, or what the UN can or cannot do.
The Bush administration needs to come clean with the American people, treat us like adults and tell us what it knows. If Iraq really, without doubt, is on the path to developing serious weapons of mass-destruction that threaten the U.S., then their capability to do so must be utterly destroyed. In my opinion, the case has been made and the time for political posturing and kowtowing to Europe -- who's cities won't be nuked, ours will -- is over. However, given our intelligence agencies less-than-stellar reputation, Congress does have a roll to ensure that all the facts are verified and made available so hard choices can be made. But to wrap this in some sort of political issue like some petty, idiotic campaign commercial is sickening insulting to our intelligence as citizens.
Ted Carpenter: The issue is still one of deterrence. And this is not the first time that hawks have advocated preemptive war in the name of counterproliferation. Hardliners both inside and outside the government in the early 1950s seriously advocated attacking the Soviet Union when that country first began to develop nuclear weapons. A later generation of hawks advocated the same course with regard to China in the mid and late 1960s. And the arguments were much the same as those expressed now with regard to Iraq: that these were dangerous, irrational regimes that could not be reliably deterred. Fortunately, the arguments of those earlier generations of hawks did not prevail.
Washington, D.C.: How is US National Security an issue when Iraq can not send anything far enough to hit us. The only way is to infiltrate by using terrorism and that will probably INCREASE if we attack Iraq. How is an attack on Iraq going to protect us against the anger of the Arab world and the need for Saddam to retaliate once he has been cornered? I think it is more dangerous to the US if we attack, unilaterally. We are basically just trying to protect Israel and our oil interests -- not the average citizen.
Ted Carpenter: I won't question the administration's motives, but you are correct that the risk of terrorism is likely to increase if the U.S. attacks Iraq. Not only will such a war provide new recruits for the ranks of anti-American extremist organizations, but the one scenario in which Saddam might strike at U.S. targets is if we try to eliminate his regime. At that point he has nothing to lose, and the considerations of deterrence no longer apply.
Washington, D.C.: Haven't we learned our lessons of regime reform in Iran and Afghanistan (first time around) and support of regimes like Iraq earlier? If we continue to topple governments, putting in "friendly" ones, this could easily backfire as it has done in the past.
We need to become oil independent and let the Middle East sort out their own problems.
Ted Carpenter: The blatantly imperial ambitions of some of the lobbyists for war with Iraq especially worry me. They seem to believe that the United States can remake the politics of the entire Islamic world, and that the various populations will welcome this American lesson in imposed democracy. I share the hope that one day the nations of the Islamic world will embrace democracy, limited government, and free markets. But those values cannot be imposed at the point of U.S. bayonets and cruise missiles. The Bush administration may regard its imperial mission as benevolent, but the populations in the region are likely to regard matters differently.
washingtonpost.com:
That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.