Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 04:55:57 -0700 (MST) From: Jeff Hester <JHESTER@asu.edu> Subject: Logical Analysis of the Motivations for the War in Iraq Message-id: <Pine.OSF.4.05.10303280448490.8946-100000@eagle.la.asu.edu>
Dear All,
I stated in class that the way of thinking that we have been using
in AST112 is as powerful a tool outside of the classroom as it is in
the classroom. In particular, one of the cornerstones of science is
that scientific claims can be assessed by anyone. They do not depend on
whether we WANT a claim to be true or not. For this reason, this way of
thinking about claims is especially useful when trying to draw conclusions
about issues that are very emotional, or have become strongly polarized.
The war in Iraq is such an issue. The battle for the hearts and minds
of the nation and the world has reached a fevered pitch. Were you to
compare the press coverage that the war is receiving in the U.S. with
the press coverage that it is receiving in Europe or in Asia or in the
Middle East itself, you would think that you were hearing about several
entirely different conflicts. At home the only real dialogue that you
hear is shouting in the streets between groups on one side of the issue
or the other. TV new commentators interpret events for you, telling
you what they "mean," and the conclusions you are supposed to draw from
them. The White House and the Pentagon make use of their control over
the flow of information from the battlefield to shape public opinion in
the U.S., just as Al Jazeera interprets and edits the flow of information
reaching the Arab world to shape opinion there. Meanwhile cries of
"patriotic" ferver or pictures of dead women and children might pull
our heartstrings one direction of the other.
In the face of all this, how can one arrive at an opinion about the
war that is something more than simply parroting what you have been told
your opinion is supposed to be?
The answer: apply the same standard of knowledge to statements about
the war that we apply to statements about our knowledge of the Universe.
Take those statements, use them to make predictions, then see if the
data agrees with those predictions or not. Try to falsify statements
using evidence, and then see which statements hold up, and which do not.
This sounds kind of cold and formal, I suppose, but that is the whole
point. It is precisely when emotions are at their strongest and when
there is so much at stake that we most need a way of thinking about the
world that DOES NOT DEPEND ON OUR PRECONCEPTIONS OR OUR PREJUDICES.
It turns out that I have a very strong position on the War in Iraq. I
would like to share with you how I arrive at that position as an example
of what it means to think critically about issues in the public sphere.
I clearly cannot insist that you agree with me. However, I can suggest
that if you disagree, the way to do so is to find the logical or
evidentiary flaws in my arguments. Saying, "I want us to be the
good guys, so I choose to believe that we are the good guys" carries
no weight. "It's true because I want it to be true," or "It's true
because I believe it's true," or "It's true because we believe it's
true" are meaningless.
Regards,
Dr. H.
******************
A natural place to begin consideration of the war in Iraq is with the
question, "What purpose does the war serve." It is clear that the Bush
administration wanted this war very badly. They went to great pains
to try to maneuver the United Nations into providing the U.S. with
an international mandate to invade Iraq, yet when that mandate was not
forthcoming, the U.S. (together with a relatively small number of allies)
chose to act unilaterally.
So why is it that we wanted this war so badly? The administration has
offered a number of rationales for invading Iraq. If we want to know
whether those rationales hold water, we need to essentially treat them
as theories and see whether they hold up against the evidence.
There are a three principle motivations that have been offered by the
Bush administration for the War in Iraq:
(1) AS SUGGESTED BY THE NAME OF THE MILITARY OPERATION -- "OPERATION
IRAQI FREEDOM" -- WE HAVE INVADED IRAQ OUT OF A DESIRE TO LIBERATE ITS
PEOPLE FROM A REPRESSIVE REGIME.
If this is our real reason for going to war with Iraq, then you would
make several predictions, including: (a) that we would take an equally
dim view of other similarly repressive regimes; (b) that all of our
policies toward Iraq would be motivated by a desire to improve the human
situation within the country; and (c) that U.S. antagonism toward Iraq
would be a traceable reaction to repression within the nation.
The data falsify these predictions. Beginning with (a),
most human rights organizations such as Freedom House
(http://freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2001/index.htm) and Amnesty
International place a number of our close allies, including Saudi Arabia,
among the most repressive regimes in the world. In fact, the U.S. has
a long history of involvement with repressive regimes, when such involvement
is judged to be in our strategic or tactical interest. (See, for
example, http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html)
Turning to (b), are all of our policies toward Iraq motivated by
an interest in the human rights of Iraqis? No. According to Human
Rights Watch and most other international human rights organizations,
for example, the suffering of Iraqi citizens over the past decade has
been significantly worsened by U.S. sponsored sanctions imposed on Iraq
since the first Gulf War (http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/09/iraq920.htm).
Further, the reaction of many of the Iraqi people -- including the Shiites
who were expected to rally to our aid -- is that no matter how much they
dislike Saddam, they dislike being invaded by a Western force more.
This grows in part out of the fact that when Shiites and Kurds attempted
to oust Saddam following the first Gulf War, the U.S. under the
leadership of Bush 1 reneged on promises of support and allowed them
to be crushed by Iraqi forces. Over the past decade, Bush 1 and
current Secretary of State Colin Powell were among the most vocal
opponents of the view that Hussein should be ousted by force.
To judge (c) we need to turn to the history of U.S. relations with
Saddam Hussein. Saddam used to be a U.S. ally. In fact, during the
height of Saddam's worst human rights violations in the Iran/Iraq war of
the early 1980's we helped him obtain the chemical weapons that he used
on the Kurds and Iranians, as well as supplying him with intelligence and
strategic assistance in the use of those weapons. During that conflict,
despite the fact that Iraq was making almost daily use of chemical weapons
with full knowledge of the U.S. administration, the Reagan administration
actively blocked even mild economic sanctions against Iraq. Who was
the U.S. envoy to Iraq, responsible for coordinating U.S. assistance to
the Iraqi war effort at the very height of Iraqi oppression? None other
than the current Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. (See, for instance,
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1920/stories/20021011005300800.htm. Or just
type "Rumsfeld Iraq Reagan" into Google or your favorite search engine.
This is all a matter of public record.) When you hear Rumsfeld talk about
"Hussein gassing his own people," he should instead be saying, "We gassed
Hussein's own people," because he (Rumsfeld) was personally involved in those
actions.
As an interesting aside, during the same period that he was carrying out
such actions, Hussein was actually given a key to the city of Detroit, Michigan
(http://www.clickondetroit.com/det/news/stories/news-206488720030326-070349.html).
Following the Iran/Iraq war, Hussein fell out of favor with Washington, in
part because Iran was no longer the focus of our ire, and in part because
of issues such as control of Iraq's oil resources. Iraq might be our
"ally" today, were it not for Hussein's mistake of objecting to U.S. oil
companies using Kuwait as a base to slant drill into Iraqi oil fields.
There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is an oppressive ruler, but the
data clearly disprove the claim that ending Hussein's oppression is the
administration's motivation for the current war.
(2) WE INVADED IRAQ BECAUSE OF A NEED TO HALT THE SPREAD OF WEAPONS OF
MASS DESTRUCTION.
(Note: I will drop the formal "Predict this then test it" prose
from this point on, but that is still what I am doing. For example,
in the paragraph that follows, I might have said, "I predict that if
war was justified to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction,
then there must have been compelling evidence demonstrating that such a
danger exists. However, those in the best position to know acknowledged
the existence of no such evidence." Instead, I embed the prediction in
the discussion of the evidence, and simply point out that U.N. weapon's
inspectors dismissed U.S. "evidence" as being circumstantial and
inconclusive.)
First, there appears to be no compelling evidence that Iraq
possesses significant stockpiles of such weapons, or was poised
to use or distribute those weapons. Even the chief U.N. weapons
inspector, Hans Blix, dismissed the evidence presented to
the U.N. by Colin Powell as circumstantial and inconclusive.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,889135,00.html)
Second, there was strong evidence that international pressure on Iraq
was working. (Had Bush been content to continue saber rattling as a
means of increasing the effectiveness of U.N. inspectors, he might have
actually achieved a foreign policy victory in Iraq.)
Third, the situation with respect to such weapons in Iraq has likely
not changed much in the 10 years following the first Gulf War. So why
invade now? I could find no evidence to suggest that Iraq had suddenly
become more of a threat. Quite the contrary, in fact. Citing
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030325_354.html, for example:
The inspectors, privately, disparaged the "leads" they were
receiving from the U.S. government.
After more than 700 surprise inspections at hundreds of sites
since November, the U.N. teams had compiled a short list of
proscribed items found: fewer than 20 old, empty chemical
warheads for battlefield rockets, and a dozen artillery shells
filled with mustard gas shells tagged by U.N. inspectors in the
1990s but somehow not destroyed by them.
Fourth, were we seriously worried about the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction, other nations such as North Korea and especially
republics of the former Soviet Union are far greater threats.
The situation concerning the fragments of the Soviet Biopreperat (the
massive Soviet biological weapons program that employed thousands and
produced tons of biological weapons during the Cold War), is particularly
disturbing, posing a far greater risk than Iraq as a source of terrorist
weapons. See, for example:
http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/conference2002/usrussianthreatreduction.htm
And yet we are taking little or no real action on these other fronts.
Concern over weapons of mass destruction is clearly not our motivation for
waging war against Iraq.
(3) WE HAD TO INVADE IRAQ AS PART OF OUR WAR ON TERRORISM.
Despite considerable administration pressure on the CIA to find evidence
linking Saddam Hussein and Al-Quaeda, no such evidence was ever produced.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/02/international/middleeast/02INTE.html)
In fact, historically Hussein and the groups associated
with Osama bin Laden have been staunch enemies.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/30/opinion/30BENJ.html)
None of the terrorists involved in the events of
September 11, 2001 were Iraqi, nor had serious ties to
Iraq. (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_suspects.html)
On the other hand, many of the hijackers *were* Saudi, and it is clear
that most of the material support for Al Quaeda flows through Saudi
Arabia (e.g., http://www.msnbc.com/news/838867.asp). Recall that Saudi
Arabia is also considered as repressive a regime as Iraq. Were we truly
trying to stamp out repressive nations that support terrorism, we would
be invading Saudi Arabia. And yet due to links with U.S. oil interests
and the strategic importance of U.S. bases there, Saudi Arabia remains our
"good friend."
As a footnote, however, the Bush administration has done an extraordinary
job of spreading misinformation, confusing Hussein and bin Laden in the
minds of the public. Recent poles indicate that a large fraction of
the American public (perhaps a majority of those strongly supportive of
the war) confuse the identities of Hussein and bin Laden, and believe that
Iraq was directly involved in support of Al Quaeda and in the planning and
execution of the 9/11 attacks.
( http://salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/02/06/iraq_poll/index.html)
Regardless of how often Bush and Rumsfeld repeat the words, the war in
Iraq has nothing to do with counterterrorism.
By the way, the above analysis of the administration's stated
justifications was clear throughout the international community prior to the
beginning of hostilities. This is at least part of the reason why the
United Nations refused to give Bush the resolution he so badly wanted,
legitimizing a U.S.-led invasion. The administration will occassionally
claim that we are in Iraq enforcing a U.N. mandate, but the U.S. has
no jurisdiction to carry out a unilateral campaign. In the end, we
invaded Iraq NOT as an action aimed at enforcing a U.N. resolution,
but in clear violation of the wishes of the U.N.
ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE, ONE IS FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION'S STATED REASONS FOR INVADING IRAQ ARE A RUSE. THEY ARE
POORLY SUPPORTED RATIONALIZATIONS, NOT REASONS.
So, if there is no substance to the stated reasons behind the war with
Iraq, why are we engaged in such a dangerous and costly course of
action? It is very late and I am very tired, so I am going to stop
citing sources, and instead will point out that there are a number of
possible contributing factors that do seem consistent with the facts
at hand. The real reasons behind the war seem likely to be some
combination of these:
* A desire to claim the world's second largest oil reserves
(third? I've seen lists that place Iraq behind Canada);
* A desire to distract popular attention from growing failures
in the adminstration's domestic record;
* A need to maintain the illusion of external threat to allow
further erosion of civil liberties and other activities aimed
at securing domestic political control;
* A desire to establish the US as a world-wide hegemony (in other
words, we are doing it just to show that we can, and that nobody
can stop us), coupled with a dangerous new doctrine of preemptive
strikes against *potential* enemies
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/); and
* A desire for a true Crusade -- a holy war of Christiandom against
Islam;
to name a few.
In short, a foreign war (especially one that plays strongly to religious,
racial, and other prejudices) is a great way to silence domestic dissent,
solidify political power at home, and tell the world that we will do what
we like, regardless of the niceties of international law. (And if your
buddies at Exxon and Shell and Haliburton make a fortune along the way --
which they are already just from the current price hike in oil -- so much
the better. If you do not know about the depths of the ties between the
current administration and the oil industry, then you should. Just put
the words "Bush Cheney Haliburton Enron" into your favorite search
engine.)
I truly wish that I could find evidence that falsifies these possible
motivations as convincingly as the administration's official reasons can
be shown to be false. Unfortunately, I have not been able to do so.
The only problem is that none of those motivations are in any way worthy
of the traditions of this nation. And if we weren't so distracted by
the hysteria and jingoism of war, we would see that.
Which only goes to show that the war is serving its purpose.
And THAT is why I am strongly opposed to the war in Iraq. Analysis of the
evidence shows that we are engaged in this war -- a war that has already
taken a huge human toll -- for the worst possible reasons.
The next question regards our responsibility as individuals given the
current situation.
The only way for a democracy to work is if those who participate
actually take the time to understand the information at hand and
develop a cogent, reasoned position. Failing to engage in political
debate because you don't feel the need to justify your position is
irresponsible. To fail to confront the facts so that you don't have to
face the internal inconsistency in your own views is disingenuous self
delusion. To continue to hold a position even after it has become
clear that that position is based on lies and misinformation is
cowardly and unforgiveable.
Certainly, it is grossly irresponsible to support a policy that leads
to the violent deaths of thousands of people and the destruction of a
nation, without first making certain that you know just exactly why we
are pursuing that policy. And if the reasons given for the war turn out
to be unsubstantiated rationalizations, then it is a patriotic duty to
oppose that war, lest we become the very thing that we claimed to set
out to fight.
Look at it this way. If people started dropping bombs on Phoenix,
killing our families and friends and neighbors, we would not respond by
saying, "Oh well. They are just following their leader, who deserves
respect simply by virtue of his title. And since I don't like Bush,
maybe I will stand up and start fighting my neighbors on behalf of the
invaders."
Instead, we would be screaming at the tops of our lungs that the people
who came into our city and our homes were thugs and murderers and that
their leaders were evil and corrupt. (Look at the reaction spurred by
a mere two "bombs" delivered on 9/11.) And we would come to hate those
who offer their support to those corrupt and evil leaders.
By the way, this is why so much of the world has come to despise
Americans, Bush's rhetoric about "hating our freedom" notwithstanding.
So where does that leave us?
If we lack a solid, compelling, and objectively defensible cause for
what we are doing in Iraq, as seems to be the case, that means that WE
are international murderers and pirates and terrorists. That is not a
matter of "opinion." That is a matter of hard, cold, uncomfortable fact.
Either we have a defensible reason for being there, or we are in the
wrong.
Bush has made great hay out of the idea that giving aid and solace
to terrorists is to engage in terrorism yourself. Let's apply that
standard uniformly. If we cannot make a compelling case for
WHY we should be pursuing a war against the people of Iraq, and if we
then continue to support a regime that is engaging in a such war, then
by the administration's own standards, those of us who offer support to
the administration are international thugs and murderers and terrorists.
As a final note, if this is a war on terrorism, one would predict
that the War in Iraq should make the U.S. less likely to suffer
terrorist attacts. Perhaps the greatest irony of the war in Iraq
is that it is ultimately counterproductive. (See for example, "Bin
Laden's victory," by Richard Dawkins, published in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,919538,00.html ) Our
pursuit of this war has turned international sympathy and support
following 9/11 into international revulsion. Following 9/11, Le
Monde, for example, ran the headline, "We Are All Americans Now."
Now the U.S. House of Representatives considers it worth their
while to consider renaming French Fries and French Toast to "Freedom
Fries" and "Freedom Toast." (I will NOT start Freedom-kissing my
wife, no matter WHAT the House says.) We have stretched traditional
alliances to the breaking point and beyond, and have done much to
undermine the legitimacy of international law along the way. In the
process, our own actions have become the most effective recruiting
campaign that organizations such as Al Qaeda could have ever hoped for
(http://www.iht.com/articles/89963.htm). As we pursue what may be little
more than a modern-day Crusade, or at best a war of empire and conquest,
the ranks of the terrorist organizations swell in response, and our
isolation even among our traditional allies grows. We are far, far less
secure today than we were before we set out on this jingoistic crusade.
What goes around, comes around. And when the retaliatory wave of
guerilla warfare hits the US (what was 9/11 if not a "shock and awe"
campaign carried out by special operations forces?), remember that from
their perspective, THEY are the soldiers fighting for their freedom and
the freedom of their homelands, and WE are the state-sponsored
international terrorists against whom war has been declared.
Their logic is no more flawed than that of the Bush adminstration.
-- --- ************************************** Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826) **************************************
Jeff Hester Professor Department of Physics & Astronomy Arizona State University Box 871504 Tempe, AZ 85287-1504 (480) 965-0741