In the crosshairs of preventive war
by Sara Wood
[ politics | people - april 06 ]
Your film on the National Security Strategy of 2002, the document that served as the official written basis for the pre-emptive war policy of the White House, came out in May 2004. What’s happened since then?
We have continued to wage a war in Iraq that has turned parts of that country into the terrorist havens George Bush told us were there before the war. Over a thousand coalition troops have died and according to conservative estimates, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been murdered, putting the country on the brink of civil war - or in one, according to former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. There have been no apologies for any of the lies upon which the war was based, from Bush’s assertion that its purpose is to “uphold the integrity of the United Nations”, which he hates and against whose wishes he acted, to Jack Straw’s famous line that the “single question” in Iraq is ridding the country of weapons of mass destruction. Really? Why are British soldiers still fighting, then? As we know, that question has long been settled.
Defence spending round the world - including Russia and China – is up, which tends to happen when the world’s biggest power says that only its military solutions will settle major world problems. The message of lawlessness is clear to the rest of the world, and they respond as you would expect: they’ve learned the lesson from Iraq that guns speak louder than words.
So these important, albeit profoundly frightening, developments have occurred (or were underway and have continued) since the documentary came out.
What did you make of the 2006 National Security Strategy (NSS) document, the first update since 2002?
When he unveiled the new NSS on March 16, 2006, President Bush didn’t revise the stated policy of pre-emption, of attacking another country first, an action better described as preventive rather than pre-emptive, as they’re not quite interchangeable. The new NSS says the policy "remains the same,” and is a key component of US strategy in the "early years of a long struggle” - presumably the endless war on terror.
Specifically, the new NSS elaborates by saying, "If necessary... under long-standing principles of self defense, we [the US government] do not rule out use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack... When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize."
But here we face the same logical breakdown as we did with the 2002 National Security Strategy.
Pre-emption - attacking someone before they have the opportunity to attack you - is nothing new: it’s a long-standing and widely accepted strategy employed by law enforcement against criminals, for example, but with extremely important qualifications. Its legitimate use depends on two things: the evidence of intent of the other to attack; and the capability of the other to attack. These qualifications mean all the world of difference; they separate legitimate self-defense measures to repel an attack from the arbitrary use of force whenever you feel like it. Bush declares his right to use pre-emption divorced from these qualifications, under the guise of self-defense.
Returning to a sane use of the word 'pre-emption' (rather than Bush’s, which is just another way of saying "might equals right"), I recommend Nicholas Berry’s look at the 2006 NSS. Considering intent to attack and capability to attack as moral and legal necessities to a pre-emptive strategy, he asks: “What countries might attack the United States or its allies? Those with capabilities – Russia and China – have absolutely no intent. Those that might like to develop an intent – North Korea, Syria, and Iran – have either no or insufficient capabilities. Thus they have not developed any intention to attack."
"The militarism enters the picture when Bush can declare both intent and capability while manufacturing evidence for both. He did so with Iraq. He is doing so with Iran. Iran in the NSS is identified as the country likely to present the ‘single greatest future challenge to the United States’ and ‘threatens Israel.’ The NSS warns against states that ‘produce fissile material that can be used to make nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear power program.’ Not mentioned is the fact that IAEA inspectors can [find] no evidence that Iran has a weapons program. [But] for Bush, who needs evidence?”
Berry is right on the money. And he closes by noting that unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran’s formal military will not crumble, which I think he’s right about as well.
So, to get back to your question: the 2002 Strategy was geared toward Iraq, and this is geared toward Iran, with very few changes or additions of substance. And again, as far as preventive war is concerned, there is no revision and certainly no apology for it.
Iraq was the first application of the preventive war strategy. Though the majority of Americans now say the war in Iraq is not worth it, many seem torn about the governmental outcome because you could say that regime changed was welcomed in Iraq. What do you say to the people who are glad to have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein?
Who wouldn’t be glad? If I were Iraqi, I would be thrilled that Saddam Hussein is behind bars, and 74% of the population is. But let’s look at some other numbers from a 2005 poll of Iraqis undertaken for the UK Ministry of Defense and leaked to British media: between 45% and 65% of Iraqis believe attacks on US and British troops are justified; 82% are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops; less than one per cent of the population believes that coalition troops are responsible for any improvement in security; and 67% feel less secure because of the occupation.
So what do these numbers tell us? People hated Saddam but hate occupation too, and refuse to be occupied by armies with no legitimate presence. Coalition troops are not welcomed and are part of the problem not the solution, if the opinion of the Iraqi people matters at all. (After all, the supposed aim was to bring them democracy and to respect their opinion, right?) These numbers also tell us that the way US and UK government officials try to frame the argument over and over again - that no matter what, Iraq today is better than under Saddam - is an absurd, false choice. When your argument is that our mass violence is less bad than someone else’s mass violence, and that the recipients should be thankful - not resentful - for our reduced level of violence, then you’ve lost any conceivable moral authority. Comparing two crimes’ severity in order to absolve one is a sick exercise in my opinion, and a purely academic one. They’re both crimes.
Playing devil’s advocate for a second, if Bush has been such a disaster, how could the war continue to be waged? And if confidence in him was shaky from the start, how could the US have followed him to war?
It’s important to keep in mind how the US built its case for war in Iraq. Lewis Lapham in Harper’s Magazine has counted 237 false or misleading statements, including 55 by the President in which he linked Saddam Hussein and al Qa'ida with quotes such as “you can’t distinguish between Al Qa'ida and Saddam” in the War on Terror.
So what was the result of this PR offensive conflating these sworn enemies into a single evil force?
In US opinion polls spanning 2003 to 2004, 76% of those responding said that Saddam Hussein provides assistance to al Qa'ida, with 45% believing that Hussein was personally involved in the attacks of September 11th. Forty-four per cent believed that some or most of the hijackers were Iraqis. And 25% of the US population believed that the US had publicly released evidence linking Iraq to the planning and funding of 9/11. Of course, all of these are false. They also make my stomach turn. I can think of nothing more disgraceful than to use what happened on 9/11 for an unrelated political purpose, to use the anger, confusion and vulnerability as an opportunity to be cashed in on. It’s spitting on the graves of those office workers, cleaners, clerks and business people who died in New York and Washington.
With these numbers, it should be very clear as to how the war was allowed to start and why it continues. Combine these numbers with a February 2006 Zogby poll that 90% of US troops currently in Iraq think the war is in retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11 and you start to see how reality has been supplanted by government spin and propaganda. Most importantly, you see that US military and public support is based on the goal of preventing another 9/11. But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and our actions in Iraq are making terrorist attacks more likely, having invigorated and swelled the ranks of al Qa'ida.
So, to understand the war and its origins, as far as US public and political permissibility is concerned, you have to understand the effort to tie Iraq to 9/11 and terrorism, concluding with Colin Powell’s absurd presentation to the UN and the “mushroom cloud over New York” statements - all of these “first-wave” public relations efforts. The rhetoric about spreading democracy, it’s important to remember, only surfaced after the supposed foundational pillars of rationale for the war collapsed one after the other. This is the second wave.
Iran is not Iraq – it has a more robust infrastructure and greater military capability. Despite this, the rhetoric from the Bush Administration on stopping Iran’s pursuit of nuclear power seems to be getting more hostile everyday. Do you see the possibility of a US first-strike attack on Iran?
Well, there are several things to consider. The first, I think, has been slightly overlooked. One reason often put forward as evidence that the US is just posturing is that Iran’s ability to retaliate regionally is much stronger and its role in global petro-politics too prominent. But remember that before attacking Iraq, there was no shortage of commentators from multiple points on the political spectrum who accurately predicted disaster and the al Qa'ida recruiting exercise this war has become. This suggests that logic should not be given too much credence when you’re talking about the Bush Administration. They’ve proven very willing to take massive risks with American dollars and lives in pursuit of their incredibly ambitious aims. Dismissing the possibility that they will attack Iran because it doesn’t make sense and might increase violence in the region and beyond is, I think, unwarranted.
The truth is that no one knows what the US will do in Iran. One of the most astute political analysts and public intellectuals in the country, Phyllis Bennis, of the Institute of Policy Studies, put together a list of extremely important key points regarding Iran:
" - Escalating rhetoric, continued losses in Iraq, Bush's political problems, and an ideologically-driven pursuit of power make the possibility of a US military attack on Iran - however reckless and however dangerous its consequences - a frighteningly real possibility.
" - Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has not violated the Treaty. While there appear to be unresolved issues regarding full transparency, its nuclear program, including enriching uranium, is perfectly legal under NPT requirements for non-nuclear weapons states.
" - Iran does not have nuclear weapons; even if it is trying to build a nuclear weapons program, it could not produce weapons for five to 10 years or more.
" - There is a dangerous, unmonitored and provocative nuclear arsenal in the Middle East; it belongs to Israel, not Iran. US hypocrisy and double standards in nuclear policy, accepting Israel's unacknowledged nuclear arsenal and rewarding India's nuclear weapons status while threatening war against Iran and denying its own obligations under the NPT, has undermined Washington's claimed commitment to non-proliferation.
" - US officials claim they are not considering an invasion of Iran but 'only' surgical air strikes against known nuclear facilities; they have not explained what their military response will be when Iran retaliates, whether against US troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region, against US oil tankers in near-by shipping lanes, or against Israel.
"- Global suspicions remain regarding U.S. claims because of Washington's lies leading to the invasion of Iraq, but international conditions regarding Iran are significantly different; many governments appear more willing to consider Iran a 'threat.'"
These observations are highly relevant as tension mounts. I don’t feel confident enough to guess whether the US will attack Iran - there are persuasive arguments for and against. While unelected political operatives in the White House might have fantasies of leaving office by striking the country they hate the most, the possibility of retaliation and unforeseen consequences might prove too risky to Republicans terrified of further political fallout as we move into the 2008 election cycle. So domestic electoral concerns might play a significant role in what happens. Only time - and the extent to which citizens and politicians are prepared to expose lies and argue for peace - will tell.
When it comes to preventive attacks, you hear people suggest that our international system sometimes fails to end the suffering of the oppressed in other countries, and unilateral action is necessary. What do you say to that?
That’s not how states behave. Look at the number of deaths in The Republic of Congo - 38,000 a month right now, according to the BBC. And, of course, Rwanda, back in the 90s - 850,000 dead during the presidency of Bill Clinton, who now repeats how much he “loves Africa.” (I highly recommend Shake Hands with the Devil, Romeo Dallaire’s book on the failure of the world - yet again - to take action to prevent mass killings there.) According to the UN, more than 29,000 children die every day of hunger and preventable disease. Or look at Hurricane Katrina in the US last summer. Ask yourself: is ending suffering a priority for states that can do anything about it? Or is it more the case that when other interests arise, so does the rhetoric about liberating the oppressed?
As the war continues and potential conflicts loom, where do progressive-minded reformers go from here?
Terrorism understandably shocks populations into giving governments leeway to respond to the situation and increase security, as happened in the US and UK. But now we see that we are less safe, that hatred of Western governments is up and that terrorism is more likely than ever. So those who so quickly proposed militarist solutions to the terrorist problem have proven themselves failures and their tactics counterproductive in the one arena in which they were given the benefit of the doubt: increasing security. The part of the world’s population that gave them the benefit of the doubt in this respect is waking up to what others suspected from the beginning: their choices are making things worse, not better.
Justice-minded activists must make sure that the betrayal and justified disgust directed at the free-market fundamentalists and war-loving zealots in office do not translate into further disengagement from the critical struggle for political reform. Our leaders want compliance, but if they can’t get it, the next best thing is for us to agree tacitly, out of frustration, for us to give up on politics because of our realization of their incompetence and dishonesty. We can’t let this happen. Political office has to be the centrepiece to long-term democratic renewal. If there could be a wake up call louder than the tragic events of our times for the need for more, not less, political participation with the aim of urgent electoral regime change at home, I don’t know what it could be.
More about Preventive Warriors is available at preventivewarriors.com.
