Correctness of Iraq war

The Larger Issue

The issues surrounding Iraq's WMD which have occurred over the last few years are only a small piece of a larger problem. Since the invention of the atomic bomb and of bioweapons in the 1940s, the world's weapons technology has continued both to advance technically and to spread. The US was once the sole nuclear power. Then the USSR developed the bomb, followed by the Soviet Union, Britain, France China, etc. A similar pattern is true for bioweapons technology. As the years pass, technological improvement is taking place making weapons more lethal, and more countries are obtaining WMD technology or increasing their WMD capability. Every year these weapons come within the reach of less affluent and less technologically sophisticated countries. This trend will certainly continue. As the technology continues to advance, and more countries obtain nuclear and biological weapons, the danger of the possible use of these weapons to do great harm increases. If every country that seeks WMD technology is allowed to obtain it, eventually so many countries will possess these weapons that their use somewhere, somehow, sometime will be inevitable. It is in the world's interest to try to intervene before cities start going the way of Hiroshima. The best solution would be for no one to possess these weapons. That result is currently out of reach. The least we can do, though, is to try to keep the weapons out of the hands of the world's most dangerous regimes. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a regime that could not be trusted with doomsday weapons.

The situation with Iraq was simply one example of this general trend. In the future, we can expect many countries, some of which are dictatorships, some of which are unstable, and some of which are sympathetic to terrorists to seek WMD, and we will find ourselves in situations similar to the one we faced regarding Iraq's WMD.

At the Time of the Invasion, How Serious Was the Problem With Iraq's Pursuit of WMD?

How serious was the problem with Iraq's pursuit of WMD at the moment of invasion? What is the correct way to assess the magnitude of a potential danger? Let me ask a purely hypothetical question. Which is a greater danger, a 90% chance that a murderer released from prison on parole will kill again, or a 5% chance that a nuclear weapon will be detonated in Manhattan within the next year? I would say it is obvious that the latter is a greater danger, given that scenario. In general, the magnitude of a potential danger must be assessed based on a combination of the probability that it will occur and the magnitude of the harm done if it does occur. At the time of the invasion of Iraq, there was a great deal of uncertainty as to whether Saddam Hussein had destroyed his WMD and shut down his programs, or merely hidden them better. If they were destroyed, obviously there was no danger. If they were well hidden but still extant, at some point in time an atomic bomb or bioweapon would be available to him, and eventually several would. He could then have either used them, or simply used the general knowledge of their existence to force other countries to submit to his wishes. For instance, he might have decided to pay back the hated US, give them problems to distract them from his activities, and weaken them severely by having the components of a WMD smuggled into New York, or Los Angeles, or Chicago, reassembled and detonated within the city. Who needs an ICBM when the pieces can be smuggled into the target country and then reassmbled? Or else, he could have simply announced that he possessed these weapons, perhaps given a demonstration, and then re-invaded Kuwait, threatening to destroy Kuwait with WMD should the US or any other country interfere.

It will be argued that Hussein would not have dared to destroy an American city, fearing retaliation. After all, didn't the likelihood of Mutual Assured Destruction keep the US and Soviets from fighting the final war for many decades? But it must be remembered that Hussein and the Soviets differ. The Soviets, for all of their faults, pursued a generally sane and risk averse policy. Were Hussein to use a WMD to destroy an American city, he could then claim innocence, express shock and outrage at the act, and offer us humanitarian aid. It is entirely likely that he could detonate a WMD in a Western or allied city and then successfully deny involvement. We might have our suspicions, but most evidence would be destroyed by the bomb. After all, a massive manhunt has not produced reliably the identity of the party who sent anthrax through the mail shortly after 9/11.

It will also be argued that even should he have perfected these weapons secretly, he could have been contained by inspectors or a constant allied presence in his country. However, the idea of containment is obsolete in an era when one single device, smuggled into the taget country, can obliterate an entire city.

Why Not Postpone the Invasion Until Peaceful Measures Were Given More Time?

A dozen years had been spent attempting to force Iraq to abide by its agreement to verifiably eliminate its WMD and WMD programs. At the time of the invasion, it was unclear whether Iraq had destroyed the weapons and shut down the programs, or it had simply hidden them better than previously. Based on what was known back then, either scenario might have been true. Had the weapons been hidden and the development programs been continuing in secret, there would have been a finite time window in which to act before Iraq succeeded in amassing enough WMD power to declare that it had them and would brook no further interference in its activities, exactly as North Korea has now done.

Conclusion

In 2003, because of the uncertainty of the status of Iraq's WMD, and the awful consequences should it come into possession of a stockpile of these weapons, the US simply could not afford to wait indefinitely. It had to address the realistic possibility that Iraq would soon possess weapons just one of which could wreak worse damage than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It simply couldn't take the chance that Saddam Hussein might someday soon have such power at his disposal.

Thank you, Brandon.

Was the Iraq war the correct course of action for the US in 2003?

We all understand that in 2001 the US was shocked by the attacks of September 11th. I don't think anyone, not even Tom Clancy, was prepared for the violence that was unleashed when the towers fell. Even Al Qaeda themselves have been reported as saying that the attacks were successful 'beyond their wildest dreams.' It was an instant wake-up call to America that we weren't isolated from the rest of the world in the fashion which we had previously believed.

I think that America, and Americans in general, have long relied upon our geographic isolation as our first line of defense. It is inconceivable that an invading army could come at the US from either ocean. We are the supreme Naval power in the world, and the supreme Air power in the world. These two factors combine to form a real sense of security for America, an idea that we were unable to be attacked by a foreign power. This turned out to be 100% incorrect.

Why? Because Al Qaeda understands the concept of the 'soft target.' In this case, the soft target is our freedom. Our tolerance. They infiltrated our society and did major damage to one of our cities, and our national psyche. They did not require WMD to do this. They didn't require special weapons of any kind. Because the goal of their attack wasn't to kill as many people as possible, it was to make a statement. Remember that Al Qaeda had attacked the WTC previously in the 90's. Why such a focus on that building? Because it represented US globalization interests, a force which they saw as destructive to their society.

Of course, we all know this by now. We aren't removed from the rest of the world, we are part of it. We aren't impervious to attack, we are quite open to attack. We aren't loved by the rest of the world, we are actively hated by some members of it. This naturally has lead to a change in stance by the US. And it should. But, the question is, does this change in stance neccessitate a War in Iraq? My contention is that it does not, for Iraq is not the true enemy; Al Qaeda is the enemy. Our attack in Iraq hasn't hurt AQ in the slightest. Our attack in Iraq hasn't hampered AQ's chances of getting WMD in the least. Our attack in Iraq has weakened our military and pinned us down in a vulnerable position, leaving us with less resources to fight AQ around the globe. Our attack in Iraq has weakened our international support for fighting AQ. I will attempt to prove every one of these points in the upcoming debate.

Why Iraq?

What was so special about Iraq that neccessitated an attack, in the midst of our war with Al Qaeda? What was it about Iraq that made it a target for the US forces? My opponent will contend that it was Iraq's WMD, and the question of them, which neccessitated the attack. I contend this is a logically fallacious position for several reasons, and that there were in fact other reasons for attacking Iraq which had nothing to do with WMD.

To begin, many Conservatives in America had a long history of advocating an aggressive stance in the Middle East. They on one hand hold up Iran's support of terror, Afghanistan's support of terror, and Palestinian terrorism, while on the other hand ignoring issues such as the US involvement with WMD programs in Iraq and US involvement with Israel's nuclear WMD program. Many of these conservatives were unsatisfied with the failure to effect Regime change during the first Bush administration in Iraq, and wished to do so at the nearest opportunity. I believe this was a holdover from the Vietnam era of thinking; that we can meddle on the other side of the globe without consequences, without cost, and without reprecussion.

On 9/12, Rumsfeld has been reported by Richard Clarke as having said that there are many good targets in Iraq, and few in Afghanistan. This is consistent with the desires of the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) to attack Iraq at the nearest available opportunity. Why? Because they had WMD, and were a threat to America? Or because they desired regime change in Iraq? It seems odd that instead of focusing on the true enemy, Al Qaeda, the administration has shown every evidence of preferring to focus upon Iraq. Almost as if they were obsessed with it.

What was so special about Iraq, and their WMD program, that neccessitated attacking them? Nothing. Iran was much more likely to have WMD than Iraq. We know that North Korea has WMD, it is entirely possible that several other countries in the ME also did, and also supported Al Qaeda; Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, for example. Why Iraq? I propose that Iraq was a favored target long before 9/11. I propose that 9/11 was used as an excuse to attack Iraq by the administration. I will show in later posts how the administration relied upon extremely shaky evidence of WMD in order to build their case for war; yet the desire for war pre-dated the evidence that they used to build their case.

What about Al Qaeda?

Good question, that one. What about Al Qaeda? Has our war in Iraq reduced their ability to recruit new soldiers? No. In fact, every piece of evidence that we have found shows that Al Qaeda is alive and well, Bin Laden is alive and well, and that the Iraq war has added thousands of new terrorists to the ranks of our enemies.

Has the war in Iraq reduced their ability to get WMD? No, it has not. In fact, if anything, Al Qaeda has more of an ability to acquire WMD now than they did before the war in Iraq. It is difficult to understand how anyone could have believed that their ability to access WMD would have been hampered by the war in Iraq, and I haven't seen anyone present a convincing argument showing how the war would have hampered the ability of AQ to do so.

Did the War in Iraq disrupt any permanent bases of Al Qaeda, as the War in Afghanistan did? No, it did not. There is some evidence that terrorist training bases in Iraq existed, but nowhere near the level of Sudan and Afghanistan. One of the hallmarks of terrorism is that it is wide-spread and hard to detect. It is quite rare for a country to support a terrorist such as the Taliban did in Afghanistan prior to our war with them. Iraq certainly did not support Al Qaeda to any appreciable level. This was known before the war, and yet Dick Cheney and others advanced theories which they knew were false that Iraq did collabarate with Al Qaeda, in order to manipulate the US people and Congress into supporting the war.

---

Are Iraqi WMD the real issue?

The argument that removing the source of WMD will remove the problem is comletely fallacious. It is akin to shutting down gun factories in order to keep them from falling into the hands of criminals. The true course of action is of course to attack criminals, not to attack gun factories.

Iraq had showed no threat to the US or US interests for quite some time. AQ on the other hand, had showed a great threat to the US and US interests recently. By focusing so much of our energies on a needless war, we have taken our eye off of the true enemy - the criminals. We have taken our eye off of our true problem - defending the country. We have taken our eye off of something we need - world alliances.

There are many ways that terrorists can get WMD. Rogue elements of friendly countries can provide them with WMD. Unfriendly countries can provide them with WMD. They can buy them on the black market from Criminal Organizations. Why would we focus on one source of WMD production, and one that we merely suspected had WMD? Why not focus on the terrorists who wished to acquire the WMD?

My opponent is completely correct that WMD and their availability is a growing problem in our modern world. He is also correct that this problem neccessitates an active response. But he is completely incorrect that the War in Iraq was an appropriate response to the problem; it focuses on a narrow part of the issue, it ignores the prosecution of our true enemies, it removes our ability to engender international support to end the problem.

Al Qaeda is, according to reports, a global organization. Are we going to attack every country in the world who has AQ members in their country? No. Are we going to attack every country in the world who manufactures WMD? No. Therefore, the best path is to intelligently engage the enemy, focus on our National Defense here at home, and focus on an international attack on the proliferation of terrorism and WMD. The Iraq war has actively harmed our ability to do all of these things, and these were all predictable results of our invasion.

My next post will focus on pre-war manipulation of WMD intelligence, on the Iraqi National Congress, Ahmed Chalabi, and how the leaders of the US ignored that information which contradicted their desire for war in Iraq, while simultaneously presenting it to the US people as a 'slam dunk.' I will show that there was no credible evidence that Iraq was going to provide any AQ terrorist with any WMD at all. It doesn't hurt, by the way, that Iraq turned out not to have any WMD, though my opponent naturally doesn't want that part brought up as it completely destroys his case for war.

Cycloptichorn

Some of the things my opponent has said are true, and some are false. However, the things he has said that are true have no bearing on my argument. I will list or paraphrase some of his points and address them.

One thing that I want to say immediately, however, is that for the purposes of this debate, I don't care why President Bush, or Dick Cheney, or any other conservative started the war. My thesis is that the war was necessary. In this debate, I am not addressing the issue of why these individuals started the war, or whether their reasons were valid or invalid, or whether they lied or told the truth. I am arguing that Iraq should have been invaded. If there was some defect in the President's conduct related to the invasion (and I am by no means saying that there was) it simply means that he did the right thing for the wrong reason.

1. My opponent has said:


The reason that it was necessary to invade Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. It is absolutely true that Al Qaeda is a major enemy of the United States. This is completely unrelated to the question of whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a danger to the US and the world. Al Qaeda is a danger. Iraq was a danger. Both statements are true simultaneously. The reason for invading Iraq was not to destroy Al Qaeda, it was to deal with the possibility that Saddam Hussein had not destroyed his WMD and WMD programs but merely hidden them. At the time of the invasion, it was very unclear whether Saddam Hussein still had WMD and development programs or not. Had he been continuing his pursuit of WMD in secret, then at some point, he would probably have amassed enough WMD to announce that he had them and that he would brook no further interference with his actions, as North Korea has done. We simply could not take a chance that Saddam Hussein would soon have WMD at his disposal. He might then have killed a colossal number of people with them, or else simply used the knowledge of their presence to coerce those in his way to give ground and submit to his wishes. As I stated previously, he could then have re-invaded Kuwait and declared that should anyone try to stop him, he would simply destroy Kuwait.

2. My opponent has said:


The fact that there were no WMD in Iraq at the time of the invasion is completely unrelated to my case for war. If I toss a coin and declare that it may come up heads, the fact that it subsequently comes up tails doesn't make my statement wrong. At the time that I said it, it was perfectly true that the coin might have come up heads. At the time of the invasion, based on what was known then, the history, and the previous behavior of Saddam Hussein, there was a very realistic possibility that he was still lying about the WMD, and had simply hidden them and the WMD development programs. The fact that this turned out not to be the case does not in the least mean that the danger didn't exist as a significant probability when we invaded. The man certainly had had the weapons and the programs, had lied about them, and had obstructed inspectors. The probability that he was continuing to hide them could not be safely ignored.

3. My opponent has said:



If there are 5 dangers, one cannot argue that danger number 3 should not have been dealt with by pointing out that dangers 1, 2, 4, and 5 have not been. One can only argue that the others should be attended to as well. North Korea simply cannot be invaded. They have the atomic bomb already, and should we attempt to invade them, they would possess the option of using their bombs to kill people on the scale of Hiroshima. We invaded Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein from attaining this state of near invulnerability that North Korea now enjoys. Iraq was a good candidate for invasion. Saddam Hussein was a blackly evil dictator, who had some WMD and was attempting to develop and manufacture more potent ones. He had attempted to annex neighbors. He had signed a treaty promising to destroy his WMD and programs, but had then lied and impeded inspectors. Much time had passed with his promise to prove that the weapons and programs were gone still unfulfilled. Had he still been pursuing WMD development in secret, there might have been a finite time window of opportunity before he succeeded, and had he succeeded, the world would probably have had to pay a terrible price to stop him once he had so greatly augmented his power. I will agree, though, that any other evil dictator who is pursuing WMD, but whose WMD power is still small, and who seems as though he would be a grave danger should he possess them, should be forced to disarm, by negotiation if possible, but with force if necessary.

4. My opponent has said:


The correct analogy would be taking guns away from a criminal. The point of disarming Iraq was mostly to prevent Hussein himself from having them. Trying to prevent him from giving WMD to terrorists was a subsidiary issue, although he did have a generally friendly relationship with some terrorists. If a dangerous person is building bombs in his basement, one cannot argue that taking away his bomb factory is a waste of time. Even if other dangerous people will still be able to get bombs other places, at least this particular one won't have them. When the bombs are of a sort such that one use of one can destroy an entire city, making sure that people who are big risks to actually use them don't get them is even more imperative.

5. My opponent has said:


This is certainly true. However, one cannot ignore a grave danger on the grounds that it gives one less resources with which to face other grave dangers. If two people, A and B, point a gun at me, I cannot ignore A on the grounds that it gives me less chance to stop B. I simply have to find a way to stop both A and B or else stand a good chance of dying. We are unlucky enough to have two grave dangers to face in our lifetime - terrorism and the proliferation of WMD. We have little choice but to deal with both, even if it would be easier to deal with only one.

6. My opponent has said:


I do not propose any of these things. What I do propose is that of all the entities that will seek WMD in the future, the small fraction which seem to be uniquely dangerous should be prevented from getting them. We should always favor negotiation over the use of force, but if negotations fail, or if they drag on for so many years that they may to give the entity time to perfect its development of WMD, we must act. We must be very careful that someone of the caliber of Saddam Hussein not amass a stockpile of doomsday weapons. The consequences of such a turn of events would be too terrible to imagine.

7. My opponent has said:


My impression was that this was to be a debate, not a series of essays. It is proper for you to introduce new arguments to support your viewpoint, but I hope that your primary focus will be debate, as we planned. A series of essays that largely ignore my arguments would not constitute debate. You must address my assertions, just as I must address yours. Also, I should reiterate that in this debate I am not arguing that Bush, Cheney, or anyone else acted honestly or correctly, although I suspect that this is so. In this debate am only arguing that Iraq ought to have been invaded. Even if you were to somehow prove that the administration lied through their teeth and assaulted widows and orphans on the side, it would have no bearing whatever on my contention that the invasion of Iraq was necessary.

Brandon,

I don't wish to go farther unless we can agree upon a both a structured format and a judge. Both of these are essential to a debate, and certainly have been a component of every debate I have been a part of.

The primary reason is this:



When you rejected the framework and Judge, you rejected the debate.

The secondary reason is this:



I strongly disagree with this interpretation of the thesis, and I don't wish to spend several weeks of my life talking past you. Without a judge to determine whose argument is more persuasive there simply isn't a point in continuing. I don't wish to limit my argument to your opinions about WMD being more dangerous than Al Qaeda, and you don't wish to discuss manipulations of intelligence and fear-mongering amongst the executive branch.

I will allow you to propose a judge and framework, otherwise, there is no point in continuing; it will only mean lots of frustration for us both as neither wishes to address the meat of the other poster's argument.

Cycloptichorn

As stated clearly before the debate began, I do not wish to appoint a judge because it raises the spectre of the winner being declared the loser. You did agree to this format. The presidential debates which people find so interesting do not have a panel of judges which chooses a formal winner. The competition between ideas is of great interest.

As for my chosen debating topic, this project came into existence when you challenged me to debate any topic of my choosing, and I chose to debate whether the invasion of Iraq was advisable. You knew what the topic was before the debate commenced. I believe that it is immensely important to determine whether the invasion of Iraq was necessary or not. I am sorry if my arguments didn't match your expectations of what they would be.

I prefer to continue the debate under exactly the agreed upon conditions without change. I don't think it's proper to alter the rules of a debate once it's under way. However, if you choose to withdraw, I will not refer to this exchange between us again, except when someone brings it up to me.