The Case Against US Adventurism in Iraq
by
Noam Chomsky
Dissident Voice
March 17, 2003
The
most powerful state in history has proclaimed that it intends to control the
world by force, the dimension in which it reigns supreme.
President Bush and his
cohorts evidently believe that the means of violence in their hands are so extraordinary
that they can dismiss anyone who stands in their way.
The consequences could be
catastrophic in Iraq and around the world. The United States may reap a
whirlwind of terrorist retaliation -- and step up the possibility of nuclear
Armageddon.
Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald
Rumsfeld and company are committed to an "imperial ambition," as G.
John Ikenberry wrote in the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs --
"a unipolar world in which the United States has no peer competitor"
and in which "no state or coalition could ever challenge it as global
leader, protector and enforcer."
That ambition surely includes
much expanded control over Persian Gulf resources and military bases to impose
a preferred form of order in the region.
Even before the administration
began beating the war drums against Iraq, there were plenty of warnings that U.S.
adventurism would lead to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, as well
as terror, for deterrence or revenge.
Right now, Washington is
teaching the world a dangerous lesson: If you want to defend yourself from us,
you had better mimic North Korea and pose a credible threat. Otherwise we will
demolish you.
There is good reason to
believe that the war with Iraq is intended, in part, to demonstrate what lies
ahead when the empire decides to strike a blow -- though "war" is
hardly the proper term, given the gross mismatch of forces.
A flood of propaganda warns
that if we do not stop Saddam Hussein today he will destroy us tomorrow.
Last October, when Congress
granted the president the authority to go to war, it was "to defend the
national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by
Iraq."
But no country in Iraq's
neighborhood seems overly concerned about Saddam, much as they may hate the murderous
tyrant.
Perhaps that is because the
neighbors know that Iraq's people are at the edge of survival. Iraq has become
one of the weakest states in the region. As a report from the American Academy
of Arts and Sciences points out, Iraq's economy and military expenditures are a
fraction of some of its neighbors'.
Indeed, in recent years, countries
nearby have sought to reintegrate Iraq into the region, including Iran and Kuwait,
both invaded by Iraq.
Saddam benefited from U.S.
support through the war with Iran and beyond, up to the day of the invasion of Kuwait.
Those responsible are largely back at the helm in Washington today.
President Ronald Reagan and
the previous Bush administration provided aid to Saddam, along with the means
to develop weapons of mass destruction, back when he was far more dangerous
than he is now, and had already committed his worst crimes, like murdering thousands
of Kurds with poison gas.
An end to Saddam's rule
would lift a horrible burden from the people of Iraq. There is good reason to
believe that he would suffer the fate of Nicolae Ceausescu and other vicious tyrants
if Iraqi society were not devastated by harsh sanctions that force the
population to rely on Saddam for survival while strengthening him and his
clique.
Saddam remains a terrible
threat to those within his reach. Today, his reach does not extend beyond his
own domains, though it is likely that U.S. aggression could inspire a new
generation of terrorists bent on revenge, and might induce Iraq to carry out
terrorist actions suspected to be already in place.
Right now Saddam has every
reason to keep under tight control any chemical and biological weapons that
Iraq may have. He wouldn't provide such weapons to the Osama bin Ladens of the
world, who represent a terrible threat to Saddam himself.
And administration hawks
understand that, except as a last resort if attacked, Iraq is highly unlikely
to use any weapons of mass destruction that it has -- and risk instant
incineration.
Under attack, however, Iraqi
society would collapse, including the controls over the weapons of mass destruction.
These could be "privatized," as international security specialist
Daniel Benjamin warns, and offered to the huge "market for unconventional weapons,
where they will have no trouble finding buyers." That really is "a
nightmare scenario," he says.
As for the fate of the people
of Iraq in war, no one can predict with any confidence: not the CIA, not
Rumsfeld, not those who claim to be experts on Iraq, no one.
But international relief
agencies are preparing for the worst.
Studies by respected medical
organizations estimate that the death toll could rise to the hundreds of
thousands. Confidential U.N. documents warn that a war could trigger a
"humanitarian emergency of exceptional scale" -- including the
possibility that 30 percent of Iraqi children could die from malnutrition.
Today the administration
doesn't seem to be heeding the international relief agency warnings about an
attack's horrendous aftermath.
The potential disasters are
among the many reasons why decent human beings do not contemplate the threat or
use of violence, whether in personal life or international affairs, unless reasons
have been offered that have overwhelming force. And surely nothing remotely
like that justification has come forward.
Noam Chomsky is an internationally renowned Professor
of Linguistics at MIT, and is America's leading dissident intellectual. He is
the author of many books, including most recently Power and Terror
(Seven Stories Press, 2003), 9-11 (Seven Stories Press, 2001), A New
Generation Draws the Line (Verso, 2000), The New Military Humanism
(Common Courage, 1999), and The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel
& the Palestinians (South End Press, new edition 1999).