Dear Prudence
Steve Chapman’s article today in Slate makes a compelling case against the arguments of the National Greatness crowd for attacking Iraq. To the argument that Saddam is a psycho and he might do anything, anything - which is to say, that deterrence wouldn’t work - Chapman points out that deterrence has worked on Saddam:
When he was fighting U.S. forces a decade ago, he left his chemical and biological weapons on the shelf even as he was enduring a humiliating defeat.
Why? Because the first Bush administration communicated to Iraq in unmistakable terms that it would retaliate with nuclear weapons. In other words, Saddam was deterred—much as the Soviet Union was deterred for the entire length of the Cold War. Given his record, there is no reason to believe he would use the bomb if he had it.
But wait! There’s more!
Hawks think the only possible reason he would want them is to use them offensively. But even a peaceably inclined Iraqi government might feel a strong urge to follow the same course, purely as a matter of self-preservation—much as China did in the 1960s. After all, Iraq is bordered on the east by its old enemy, Iran, with which it fought a debilitating war in the 1980s and which is suspected of having nuclear ambitions of its own. To the west lies Israel, a nuclear power that launched a pre-emptive airstrike against Iraq in 1981, pulverizing a nuclear reactor before it came online. Possessing nuclear weapons wouldn’t enable Iraq to agress against nuclear-armed neighbors with impunity. But it would give Baghdad some assurance that it wouldn’t be attacked.
At least eight countries have nuclear weapons, including those bosom pals Pakistan and India. Since 1946, more people have died from boxcutters than from nuclear attacks. Robert Kagan’s “argument” (I use scare quotes because I’m not convinced Kagan really believes it) that “Saddam can covertly and deniably provide weapons, know-how or weapons material to terrorists like bin Laden or Son of bin Laden” fails to convince. Chapman points out that if a terrorist nuke went off, the list of possible sources would be pretty short, Iraq would be at the top of the list and just how deniable is such a thing anyway? The US has already made it clear in Afghanistan that, when it comes to attacks on American soil, the country will not play Perry Mason rules. The risks to Saddam of actually attacking the US, covertly or otherwise, with “weapons of mass destruction” (or, in the case of anthrax, widely scattered destruction) are huge. Chapman takes deterrence logic even further:
In fact, there is only one situation in which it would make sense for Saddam to use any weapons of mass destruction he may possess: an American-led attack with the clear intent of eliminating his regime once and for all. If the U.S. Army were rolling into Baghdad, he would have nothing to lose by unleashing all the havoc he can muster—which, as the hawks have been telling us, could be considerable. If they get their way in dealing with Saddam, they may also realize their worst fears.
Here I think he goes wrong in one important way. I think the hawks fear not having more war more than they fear further attacks on the US. Call me cynical. But if there is one flaw with Chapman’s article, it’s that he buries the lead:
Absent proof that [Saddam] is bent on sponsoring or carrying out acts of terror against Americans, it’s hard to see why we should be any more worried about Iraq today than we were Sept. 10.
The thing is, the Usual Suspects wanted war with Iraq (Iran, Syria, Lebanon, “parts of Egypt, China, Russia, someone) well before the September massacres. With Iraq it was “finish the job.” We had to be prepared for conflicts with “resurgent Russia,” and the arrogant Chinese. War and preparations for War are a tonic for the National Greatness types, and what the tonic cures is the shallow, materialistic, satisfied decadence that David Brooks and Anna Quindlen alike abhor, and that any sane person would take back in a minute if they could, along with the lives of our 4,000 murdered countrymen, and “National Greatness” be damned.
