A Dead Tyrant and Mass Murderer

Nations welcome, condemn Saddam execution says the MSNBC.com headline, and the story reflects that dual reaction. There’s a large part of the world that believes Saddam Hussein is certainly deserving of punishment, but who condemn all instances of the death penalty.

As an opponent of this war from before it started, I’ve found it interesting to hear what war proponents say about me and about other opponents of the war. Some have suggested that I’m some sort of apologist for Saddam Hussein and for his regime. The one sense in which I might approach this is in saying that under Hussein, Iraq and Iran tended to neutralize one another. Both were ruled by brutal regimes, yet the rest of the world got some peace because they had to watch one another so closely. Yet I think that the one clear thing in this war is that removing Saddam from power was justified–in a vacuum–and that allowing him to be executed was appropriate, in the context of the war as it has developed.

In terms of results, there will probably be an upsurge of violence at the execution of Saddam, but I really doubt it will make the situation substantially worse. There were no terrorists just biding their time until Saddam was executed, saying, “We’ll leave them alone unless they execute him!” They already hate us and already want to blow us up. In the end, though I think it was justified, I don’t think this execution is going to make much difference.

But outside of that vacuum, it doesn’t justify the war.

In looking at an invasion of another country I look at three aspects. First, has there been a justifying provocation? The regime in Iraq had provided ample justification, in my opinion, for its removal. It was not the justification that was used for the war. The brutality of the regime justified insurgency, and I think foreign aid to and support of a justified insurgency is appropriate. (Afghanistan was much better justified in my view of war for several reasons.) Thus viewed in the abstract I can say that removing Iraq was a justified goal, though I disagree with the parties and methods, and allowing him to be sentenced and executed according to Iraqi law and custom was also appropriate. Suggestions of U. S. interference are interesting, but I think the Iraqis in power wanted to execute Saddam and carried out their wish. It’s primarily an Iraqi action.

Second, is the party responding to the provocation the appropriate one? Appropriate falls into two parts, capability and connection. Capability refers to the necessary force to intervene successfully. Unsuccessful intervention, no matter how justified intervention may be in the abstract, just kills people, period. Connection means that the person(s) responding have some functional relationship to the parties, again so as to provide the means to work. In Iraq, I think the United States was clearly a party capable of carrying out the first part of the war, the removal of the existing regime, but not capable of producing a new regime that would suit us. In terms of connection, we simply don’t have one. We don’t relate well to the Muslim world. Despite talk of an international coalition, the United States takes the brunt of this and for the most part we are not going to make friends in the Arab world, but rather wary allies at best. Those who talk about some level of popularity for U. S. forces amongst the common people in Iraq miss the simple point that it takes a very small minority of a country to operate a successful insurgency in the absence of a unified and trusted government.

Third, I ask if the result after the action is completed will be better than it was before. I think a large portion of military actions fail on this third point. In Iraq, we did not adequately define success, and thus it cannot be measured at this point, but I can see no likely scenario by which the middle east would be a better place with less terrorist activity following the invasion of Iraq. The notion that Iraq would become some sort of westernized liberal democracy requires such thick, heavily rose-colored glasses that I’m amazed anyone ever believed it. The country was artificially created by western powers out of disparate groups. If we allow them to vote freely, we’ll end up with an Islamic Republic dominated by Shiites. The most likely result is a weak government waiting for the next potential dictator to rise to the top and bring order. On this third ground, again I think the Iraq war was unjustified.

I would make one point in response to those who say that we created the current situation, or at least made it worse, and thus we must stay and fix what we broke. First, while I think we made things worse from the international point of view, because Iran’s hand is strengthened, internally I don’t see how things are that much worse. It looks more like a continuation of “bad” within a narrow margin. Second, I would have to justify staying in the same way I would justify invation. In particular I would ask just how it is that our presence there is going to help. I suspect that one of the best options for Iraq might be for the current government to realize that it is on its own and that it must step up to the plate and handle things.

I’ve been asked whether my opposition to the war in Iraq means I don’t support the war on terror, or perhaps don’t want Osama bin Laden brought to justice. In fact, precisely the opposite is true. The war in Iraq has not advanced the war on terror. My satisfaction in seeing a mass murderer brought to justice is seriously muted by the fact that it’s not Osama bin Laden, that tens of thousands of troops and billions of dollars that could have been used in the actual war on terror have, instead, been given over to a doomed plan for nation building.

I could suggest several excellent ways to expend those resources:

1. Additional troops to be involved in the hunt for Osama bin Laden himself, as needed.
2. Giving troops not currently needed time for rest and additional training stateside so they will be prepared for their next mission.
3. Additional screening equipment for our own airports and other public transportation facilities
4. Additional intelligence resources, especially human intelligence, but also more accurate technical intelligence.
5. Additional preparation for disasters at home. Our response to predictable disasters such as hurricanes does not bode well for our response to unpredictable disasters, such as a terrorist “dirty bomb” or a biological or chemical attack in a major city.

It’s a question not of will, but of strategy. I have the will as a voter to pay the price for successful operations, or even operations that fail because they were risky, but worth trying. I’m a veteran myself, and I know what deployment for these operations is all about. There are many times when sending troops into harm’s way is fully justified. But it is not patriotic, not wise, and it is certainly not supporting the men and women in uniform to send them to do impossible jobs that do not move the overall strategy forward.