|
It simply will not do to demote the importance of enforcing treaties at the end of wars to some kind of adolescent "need to save face." After World War I, the Allies failed to enforce the provision of the Versailles Treaty that forbade German forces from remilitarizing the Rhineland. The cost of that failure was not simply "humiliation," but World War II.
To not enforce the 1991 cease-fire agreement with Iraq would have been to abandon the political goals for which the war had been fought. Russell Shaw does not bother to address the potential costs of such a defeat, probably because he thinks Saddam was "a pipsqueak tyrant," who offered no real threat.
Hitler was a pipsqueak in 1936, until he faced down the Allies, whose military forces were at that time far superior to the German. In the former Yugoslavia, Milosevic was kept a pipsqueak because the United States and NATO forces prevented his designs (without UN authorization). In North Korea, Kim Jong-Il is a pipsqueak with nuclear weapons, to whom we send tribute in the form of energy supplies and grain. Pipsqueak tyrants are as powerful as we allow them to become. However, once they become powerful, as when they possess weapons of mass destruction, the costs go way up.
I do not believe that if Shaw saw the incontrovertible evidence of what Saddam had done and was doing, along with an examination of the malign principles of his regime, that he could maintain his insouciance at the prospect of Saddam's survival -- indeed, of his potentially empowering success against us.
As for the UN, it is hardly "extravagant" to assert that a treaty contains the authority to enforce its provisions, without the requirement of a separate authorization to do so. In fact, it is a rather respectable legal view. Also, how could UN Resolution 1441, in 2002, threaten "grave consequences" for non-compliance if there were not to be any? Saddam was directly in violation of 15 UN resolutions. Would the number 16 do the trick? This is daydreaming.
As for the assertion that the United States "did nothing" to halt Saddam's slaughter of the Iraqi people after the 1991 Gulf War, I would agree that Bush senior was culpable in not going to the rescue of the Shia in the south, but can Shaw have forgotten that Bush then instituted the northern and southern no-fly zones in Iraq that were maintained for 13 years precisely to protect the Iraqi people?
I think that a great deal of the harm that Shaw rightly objects to from the 2003 war comes not so much from the invasion, but from the bungled occupation. I share his distress and outrage on this matter, and I hope some people will be held accountable for it. The United States achieved a great military success, but then changed in midstream from liberation to (UN-sanctioned) occupation. We were not prepared to occupy this country, nor had we led the Iraqis to think that that was our objective. I think this was a huge and costly political mistake, as was our not being sufficiently prepared to stop the gross interference in Iraq by Syria and Iran after Saddam's fall.
However, these grave errors do not impugn the justness of the cause for which the war was fought, or the nobility of the sacrifices now being made to overcome those mistakes. I leave the last words to a brave Marine now serving in Fallujah: "We know that our efforts are appreciated by millions of Iraqis who now have choices and freedoms that they have never had the luxury of having before. To liberate a country and to free the citizens from years of torture are appreciated by the citizens of Iraq, and we (1st Battalion, 10th Marines) see that every day and are overwhelmed at the opportunity to take part."
Robert R. Reilly served as Senior Advisor to the Ministry of Information in Iraq and is a former director of the Voice of America. He is currently a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council.
► Look for Russell Shaw's closing statement, which will be posted this afternoon.
Readers have left 5 comments. Quote(1) An Eloquence DefenseDecember 14th, 2007 | 7:25am Bob, this is an eloquent defense of the Iraq War as I have seen anywhere -- it's too bad the White House hasn't used you as a speechwriter. I'm sympathetic with Shaw's point of view as well, but unless he comes up with something unexpected, I think you have convinced me that my initial decision to support the war was the right one. Thank you. Quote(2) America has been true to type in IraqDecember 14th, 2007 | 10:18am The history of US involvement in significant wars is generally one of initial error, then significant adjustment in leadership, tactics, and strategy to eventual victory. We rarely get things right at first. COIN operations are of a timescale of a decade. That's just how long they run. We're actually on pace at this point to have wrapped this up within 10 years. This does not excuse the errors. We can always hope to do better. But it does place them in a rich history of american initial military foul ups.
President Bush can be faulted for not changing his generals fast enough but that is hardly a moral condemnation of the war. Acting in support of the just new political regime that you have just made possible should be one of the easiest military operations to justify, which is why the anti-war side seems quite reluctant to properly recognize that we're not fighting the same war as we were in 2003. Quote(3) UntitledDecember 14th, 2007 | 12:51pm Whatever conclusions one is going to draw here- the one piece of advice no Catholic of good conscience can refuse is to be reminded to go back and look at the statements on the lead up to the invasion of Iraq from the Pope, the Holy See and the U.S. Bishops'. This was information I held up as the closest thing to a Christ's eye-view. It was in reading these prudential judgments that I felt the confidence in my own reading of the situation. Before a good Catholic goes out in the public eye with a viewpoint that obviously contradicts, or undermines the Catholic Hierarchical prudential judgement on a given issue, relating directly to the universal common good, I would hope that they have their facts straight, and know things that if the Church leaders knew the same, would also conclude similarly.
As it was, it seemed that the view from the Pope/Holy See was that diplomacy was hardly exhausted by the U.S. government. The principle of preventative war was a dangerous precedent to set by any nation, but particularly so for one as powerful and influential as ours. And the very idea that Western powers could waltz into the heart of the Middle East with overwhelming military force, set up shop, and be welcomed with roses by the locals and the regional "Arab street"- given the history of the old Crusades, the ongoing "Great Game" of colonialism, and one-sided pro-Israel American policies- well, this seemed to imprudent to say the least. I'm not a genius myself but I figured it would only be a matter of time before the locals targeted the Iraqi Christian community since they would be suspect #1 in collaborating with the foreign occupier. Same thing has been happening to the Holy Land Christians- anyone listening to Latin Patriarch Michel Sabbah?
Until we give up RealPolitick, dubious American "interests", and get serious about applying "Love your Neighbor" to foreign and global economic policies- we will never win the world's hearts and minds- is anyone with political influence out there even reading the Church Social Doctrine? The Papal Encyclicals? The statements from the Pope/Holy See, and the advice from the U.S. Catholic Bishops' Conference? Quote(4) UntitledDecember 14th, 2007 | 3:14pm Although I disagree with Mr. Reilly's overall assessment, there are some interesting points that he brings up only to give an inadequate response, in my view.
"Also, how could UN Resolution 1441, in 2002, threaten "grave consequences" for non-compliance if there were not to be any?"
Ask the UN. The fact that the UN was not prepared to act doesn't mean that we should have. And why does "grave consequences" necessarily mean wholescale invasion (and occupation)?
"I think that a great deal of the harm that Shaw rightly objects to from the 2003 war comes not so much from the invasion, but from the bungled occupation."
It seems reasonable to say that if we were not prepared to occupy the country, that we never should have invaded, even if on some theoretical level it "just" to do so. Quote(5) Is Christ relevant?December 14th, 2007 | 4:01pm Strangely, for an article found on InsideCatholic.com, Mr. Reilly's article contained no references to Christ or Catholicism. Does he think that Christ and the Church have nothing to say about war and peace? It would be wise to consider our Pope's prophetic words concerning our struggle against evil: "Loving the enemy is the nucleus of the Christian revolution." |
