I’ve been asked a very interesting question that’s worthy of a rather lengthy answer. It’s a very important question, as it cuts to the heart of why the United States is doing what it is doing in this war. Here’s the question:
I would like to ask you, Jay, to explain in more detail (as a personal favor to me) the philosophy of politics implicit in your statement. Why is it ridiculous not to have plans for invading a country at any given point in time? Is this just the case for Iraq, or only for Iraq after 1991, or should any government in the world have plans for invading any given country at any given time?
In order to answer that it’s helpful to look at a hypothetical situation. It’s September 9, 2001, and I say that Washington D.C. is going to be attacked by Afghanistan. Chances are most rational people at that time would think I was nuts. Afghanistan at the time had no army to speak of, no air force, no navy. It was under the brutal rule of a radical and bloodthirsty theocracy to be sure, but there was no way that Afghanistan could ever pose a threat to the United States.
At the same time, it did.
We knew that Iraq had used chemical weapons in the past and that they had invaded and brutalized another country. We knew that Saddam Hussein had ties to terrorists such as Abu Nidal and was giving money to Palestinian suicide bombers. It was clear that sanctions were not preventing the Iraqi government from acquiring military hardware and oppressing their people. The idea that Iraq could pose a major threat to the United States or the region wasn’t even remotely implausible. In fact, one can only imagine what would happen if Saddam fufilled his wish of becoming the next Saladin by lobbing a Pakistani-made nuclear weapon on a North Korean rocket straight into Tel Aviv. Such a scenario was entirely within the realm of possibility.
Military planners have to consider all options – that’s what they’re paid to do. If tomorrow Seoul is turned into a smoking crater, we have to have a plan to retaliate against North Korea and be ready to implement that plan in short order.
The reason why this theory is even more important now is because the threat of WMDs is the greatest threat we’ve ever faced. During the Cold War we were at the brink of Armageddon according to many relatively sober observers. Yet at the same time, we could count on the principle of deterrence to prevent the world from being nuked into the Stone Age. We knew that an attack on Russia would destroy most of the United States. The Russians knew that an attack on us would lead to massive nuclear retaliation. Both sides had a second strike capability, in which we could both respond to a nuclear attack with nukes of our own even if a large number of our bases were destroyed. That balance of power kept either side from directly engaging each other, although it came close several times, such as during the Cuban Missile Crisis. At the end of they day, the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction prevented either side from making the final step towards open war.
However, the real problem is that deterrence has broken down. The Soviets could be counted upon to more or less rationally respond to our actions – they wanted to survive as much as we did, so anything that might lead to their destruction would not be a valid method of operation. Al-Qaeda cannot be deterred in this faction. The typical al-Qaeda footsoldier doesn’t care about dying – self preservation is not a major factor in a culture where suicide bombing is a widely-used tactic. If al-Qaeda had a nuclear weapon, they would use it without hesitation even thought our response would likely be to return fire with nuclear weapons as well. Bin Laden is insane enough to sacrifice millions of lives in order to strike against America. Had we not been the country that we are, we could have easily nuked Afghanistan into powder and killed bin Laden in less than 24 hours. That would also mean that everyone in Kandahar, Kabul, and the Pakistani border would have been killed as well. Fortunately for everyone involved, we never even considered that option. Bin Laden knew this, but still authorized the attacks anyway. (Partially because he believed that America was weak and would back down – theories that were supported by our weak responses to the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole.)
However, this means that we no longer have the option of using the old set of Cold War foreign policy tools to deal with the threat of terrorism in the 21st Century. If deterrence doesn’t work, the old system breaks down. There has to be a new system to take its place unless more attacks are to happen.
Ultimately that means that the only logical system is one that stresses preemption. You have to fight al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups at their heart before they strike. You can’t wait for a smoking gun in such a situation because that means that thousands of people are dead. The smoking gun for a terrorist using weapons of mass destruction will be the destruction of a city or the spread of a plague. No responsible leader would allow that to happen before dealing with such a threat.
That is why countries plan for war – because no one can know what threats will strike in the future. Now, that doesn’t mean that we necessarily have a plan to invade Canada, but you can believe we have plans to invade North Korea, rebuff a Chinese assault against Taiwan, or attack Iranian nuclear sites. You have to make those plans because if one of those threats were to materialize and no one had a plan for dealing with them millions of lives would be lost.
In the end, one can either have the naive hope that no threats will emerge and hope for the best, or one can plan for the worst-case scenario and pray those plans never have to be implemented. If one adopts the former and is wrong, it means that they’ve just led to millions of people dying. No responsible leader would make that choice. You do not bet the lives of millions of people on the rationality of Saddam Hussein or Kim Jung Il. You have to assume that at any given moment there are any number of very real threats that have to be responded to and have options ready at a moment’s notice. It’s why the US spends so much money (although it’s not anywhere near enough) on things like the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency. We didn’t see the threat coming from Afghanistan in 2001 until it was far too late for the 3,000 who died on September 11. However, we can prevent the next attack if we’re willing to plan ahead and do what it takes to prevent those attacks. That’s why preemption is the only rational strategy for dealing with terrorism. Given the chance, al-Qaeda would strike us again, which is why the US government and others are doing everything in their power to see to it that they never get that chance.
The loud little handful – as usual – will shout for the war. The pulpit will – warily and cautiously – object… at first. The great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, “It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it.”
Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded, but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the antiwar audiences will thin out and lose popularity.
Before long, you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men…
Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.
Mark Twain, “The Mysterious Stranger” (1910)
Sure, this is all just a made-up war – it’s not like there’s a huge hole in the middle of Manhattan where 3,000 civilians were killed. It’s not like we face an enemy that repeatedly states they want to destroy the United States (and the Western world). It’s not like the enemy has stated that it is their “holy duty” to obtain and use nuclear weapons.
It’s the same ignorance that led Europe to do virtually nothing to stop the execution of six million. Hitler’s willing excutioners have become radical Islam’s willing apologists.
Sure, this is all just a made-up war – it’s not like there’s a huge hole in the middle of Manhattan where 3,000 civilians were killed.
Isn’t it disingenuous at best to bring this up, given that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the attack? I find it so. With this reasoning you can justify the attack on literally any country whatsoever. “Not attack Canada? Are you crazy? It’s not like terrorists didn’t kill 3000 people in New York!”
Please. This is faulty, emotional argumentation at its worst. You shit on the graves of those 3,000 people when you invoke their deaths that way. I think an apology is in order. They didn’t die just so you could make emotional appeals.
This war isn’t just against al-Qaeda, and if it were treated as such we’d be fighting forever as new terrorist groups pop up. The only way to win this war is to change the circumstances that spawned it: the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and fascism worldwide.
If we capture or kill Osama bin Laden tomorrow, the war isn’t over. We have to not only fight al-Qaeda, we have to undermine Hamas, Hizb’Allah, Islamic Jihad and the entire network of terror. Hussein was an integral part of that network and his removal has made the overall war on terror much easier.
If you believe that without attacking Iraq, Libya would suddenly disarm, Syria would start talking with Israel, or North Korea would start making concessions? The fact is that the war in Iraq has only begun to reshape the region and have spillover effects across the planet.
In other words, we can start attacking the problem – and all the problem – or we can pay the cost of another September 11 every few years. Given that a biological attack could kill millions rather than thousands, there is no way that we should dare take that kind of risk.
Hi Jay!
I also have an interesting theory for you. As you say, if we want to avoid attacks such as 9/11, we have to “change the circumstances that spawned it”. In order to do that, you are ready to change the political power in many countries. Why not only change one: the US?! I’m not saying you should go islamic, but just that you may want to reconsider the way your economic vision of the world made everyone angry at you…maybe share a little more, stop seeing yourselves as gods, consider that one african life is as important as an american life as this is still a human being!!
What led me to this is the term “war on terror”…I suddendly realized that this term was just as stupid as “war on conventional army”!! Terrorism is just a way of fighting, not a philosophy!!! What is important is the reason why people kill others. You, for example, think it’s fair that a few irakis died during the “liberation” of their country. This is not murders, its “collateral damages” (I hate this politically correct term by the way…the real word would be “butchery”). What make this death not so important is that the philosophy behind it is good(I’m still talking from your point of view don’t worry, I do personally still think that this is my worst fascist nightmare). Of all the terrorists you name, many different contexts are at stake, and this would be a big mistake to put all of them in the same bag of “the bad guys” (the “axis of evil” is a theory that must have been invented by a computer, or by a very intellectually challenged person…no other possibility: 0/1; good/bad).
The groups of terrorists are not the same in all different country they appear. The reason and the target is the same: the US. The reason is not because the US are democratic and nice and the bad guys don’t like it, it’s because the US have created a system where every dollar spent in the world goes back to the US, in the hands of a few thousands of persons. This system is unfair (and not just in the third world…in the US too poverty is raising and wellfare is decreasing) and must be regulated by a fair administration which would fairly distribute the benefits to all (with due consideration of the work and merit of each). If not, be ready to get a lot more than 2 wholes and 3000 names in marble.
Jay, it’s fine if the war isn’t JUST against al Qaeda, but I for one would appreciate it if our invasion of Iraq were even REMOTELY about al Qaeda. And bin Laden would be nice to have in prison, too. But quit trying to paint al Qaeda and the now-deposed Iraqi regime with the same brush, and ask yourself how you’d feel if Clinton had suffered the 9/11 attacks on his watch and failed to capture bin Laden within TWO YEARS AND TWO WARS.
I think there’s a good reason why we haven’t captured Osama bin Laden – you can’t capture someone when they’re splattered all over a cave wall and buried under tons of rock.
I’ve not yet seen one shred of conclusive evidence that says that bin Laden is alive. In fact, there’s a lot of evidence that says he bought it at Tora Bora – including the fact that Kalid Sheikh Mohammad repeatedly referred to bin Laden in the past tense.
All one has to do is actually listen to what al-Qaeda and the terrorists are saying. They’re not some effete European anti-globalization activists, they want to reinstate a worldwide caliphate in which every country is bound by shari’a. Radical Islam is based on the works of the Wahhabists and the radical imam Sayyid Qutb.
If you think that if the United States signs Kyoto, and let the Israelis be slaughtered all of a sudden the Islamists will stop, you’re dead wrong.
They want nothing less than the complete destruction of Western culture and society. No education of women. No free enterprise. No equal justice under law. Death to homosexuals, death to all Jews, death to anyone who doesn’t follow the narrow dictates of shari’a.
Their ideology divides the world into the Dar-al-Islam, the House of Submission to God and the Dar-al-Harb, the House of War. The goal of the Islamist jihad is to kill all those who do not join the Dar-al-Islam and embrace shari’a.
There is no more chance to negotiate with such an ideology than there was to negotiate with Hitler.
If you can’t see such an ideology as manifestly evil, then such a concept has no meaning.
If you can’t see such an ideology as manifestly evil, then such a concept has no meaning.
That still doesn’t imply that the only way to deal with it is to bomb out of existence everybody who might hold that ideology. Yeah, something needs to be done. But military action is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.
That’s right, war never solved anything. (Other than slavery, Nazism, fascism, etc…)