From the issue dated November 8, 2002
|
|
Unclear ConsequencesOne powerful argument against this war is precisely that the consequences are so
Perhaps. But perhaps not. Perhaps, instead, Iraqi forces will make a tenacious stand in Baghdad, and the United States will level the city in the process of digging them out, slaughtering tens of thousands of civilians. Perhaps chemical weapons will be fired at Israel, and Israel will retaliate, possibly with unconventional weapons of its own, possibly expelling the Palestinian population from the West Bank, as some Israeli officials have hinted, all of which would have incalculable repercussions for the entire region and the world. Anyone who states with certainty that one of the rosier scenarios will result is a charlatan or a member of the administration (not mutually exclusive categories). Before urging war, one should meet an extremely high burden of proof that the consequences will be favorable, something war advocates have not come remotely close to doing. But let us grant, for the sake of argument, that the Iraqi regime is defeated swiftly, without massive civilian casualties, and without war spreading to the rest of the region. Then what? What will the world look like five years hence? The administration tells us democracy will emerge throughout the Middle East, but more probable is that repressive regimes will become more repressive, and, if they have trouble crushing popular discontent, the United States (even if it isn't led by those with financial connections to current arrangements) would likely help them suppress the democratic, but anti-American, Arab street. The administration says the United Nations will be reinvigorated. But a U.S. war, whether or not Washington is able to bribe and coerce the Security Council to go along, will likely be a critical blow against international law and the U.N. Charter, which, after all, were always intended to prevent the powerful from acting just as they chose. The administration says the war will stem the spread of weapons of mass destruction. On the contrary, some nations will likely conclude from Iraq's defeat that conventional means cannot deter an attack by a more powerful adversary and that only such weapons offer asymmetric protection. The administration says the war will lessen terrorism, but it's a good bet that prediction will fail on two counts. First, anti-Americanism can be expected to increase substantially, which will supercharge (as Gen. Wesley Clark, retired, put it) recruiting for terrorist networks. Second, the notion that countries have the right to wage preventive war against anyone they believe may pose a threat in the future will resonate with bullies around the globe, increasing the likelihood of armed attacks, interventions, and state terrorism. The odds are that the world will become even more dangerous than it is now. Stephen R. Shalom, professor of political science at William Patterson University and author of Imperial Alibis: Rationalizing U.S. Intervention After the Cold War (South End Press, 1992) http://chronicle.com Section: The Chronicle Review Volume 49, Issue 11, Page B12
|
Copyright © 2002 by The Chronicle of Higher Education