In the latest issue of The New Republic (September 2), the magazine's editors make what they take to be the "best case" for attacking Iraq. As the flagship magazine of the left-neocon wing of the Establishment, it might be worth examining TNR's argument in order to gain some insight into the thought process of our elite punditocracy.
The editors admit that Saddam is evil, but deny that this alone constitutes a sufficient reason for pre-emptive action. "But he is not the only evil leader in the world, and we are not proposing to act against other evil leaders, not even against the other leaders in the u2018axis of evil.'" Nor are we justified in making war in order to "bring democracy to Iraq," because, after all, there are plenty of countries currently languishing without the blessings of democracy, and we're not about to invade all of them and create a multitude of Jeffersonian republics (at least not yet).
No, the best case, the overwhelming case for military action in Iraq, according to the lights at TNR, is that old bugaboo, "weapons of mass destruction":
He [Saddam] is the only leader in the world with weapons of mass destruction who has used them. He used them against Iranian troops and against Kurdish civilians. This is what makes Saddam Hussein so distinguished in the field of evil. Morally and strategically, he lives in a post-deterrence world. We do not need to speculate about whether he would do the dirtiest deed. He has already done the dirtiest deed. That is the case, and "the case."
Well, I guess that settles that.
Of course, as Pat Buchanan pointed out, the first leader in the history of mankind to use weapons of mass destruction against a large civilian population was none other than the neocons' own beloved "Give u2018em Hell" Harry Truman. And yet, to my knowledge, The New Republic has yet to run an editorial on the uniquely evil nature of Harry Truman. Does TNR think that Great Britain or France or the dreaded U.S.S.R. would have been justified in attacking the U.S. on the grounds that Truman had demonstrated both the capability and willingness to use WMD's?
TNR goes on to quote Zbigniew Brzezinski's argument that the U.S. and Israel, Saddam's two likeliest targets, both have "the capacity to retaliate and thus to deter," and consequently are not immediately or directly threatened. The editors effectively concede Brzezinski's point by changing the subject and "insist[ing] that the use of weapons of mass destruction denotes a general derangement." So, if Saddam won't use WMD's against the U.S., then I guess he doesn't live in a "post-deterrence world" after all! But wait, the fact that he has used them "denotes a general derangement." So does that mean that Harry Truman was deranged and lived in a post-deterrence world? The Russians certainly didn't think so.
The editors completely sidestep the question of whether Saddam poses an actual threat to the security of the U.S. and instead claim that his willingness to use WMD's constitutes "a international emergency."
And it should not matter to us that these crimes were not committed against the United States, or that Saddam Hussein's missiles do not have the range to hit American places, because the use of weapons of mass destruction, rather like genocide, represents an international emergency.
So, the fact that Saddam used poison gas against Iranians (with whom he was at war, one in which he was supported by, ahem, the U.S.) as well as "his own people" the Kurds (who aren't "his" in any meaningful sense) a decade or more ago, somehow constitutes an international emergency now? And if the editors are using this as a demonstration of intent, they conveniently ignore the fact, pointed out by former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter and others, that the evidence that Saddam possesses large quantities of chemical or biological weapons is scanty at best. Rather than addressing the factual question, the editors assert "The physical defense of the United States includes also the moral defense of the United States [since when?]; but the defense of American values sometimes [sometimes?] requires action in non-American places [you don't say!]."
It's interesting to see the underlying ideology at work here. Even if America is not physically threatened, she is morally threatened by the fact that someone, somewhere exists who has demonstrated the willingness to use weapons of mass destruction (besides our own government, that is). And never mind that we can't even say for sure that Saddam has the weapons in question. It's at least possible that he has them and that he'll use them, even though, contrary to the editors' claim, Saddam has not shown himself to live in a post-deterrence world, since he hasn't used WMD's against a foe capable of responding in kind.
For the folks at TNR (and their nominal political opponents at National Review) our foreign policy cannot rest content with anything as mundane as the physical defense of our land, the security of our borders, and the protection of our citizens. No, these sensitive and lofty souls insist on the "moral defense" of "American values." Assuming this isn't just a cover for a variety of economic and other special interests, they must surely realize that this is a recipe for unending intervention in the affairs of other countries, or a "perpetual war for perpetual peace."
Our ruling elite seems to have been seized with what I can only call an "ideology of control." Nothing must be left to chance. All contingencies must be dealt with beforehand. And if that means that we pre-emptively attack a few countries, and kill a few thousand innocent people, violating norms of international law that go back 350 years, well, that's a small price to pay for "defending our values." For as long as I've been alive, and especially since the end of the Cold War, the foreign policy of the U.S. seems to have been bent on maintaining total supremacy over any threats, real, imagined, or just logically possible, to our "way of life." The world can never be left alone, but must be continually shaped into a compliant new world order under the benevolent guiding hand of Uncle Sam, even if that hand is sometimes holding a cluster bomb. I wonder if the people in charge are even capable of thinking about global affairs differently, of thinking that other nations might have their own ideas about shaping their destiny.
This mentality is the logical counterpart to the social-democratic approach to domestic policy shared, with only slight shades of difference, by the "right" and "left" wings of the respectable political establishment. Nothing must be left to chance here either. The economy can be planned, if not by outright nationalization of the means of production, then by the shenanigans of a central bank and a complex system of regulation, taxation, and subsidy. Taxes may sometimes be cut, but only if they stimulate the "right" kind of economic behavior. An elaborate arrangement of controls and regulations will ensure the "correct" balance of various interest groups is achieved in all the important areas of our cultural and economic life. Guns will be taken away, no one will drive too fast, and we'll all eat federally-approved 100% all-natural tofu products. And you thought the planned society went out of style when the Berlin Wall fell!
This mania for control seems to have turned our rulers into a rather obsessive bunch. They are forever finding new threats in every third-world half-starved backwater that require our immediate action. Just as every domestic problem becomes a "crisis" or an "epidemic" that requires new draconian regulations, every tin-pot dictator is a threat to our values, our way of life, and probably our personal hygiene. Call me a crass materialist, but I'd venture that most of us would settle for the good old-fashioned physical safety that doesn't seem nearly noble enough for the editors at TNR.
September 11, 2002
