Almost all of my friends are against the war. Many of my fellow teachers are protesting. I know a few students who are following the government line and may be for the war, but the overwhelming majority of my friends are against this action.

I’m not.

The problem is that we haven’t really articulated a great reason to go to war. The weapons of mass destruction argument is pretty weak. Weapons inspectors may be slow in effect, but a massive campaign of such inspections could paralyze Iraq’s ability to produce new weapons of mass destruction while slowly pruning the ones they have. No one even of those against the war thinks Iraq doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction. And the threat of military action was the only thing that got Iraq to cooperate with the new wave of inspections: the previous inspectors weren’t kicked out -- as so many think and repeat, seen as an argument for war -- but decided to withdraw because Iraq resisted and blocked them bureaucratically. So the threat of war has been the only thing propelling the relative success of the recent inspections, but the argument that ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction will somehow help the United States holds little weight. Saddam Hussein is unlikely to give such weapons to others, and vigorous inspections -- not slowed by the U.S. sharing intelligence only late, by not having enough manpower, and by continual retreats in fear of impending U.S. attack. Of course, there’s also the irony that North Korea professes to have worse weapons of mass destruction, yet possibly having an atomic bomb makes invasion a far more difficult prospect than with Iraq.

At the same time, the insipid and largely uninformed war protesters have ridiculous notions of what the war is about. Everyone seems to assert that this is a war over oil. A more ridiculous notion I have not heard. The assumption seems to be that, because Iraq has lots of oil and George W. Bush comes from an oil background, this must be a war over oil. Granted, I don’t like the Bush oil background, but no argument has ever been advanced, short of this synchronicity of elements, as to why this might be the case. The assumption seems to be that Bush wants Iraqi resources for the U.S. But it would be a hell of a lot easier to get Iraw’s oil than invade. In fact, the U.S. has for years supported sanctions against Iraq, limiting the amount of oil it can sell and managing the revenue produced for humanitarian aid. Millions of dollars sit unused in these accounts. If we just got rid of the requirement for humanitarian use of revenues generated, and allowed Saddam Hussein to sell more, much less encouraged him, we could get at his oil. Let him build palaces with the money if all we want is oil. Not to mention the fact that, if more oil is released, Bush’s oil buddies make less money because the price of oil around the world drops. Yet this is exactly what the so-called argument seems to be. Yet any war is likely to result in Iraq lighting oil wells on fire, sabotaging some portion of the supply. Moreover, the U.S. doesn’t get its oil from the Middle-East -- but Europe does. If anything, there’s more evidence for the argument that much of Europe doesn’t want a war in Iraq in order to maintain the supply of oil. I’m certain that, faced with the illogic of the oil assumption, many against the war would resort to claiming that Bush is out to lower Iraq’s oil output, thus helping his oil buddes. Except that, again, this would be easier to accomplish without a war: fuck pushing war and inspections; just push stiffer sanctions. In short, the oil argument has never been remotely articulated and quickly dissolves upon inspection.

The criticism that this is a unilateral action really doesn’t hold water either. First, many governments are supporting us, even if only a handful are willing to provide troops. Second, most of our opponents have their own biases at least as strong as those of the U.S. France and Germany are notoriously anti-war, and France in particular trades with Iraq, is concerned about alienating its considerable Muslim population, and is eager to define itself nationalistically, to regain some level of their lost international importance: the nation has gone from having the lingua franca to being economically lost and dwarfed by Germany, and a new form of neo-patriotism has become quite popular as a result of their likely future as one nation among many in the European Union. Ultimately, however, I’m not sure how unilateralism is by itself a problem: the argument must be whether the cause is just. If the world is split on the act, with impressive dissent, this should spur us to carefully reexamine the arguments, but not dismiss action out of hand: some argument as to the injustice of the action must still be advanced. In any case, the Bush government has not been undiplomatic: Clinton invaded Somalia without U.N. consultation, whereas the Bush White House took months, let sensitive intelligence leak in an attempt to convince allies, an generally exerted itself at historically high levels to convince the U.N. While the Bush government was unwilling to be convinced not to go to war, its opponents were equally unswerving: both the U.S. and France demonstrated commitment to the process while stridently pursuing their cause and ignoring their opponents’ arguments.

Some cynics have suggested that the White House is pursuing the war for political advantage. That certainly makes some sense in terms of the 2002 mid-term elections, given that the White House specifically timed its pursuit of the war in a manner suspiciously helpful to the elections. Most people don’t want to change their government in a time of war, even prospective war, especially when that government is run by Republications, stereotyped as more pro-military than the Democrats. Still, why not capitulate to the U.N. if this were the case? Why follow through in 2003, far from the next elections? Certainly, some rise in Presidential approval follows going to war: people, particularly Americans, rally to support their government in time of war. But the first Bush who was President saw after the first Gulf War that this effect wears off. In fact, the timing is largely the same, and it didn’t work for the elder Bush in his elections. American Presidents don’t have a good record of winning re-elections after wars wrap up.

The best argument for war is the humanitarian one. Bush began to advance this in earnest in direct response to the criticism against the war, including the resistance in the U.N. The State of the Union address clearly made the humanitarian case for the war. And there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, that he has built elaborate palace after palace while the people starved. The gassing of the Kurds in Northern Iraq killed an approximate 5,000 people and is known as the first use of chemical weapons by a government upon its own population. The Iraqi regime routinely uses torture and kills its people. After the U.S. began invading a few days ago, the Iraqi regime announced on television that it would turn every square inch of Iraq into a burning Hell rather than let the U.S. win -- tell me anyone should have to live under such a government. Even those against the war agree that the Hussein regime is atrocious and backward. Mostly in response to criticism, the Bush government has assembled more and more of a reconstruction campaign before the invasion even commenced. It remains a great irony that the liberals who oppose the war are typically thought to be more in favor of humanitarian values. Of course, the biggest problem with this argument is that a war is likely to cause thousands of civilian casualties, not to mention disruption of some amount of the Iraqi infrastructure. Additionally, there are plenty of regimes, many worse than Hussein’s, that would beg invasion prior to Iraq -- and the U.S. record in Afghanistan is less than splendid for its civilian casualties and rebuilding effort.

Ultimately, no one can know to what extent the White House believes any of the reasons to go to war in Iraq. A certain amount of paranoia may make them particularly susceptible to the weapons of mass destruction argument. The Bush history, with his father not going on to Baghdad and many in the Bush regime having urged exactly that during the first Gulf War, obviously colors things. The present White House has been cruising aggressively for war in Iraq for quite some time, pursuing diplomacy on one hand while assuming that war will occur on the other, not unlike a fair trial before hanging. And while the Bush government, with its violation of some civil liberties following the 11 September terrorist attacks, with the President’s long-standing support of (the present system of) capital punishment (despite its exposure as tremendously economically biased), has not had a great humanitarian record, all the indications are that civilians will be more cared for in the present Iraqi invasion than in any invasion in history. Ultimately, however, I’m not sure it matters why the Bush White House is doing what it does: what matters is what they will do and whether it’s good or not. The reasons may be less important than the outcome.

I am myself swayed by the humanitarian argument. Every remotely reasonable attempt to avoid civilian casualties, even at the expense of additional U.S. lives, must be taken. The rebuilding of Iraq must be ambitious. I’m not so concerned with democracy, with our liberal values of feminism and multiculturalism, than I am with people eating. I’m sick and angry at Westerners bitching about Afghani women wearing veils while the nation eats grass due to starvation and has no educational system. Let’s talk about giving Iraq a democracy, or women’s rights, when everyone has food, clean water, clothing, and shelter. I’d like to see an aggressive campaign to modernize Iraq, a long-term plan to turn it into the Germany or Japan of the Middle-East. As different as Iraqi culture is to Western culture -- always pointed out by people eager to discredit our planned liberal reconstruction of Iraq -- it cannot be more so than Japan after World War II, a place where the Emperor was literally worshipped. Moreover, there were a lot more civilian casualties in Japan than there will be in Iraq, even by the grossest estimates. But there we were willing to run the government for many years, and we have troops there to this day.

And there is every indication, especially in response to so many protests the world over, that the U.S. will do exactly this -- to some extent. Maybe not as much as I’d like, but far more than we’re used to hearing out of the White House, especially from Republicans. A large part of preventing civilian casualties is the technological ability to do so, and our military technology is greatly advanced since the first Gulf War. Only 10% of our bombs were so-called smart bombs in the last Gulf War; 90% are this time. We’re openly talking about how many years our reconstruction campaign will take. The good side of the present and continuing criticism, both international and domestic, is that it requires us, if we’re going to invade, to treat the Iraqi people as good as we possibly can -- and I think this all for the best. Whatever the U.S. and the White House thinks of Arabs or Iraqis, whatever cover racism or tinges of it is there, this pressure and attention on our every action will likely result in over-compensation, and again this is all for the best. Again, who cares so long as the result is good. And we should not forget that, while the present administration doesn’t have the best record on these matters, it has a better record by virtue of just being American than most governments throughout history.

Eastern Europe, the former Soviet bloc of nations on track for NATO admission and desirous of membership in the E.U., came out as a group in favor of war in Iraq, precisely for humanitarian reasons. As nations that suffered under the oppression of their Communistic governments, they sympathize with the Iraqi people. This is exactly what they said, thanking the U.S. for being willing to absorb the cost, in money and lives, to liberate other people around the world. In a sense, despite my love of Western Europe and particularly for France, it is not the opinion of coddled Western European nations that should be heard here. Eastern Europe understands better the state of Iraq and what liberation means. Talk to a Panamanian and tell him you’re horrified by the thousands of civilians the U.S. invasion caused: you’re likely to hear an equally horrific response, by Western notions accommodated to a good life in which a single death feels scandalously unfathomable -- that any crimes against civilians perpetrated during the U.S. invasion could not compare to those of Noreiga at the end of his regime.

If this were a Democratic President, the left would be cheering this as a humanitarian intervention. The left would be cheering that reconstructing Iraq is not only a priority but that a plan has been in the works prior to invasion. The left would be cheering the unprecedented six or so months of concerned diplomacy at the U.N. And the left would be cheering the openness given to the press in covering this war, seeing it in stark contrast to the Republican media shutouts that characterized such interventions as Panama. And, if this were a Democratic President, the right would be in an uproar over this humanitarian adventure. Only Nixon could have opened China because only Nixon had the anti-Communist credentials to do so without a revolt of the right. Often, American Presidential politics, with the stereotypes given to both parties, allow Presidents to make their greatest accomplishments in ways that explicitly defy the stereotypes given their own party. This is just such a case.

To be sure, invading Iraq is a risk. It may seem counter-intuitive. It will lead to protests around the world and increased perception that America is anti-Muslim. Recruitment for anti-U.S. terrorist groups is, by the government’s own admission, likely to rise in the short term. If we fuck this up, if we kill tens of thousands of civilians, we’re screwed. We’ve burned our international reputation not only for nothing but for a horrible military misadventure. Many don’t see an upside. Many don’t see that there’s anything to gain. I think that the goal must be reconstructing Iraq as a Western nation, at least economically and structurally. What we need is an economic powerhouse in the Middle East, one Arab and Muslim but a Mecca for Arabs to look towards, in their own region, that demonstrates a modern culture, all the success of a freedom-loving and economically thriving nation but both Middle-Eastern and Muslim. And that demonstrates American good will towards the same people. The implications of such a state, of an undeniably thriving nation of this sort in the middle of the Middle East, a refuge for political refugees the region over, are profound. In short, I think there’s very much to be won indeed.

Now, I think we should have done a better job in Afghanistan. I think we should have, if we were willing to throw our weight around globally and risk the near-death of goodwill towards America, declared a Palestinian state -- to which the Israeli government has agreed in principle, but is unwilling to allow while it realistically fears that any such state would simply become a haven for terrorists to strike against their government. We should have enforced such a state with an occupying force, with intelligence on the ground to mercilessly hunt down any Palestinian terrorists after a Palestinian state was declared, while at the same time extorting Israeli good will through this protection and through our threat to withdraw our billions in aid from their government. Everybody would win, and goodwill towards Arabs would have been clearly displayed: even if the Nobel committee didn’t fancy it, no one could not be awed by creating peace in Israel -- and we obviously could do it if were willing to take these kinds of risks. All of that having been said, however, my appall that such a process has not been pursued does not make the Iraqi adventure any less right. It just means that the credentials for saving Iraq are not there, much like Bush’s credentials for office -- but this does not mean that the job won’t be done.

I wish we were doing more for Africa, for Israel, for many places around the world. I wish we did more humanitarian work that didn’t involve invasion. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do more for Iraq. Hell, maybe we’ll learn something.

Bush has been much criticized for using 11 September in rhetoric about Iraq. Obviously, no connection between Osama Bin-Laden and Hussein has ever been found, despite the White House’s claims to the contrary. The one informant, of which we know, who alleged a meeting between representatives of both parties, itself a tenuous connection, has been largely discredited. The real connection between 11 September and Iraq is in terms of morality. 11 September stripped away our usual notions of non-involvement. It requires a policy of preemption. And it requires, through our own hurt, that we identify with the hurt of others half the world away. In a post-11 September world, we cannot stand back while people suffer under oppressive and murderous governments any more than we can while terrorists gather strength.

In one of the charity publications done by the comic book industry to benefit the families of those killed during 11 September, there was a story that makes me cry every time I recount it. An American takes a cab in Eastern Europe and the cab driver realizes that he is an American. The American feels as if he’s been found out, that he hasn’t disguised himself and his accent, that he has failed to avoid sticking out culturally. But the cab driver tells a story of his hungry village after World War II, when he was a kid wearing, like all the town’s kids, nothing for shoes but tatters. A private American organization arrived in vans and delivered shoes to all the children, giving the whole village a filling, good meal. At this point the cab driver is crying, this childhood memory burned into his mind. “I love Americans,” he says, tears streaming down his face, refusing to let the American pay for the fare.

You want to prevent more terrorist attacks?

Weapons of mass destruction is just the symptom.

And it should be the liberals, not the Americentric Republicans, who should be endorsing this war. Mark my words: history will note the contradiction as they note Nixon’s social programs and opening China. Bush can pursue this war in Iraq precisely because of his hardcore, pro-military credentials. If the protesters were true liberals, they would be protesting to remind the White House to be committed to avoiding civilian casualties and to a more extensive reconstruction campaign -- not to stop a war over which they have no power. You cannot be a humanitarian, nor believe in the American principles of freedom and innate human rights, and not be for the war, so long as humanitarian principles are held central.

You can not ask for a more liberal emblem than Iraqis crying and cheering at troops liberating them. My heart swoons. At a pro-war rally, an old man holds a sign: “In 1945, G.I.s save me. In 2003, G.I.s save Iraq.” And World War II, while the crimes against humanity were greater and while equivocating between the two should offend, was a war thought just yet one that featured indiscriminate bombing and remarkable lack of concern for civilians and holocaust victims on the part of the Allies. For all the complex issues involved, those who oppose war in Iraq largely do so because of the lack of compelling interests for their own nation, and that is almost undeniably the case: it is the humanitarians, the cosmopolitans not the nationalists, who should be supporting this war. You can care for those suffering and still think helping them would cause too many more to suffer, but if you turn a deaf ear to the humanitarian reasons for this war, if you do not understand humanitarianism as existing above the incidentals of political parties and even the U.N., then you are not a liberal.

YOUR ASSIGNMENT

This is the first column published after Apollonian Bacchanalia's first anniversary on 14 March 2003!

I've got a brief new essay available on ContinuityPages.com: "Against Speculators." This is the eighth Sequential Culture column I've published there, and I'm inclined to include them with the Apollonian Bacchanalia columns published here in terms of trying to get a weekly column out. The eight Sequential Culture columns and 48 Apollonian Bacchanalia columns published in the first year of Apollonian Bacchanalia add up to exactly 56, the number of weeks in the year, and I think that's pretty telling. (Still, I'm a spastic son of a bitch, aren't I? The last 10 columns here came over the course of a month, and then I had a month of silence. I'm a parody of myself, I know.)

If you like what you see here, get a friend to visit. I'm writing for this site and for ContinuityPages.com for free and spending almost all of my free time doing so, and it's really nice to get hits if I'm not earning a living.

Discuss this column online on the message board.