Counterpoint

[khaosworks]

See no evil
Progressives have lots of arguments against the war on Iraq -- some of them compelling. But why aren't they burning to free Saddam's oppressed masses?

By Edward W. Lempinen

March 19, 2003 | Amina Lawal is a Nigerian divorcee, illiterate and unemployed, and when she gave birth to a baby girl out of wedlock in 2001, neighbors in the Muslim village where she lives reported her to local authorities. She was arrested, charged with adultery and, after a trial in one of the new Islamic courts, sentenced to death. Her case has attracted international attention, and there is hope that the sentence will be blocked. But human rights monitors say her life remains at risk: If the sentence is carried out, she will be buried up to her waist in the ground and then stoned until she is dead.

Amina Lawal's case is undoubtedly complicated. Yet the more I consider it, the more I feel the urge for a simple, primitive response. I know there is intensifying conflict between Christians and Muslims in Nigeria; I know that in the interests of bringing calm to a volatile situation, the United Nations or the government of the United States, joined by allied countries and interest groups, should exercise every possible diplomatic channel to prevent her execution. But if that were to fail, the urge says, let's send in a small, skilled military squad to rescue her and her loved ones. Even at the risk of casualties, let's use military force to achieve humanitarian ends, and in saving the life of a 31-year-old Muslim peasant, let's send a message to the poor and dispossessed of the world, and to the religious zealots and tyrants who repress them. Let's just do it.

I can imagine many leftists would share the same urge, and yet, the more deeply I consider it, the more complicated the problem becomes. First of all, why Amina? Why not any of a million other victims of tyranny, including many in our own country who are threatened with cruel and unusual punishment? If you start with Amina, where does it stop? We can't solve all the problems of the world. And perhaps intervening to save Amina will only incite the furies of the Nigerian Muslims who rose so violently in the days before the Miss Universe pageant. We have to let the Nigerians solve their own problems. Violence, in the long term, will only beget more violence.

The problem is so difficult that I'm nearly paralyzed by the awareness of things that could go fatally wrong. Until, inevitably, this complex set of calculations leads back to the root equation: In the worst-case scenario, if we do not seek a military solution, then we must let Amina Lawal die. To some degree, then, I would be responsible for her death.

An interesting counterpoint - please, read it all the way through and digest it - to which I have no easy answers, except to say that I still believe that for the US to take unilateral, pre-emptive action is a dangerous precedent for world order. Of course, that is still cold comfort for the Iraqis who suffer under Saddam's regime, and in the end, may smack of legalistic cowardice - to choose the safer status quo over the right thing to do.

But yet, I am unconvinced that diplomatic means had been exhausted. It is not just as simple as letting the UN inspectors do their job... it is the entire idea of placing pressure on Saddam and by that pressure containing him. And yet, I would be hard-pressed not to agree that the pressure has to be backed by military force - or that such a military force would consist in the majority of American troops and materiel.

I am also unconvinced that the removal of Saddam will bring peace and stability to the region, or remove the Anti-American sentiment. I think that on the contrary, while it removes one central source of Anti-Americanism, it will at the same time breed more new pockets of it elsewhere. A world that lives in fear and suspicion of America is not a pleasant prospect for anyone.

And I would say, where does it end? Next, North Korea? How much will that war cost? And from there - any country that doesn't agree with the US? France? Germany? Yes, saving Iraq may be right, but there's that damned road to Hell that I see flickering in the distance.

I keep coming back to George Washington's farewell address to the nation on his leaving the office of the President:

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course.-If we remain one People, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected. When belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by our justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation ?-Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?-Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?-

'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world;-so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it;-for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy.)-I repeat it therefore let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense.-But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.-

Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

While yes, it is a different world, and perhaps it is no longer feasible nor desirable to keep countries isolated from one another - I think that actually makes it all the more important for countries to act as if they were good neighbors and act in concert instead of apart, and be able to accept that collective action should be sought against collective threats, not threaten to pack up their toys and go home, or pack up their toys and hurl them at someone just because the rules of the game no longer suit them, or just because they can.

It comes down to this: no matter how suspect or wrong the motives behind the war may be, is the fear of America flexing its muscles so great that it can justify leaving a tyrannical regime to persist? Is the cost in lives and the economy really so dire that it outweighs the tyrant's removal? It's not an easy answer, especially if you try to give such an answer to an Iraqi dissident or exile, or victims of Saddam's regime.

Which is braver? To say yes or no? Can an answer - any answer - be both brave and cowardly at the same time? Right and wrong? Does even the word grey begin to describe the dilemma?

Perhaps at this point, I should thank Bush for one thing - by charging ahead, he has made this point moot and I may never have to really confront this basic question.

I do agree with Lempinen on the following, though:

We must insist that the U.S. and its allies implement, as quickly as possible, a constructive post-war plan. They must protect the Kurds from Saddam and from Turkey. Aided by the U.N., they must provide for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, no matter the cost. If they truly want to detoxify the Middle East, Bush and his inner circle must commit to seeking a practical solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. They must be reminded constantly, and forcefully, that it is urgent to repair trust, and to stop the corrosion that comes with chronic hypocrisy. By insisting on these values, by returning to the street in a tide of millions, the left might hijack the meaning of this tragedy and salvage from it something constructive.

Now that war is on the horizon, we can only hope that it will be short, and we must work to make sure that the results are as positive as possible. The anti-war movement may have failed to stop the war - it must not fail again by giving up now and not containing the results.