Inspections in Iraq have started again, and there is a strong likelihood that they will result in a second full-scale Gulf War. Even though Iraq is allowing the international inspectors back in, it considers them "enemies of truth" sent by "Pharaoh Bush" as part of a "Zionist plot."
Bush, for his part, has said that he will use military force to settle future disputes. Also, Hussein's government--like the Taliban in Afghanistan--is perfectly willing to choose short-term defiance over long-term interests. Hence, it seems clear that the United States is still on a collision course with Iraq, whether or not there is a war this time.
Because this is something to worry about, I'd like to propose a four-step method whereby all sides can address the underlying issues. Here it is:
1. Confidential information plays a key role in determining American foreign policy, perhaps now more than ever. President Bush says Hussein is plotting to blackmail the United States with nuclear and biochemical weapons and that he may even give these weapons to terrorists to use against us.
Obviously, our natural response is to want to know the details. But the administration's answer to anyone seeking conclusive evidence is essentially, "that's a secret and we can't tell you." Moreover, the Iraqi government is dominated by the Mukhabarat, the secret police, so there is considerably less chance of getting the full story there.
Therefore, we should concede our helplessness and admit that we really don't know the true story. Of course, if we wanted to we could ignore this. We could announce that the whole crisis is a wicked plot devised by the evil President Bush. Alternately, we could righteously label every critic of the administration a traitor.
As different as these opinions are, both claim to have insider knowledge when they don't. The administration is asking us to take its word for how serious the situation is. Protesting against this fact, as well as celebrating it, may reveal a great deal about the mind of the person doing the talking, but precious little more.
This does not mean we should stop talking. Rather, we should always be aware of how much of our knowledge is based on things verified, and how much is based on conjecture. That's my first rule.
2. Iraq was not created by Iraqis. It was carved out by the British after World War I. There has never been a single Iraqi people because the three main groups--the Sunni elite, the Shia majority and the Kurdish peoples--have fought each other ferociously. Order has only been kept via an authoritarian government.
Iraqi governments have not worked very well. Until 1958 they had an ineffective monarchy that was overthrown in a bloodbath. Since then, they've had military/political dictatorships. Saddam's rule is distinguished by the severity of his tyranny and his willingness to enter into foreign wars.
The second rule is to try to learn a bit more about this history and let it inform your judgment. Knowing something about Iraq's past does not, in itself, prove your opinions right. However, it gives you a means of measuring your own views against those held by others. Pay attention to what is presented as expert knowledge on Iraq, seeing if it fits your understanding of what has gone on (and gone wrong) in Iraq.
3. This old point is still valid. The meaning of words also suffers in war. For this reason, we should ask people, when they discuss the conflict, to explain what they mean when they use terms like "threat,' "security," "legitimate," etc. We should also ask people to clarify their intentions when they use emotion-laden terms like "anger," "outrage," "resistance," etc. As Socrates pointed out, if you can't, or don't want to explain the meaning of the words you use, you may be less wise than you think.
4. Bush has said that, after defeating Hussein, we would provide "new hope" for the Iraqi people. That's a little vague, but it illustrates the fact that talking about this conflict also means offering some kind of prognosis about what comes next. Put bluntly, for America to create a U.S.-friendly order in post-war Iraq, it needs a new form of imperialism.
We should ask ourselves if this will work. Put bluntly, Iraq has its own imperial ambitions. It would like to control the Persian Gulf and more. For the United States to refuse confrontation is another form of isolationism. We should also ask ourselves if we truly are safer if we refuse to fight. The rule is that it is unreasonable to ask anyone to predict the future with full accuracy.
These are my rules for talking about Iraq. If you don't like them, formulate your own. It's important that we all start formulating our own opinions; these rules are just one way of ensuring that those opinions are thought out.
David Pickus is a professor in the Barrett Honors College. Reach him at david.pickus@asu.edu.
