The United States has now "let slip the dogs of war." This action may succeed in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and quickly restore peace to Iraq, or it may not. Regardless, the aggressive nature of the war itself is an issue which all Americans must confront.
The attack is without doubt a war of aggression against Iraq. The consequences of this are many, and will be with us for years to come. Already the Secretary General of the United Nations has held the United States responsible, in both a legal and moral sense, for damage done in the course of the conflict. Because Iraq now would be at peace if the United States had not invaded the country, civilian casualties, refugees, starvation, disease -- even if at minimal levels -- will be seen as the direct result of American actions.
Accusing the United States of aggression is common, and often made with less than the best of motives. But the harsh truth is that this war was not provoked by Iraq. Iraq's act of defiance in refusing to abide by UN resolutions to disarm does not give any nation the right to unilaterally engage in war without UN approval, unless, that is, that nation is directly threatened.
It is unfortunate, in this regard, that those nations opposing war have chosen to emphasize the need to prolong inspections to determine if Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. The arguments against war hold whether Saddam possess these weapons or does not. Common sense suggests that he most surely does possess weapons of mass destruction, if only to use in case of an American attack on Iraq.
The crux of the matter is that the United States has resorted to the dubious argument that if Saddam Hussein has these weapons, he will surely use them. Thus, the core of the case against Iraq -- on which one must defend the chaos and suffering that will now ensue -- is a hypothetical argument, not a fact. Launching a war against a country at peace -- a country, to repeat, which is not preparing for war -- on the basis of what "might be" is clearly and unambiguously an aggressive act. The argument, further, deliberately sidesteps the point that any use of these weapons mass destruction would be an act of war, which in turn would exact horrific reprisals. Against whom is Saddam Hussein prepared to go to war, now or in the future? Because the question never has been raised, it has never been answered.
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) stood up in the Senate on Wednesday to oppose the war, arguing that this is a war of "choice," not necessity. Yet here too, the argument does not go far enough. The United States has engaged in a number of recent wars "by choice," not necessity. American intervention in the former Yugoslavia is such a instance. Yet in this case it could be argued that the United States intervened in a war already in progress -- whether rightly or wrongly is another matter -- and in so doing advanced the cause of peace. The war in Iraq is not only a war of "choice," it is a war against a country at peace with its neighbors and which now risks civil war as well as foreign invasion as a result of American aggression.
It is argued that this is a war of liberation. Yet the Iraqi people have never been given the choice to decide which they would prefer -- the war and its uncertain aftermath, or their present unhappy, but peaceful condition.
The first consequence of the fact that this is a war of aggression has already been noted; namely, that the United States must bear full responsibility, and be prepared to compensate for, the effects of the war itself. The second is that talk of democracy in Iraq is illusory. An invader cannot allow the people of Iraq to decide how they will be governed. Can the government of Iraq be a friend of the United States? Perhaps, nominally, if that government is under direct U.S. control. Can Iraq be truly democratic and a true friend of the United States? Hardly.
If the charge of aggression were made with ill intent, it could be borne. But, we, all of us, must now face the truth. We are an aggressor nation. And painful as it may be to admit, we all to some degree share responsibility for this state of affairs.
(Paul S. Shoup is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Politics.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
