Why We Should Fight

Here are my answers to the questions of the Cross-Blog Iraq Debate at The Truth Laid Bear. I have slowly gone from being anti-war to being pro-war in this instance, and these are the reasons why.

1. Attacking Iraq has been publicly called a "pre-emption" of a threat from Saddam Hussein's regime, whose sins include launching regional wars of aggression. Do you think there is a clear and reliable difference between pre-emptive and aggressive warfare, and if so, what is it?

In the old days, you could see an enemy's ships closing in on your shores. Scouts could see infantry moving towards your border. In those cases, the issue of pre-emptive attack versus aggression was brilliantly clear: pre-emptive action would have been an attack designed to surprise and push back an advancing force that clearly meant to attack you, and that clearly was an enemy. Aggression would have described the action of the advancing force. A clearly belligerent step towards an unprovoked attack.

With the old scenario in mind, pre-emption seems a logical and ethically unassailable method of defense. It is the attempt of one facing imminent attack by an enemy, to forestall the attack.

Pre-emption in the martial (or marital) arts is similarly considered to be a highly advanced ability. In fact, in many circles the holy grail of martial awareness is the ability to sense the moment that an opponent has committed to an attack, and to pre-empt the attack at exactly that moment, while the opponent's mind is still attempting to put his body in motion.

In Aikido (合気道) such pre-emption is key to higher levels of practice. Although it is often considered a pacifistic martial art by those not very familiar with it, this should not be the case, and it certainly was not during the founder's heyday. The following is an excerpt of an article by well-known Aikidoist Stanley Pranin.

A study of the art of the Founder will reveal his emphasis on atemi (preemptive strikes) and kiai (combative shouts) as an integral part of techniques. O-Sensei can be seen executing atemi and kiai even in films from his final years when his aikido had become much less physical.

Atemi and kiai go hand in hand and are important tools for stopping or redirecting the mind of the attacker and successfully unbalancing him. Even if a physical strike is not actually employed, a mental state that preempts or disrupts the attack is a vital component of the aikido mind-set. Yet in many dojos today, the use of atemi or kiai will draw scorn from the teacher in charge who regards them as crude, violent means that have no place in an art of "harmony." This common misconception bespeaks a lack of understanding of the martial origins of the art and the theory and practice of the Founder.

I consider this quote very telling. The problematic over-pacifist in Aikido has an analog in international affairs: the pacifist who refuses to acknowledge that pre-emption is usually superior to an alternative in which the enemy attacks with full force.

Initially, I felt that this war would be an infringement of Iraq's sovereignty as a nation. This position is somewhat diluted by the fact that the Iraqi regime is not democratically legitimate, but is there not something to be said for supporting the concept of national sovereignty, even in such a place as Iraq?

Since 9/11, we have come to know two things about our future encounters with terrorists: that we cannot prevent first strikes by terrorists on their terms, however well equipped our intelligence agencies are, and that a first strike could be utterly devastating; it could rock our world with heavy casualties, economic chaos, and international instability leading to larger areas of anarchy and war.

Inasmuchas Iraq is hostile to the U.S., and has or is attempting to procure nukes, etc., and would presumably have few qualms supplying other terrorists with such (or using them itself), these concerns have come to trump any lukewarm respect for Iraqi sovereignty I entertained.

2. What do you feel are the prospects that an invasion of Iraq will succeed in a) maintaining it as a stable entity and b) in turning it into a democracy? Are there any precedents in the past 50 years that influence your answer?

I believe the prospects are good (maybe 70%) that democracy can be maintained for a long enough period of time for it to be self-sufficient. This is only going to be possible if we stay in control for a long period of time, probably close to a decade. This would be necessary to get the people used to a stable way of life, and to allow young people to grow up in a stable environment, causing them to eventually value collective stability and economic opportunity over ethnic or religious tribalism and infighting.

More importantly though, I believe that even if democracy fails in Iraq, we will be in a much better strategic position vis-à-vis hostile terrorist forces such as Al-Qaeda and Hizbullah than before. We will be able to restrict the movement of arms between Israel and Iran, etc.

3. How successful do you think the military operations and "regime change" in Afghanistan have been in achieving their stated objectives? Does this example affect your feelings about war in Iraq in any way?

I believe they have been far more successful than any opponents could have imagined. Going into Afghanistan, anti-war activists believed it would be "another Vietnam", a "quagmire" from which we would never extricate ourselves. The Russian failure was repeatedly held up as an example of what could be expected.

Obviously, they were dead wrong. I had my doubts too, but they were unfounded. I think that the war in Iraq will be more difficult in Baghdad, but still overall a swift and relatively painless (low casualty) war.

Afghanistan is not perfect, but if we keep it stable for long enough, it will work as a democracy.

4. As a basis for war, the Bush Administration accuses Iraq of trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, nuclear), supporting terrorism, and brutalizing their own people. Since Iraq is not the only country engaged in these actions, under what circumstances should the US go to war with other such nations, in addition to going to war with Iraq?

When we believe that they have the opportunity and the will to attempt terrorist attacks on the U.S. or its close allies, or to supply those weapons to others who do.

5. The Bush Administration has issued numerous allegations about the threat represented by Iraq, many of which have been criticized in some quarters as hearsay, speculation or misstatements. Which of the Administration's allegations do you feel stand up best to those criticisms?

Actually, not many. They have not demonstrated a conclusive connection to Al-Qaeda yet, and many other claims are still unsubstantiated. I don't really care much about this, because Iraq has attempted to build WMD's before, and has the opportunity and will to sell them to terrorists. That is what I'm really concerned about.

But the evidence I find most clearly damning are the audio recordings which Colin Powell recently presented to the U.N. They show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Iraqis are moving weapons to avoid inspectors, including nerve agents.