Here's a massive essay I wrote to my friends debating over the Iraq war. It started as a short commentary and turned into this.

1. The hard connection.

The daily telegraph is reporting about documentary evidence on a direct connection between Atta and Saddam…this was published before his capture.

Clearly this article is not conclusive, since we’ve seen forged intelligence documents before. But it is also important to not conclude that all documents indicating an Iraq-9/11 connection are forged…

I think the most important thing to recognize in the “hard connection argument” is that it is inconclusive BOTH ways: we do not have proof that Saddam knew or was involved with 9/11, but that we also don’t have proof that Saddam was NOT involved or knew about 9/11. Perhaps with his capture, we will be able to find out.

Obviously, I do not think hazy-possible connections are reasons for going to war in Iraq. We all fundamentally believe that one is innocent before proven guilty, not the other way around. However, we are talking about the murky world of untrustworthy spies, international relations with rogue regimes, and war, and not a criminal trial in the United States. In this area “beyond a reasonable doubt” is not only rarely possible, but the consequences of inaction does not mean 10 guilty men go free before 1 innocent man goes to jail. It can mean thousands of innocent people murdered while we wait for conclusive evidence …see any case of inaction against genocide, any cases of not sufficient action against terrorists groups. The stakes are simply different.

But as I mentioned before, I do not think the hazy-possible connections were or are sufficient reasons for going to war in Iraq. The hard connection argument worked for getting rid of the Taliban and would have a lot of weight for deposing the Saudi Royal family and all the terrorist financiers under their protection.

Which brings me to the legitimate reasons for going into Iraq…

2. The soft connection

Clearly, terrorism is not as simple as a group of well-organized fanatics running around with bombs. Nor is it simply an international criminal organization. Al Queda is a product of conditions in the Middle East, poverty, religious fanaticism, hopelessness combined with the talents of an especially talented individual: Osama Bin Laden.

Bin Laden’s leadership, organization, and fund raising skills are astounding and some folks have credited him with being the single biggest factor behind driving the Soviets from Afghanistan…the Phil Jackson of guerrilla war and terrorism. One end of the war on terrorism battle is being fought against Bin Laden: in Afghanistan and by the CIA and FBI’s covert war

The other end of the battle is the fight against the aforementioned conditions in the Middle East: poverty, religious fanaticism, and hopelessness. Autocratic governments in the Middle East are the most direct cause of these conditions.

Clearly, the world dependence on oil since WWI has contributed to the West viewing the Middle East as strategically important…our main concern for the region was keeping the oil flowing consistently. This was not an inherently bad position…the lifeblood of the world economy is oil. A cut off of Middle East oil means dropping into worldwide recession...which is good for no one, particularly politicians of any stripe. (alternative energy sources and reduced consumption are the only long term solutions to this problem --another topic entirely).

In this sense, the West’s blind eye towards the people in the Middle East has contributed to the conditions that have been ½ of the equation that made Al Queda. (Ironically, the U.S. also has contributed to the other ½: supporting Osama and the Afghan mujehedeen against the Soviets…building up the idea of jihad as an inspirational tactic against the Red Army in order to serve the USSR with “its own Vietnam”)

The West bears some blame for autocratic governments in the Middle East, especially the British-American coup of a democratically elected PM in Iran in favor of the Shah in 1953.

Acknowledging the above does not change the fact that now, the number one reason the Middle East is in a condition where terrorism thrives, are the autocratic governments. Hussein in Iraq, Assad in Syria, and the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia have consistently lined their pockets with oil revenue for the past 25 years without any regard to the people of their country. A combination of greed (for money and power) combined with ineptitude led these autocrats to fuck over their own people. It has also inspired other autocrats on a lesser scale: Arafat in Palestine, Khadaffi in Libya and autocrats of different stripes: Ayatollahs in Iran, Musheref in Pakisan, and of course, the Taliban.

These autocrats have consistently supported different terrorist groups: Syria runs Hizbollah, Arafat runs Al Asqu Brigades, Khadaffi had his own terrorists hijacking airplanes in the 70s, the Taliban had Al Queda (although this was a unique relationship because it seems like Al Queda ran the Taliban, rather than the other way around). Al Queda successfully blackmailed the Royal Family. Hamas was a “start up” that eventually got financing by Hussein.

These organizations do not always see eye to eye. In fact, if left completely to themselves, without any outsiders to focus their hatred upon, (ie Israel, the West) I’m sure they would find a way to completely annihilate each other. See the Iran-Iraq war. Arafat vs. Hamas, Osama vs. Saddam, the first gulf war: Osama wanted to fight Saddam himself and not involve America. Saddam vs. Kuwait (and eventually Saudi Arabia).

However, the point of the “soft argument” is not that all of these guys are partners, because clearly they are not. They hate anyone who disagrees with them. What seems to occur amongst autocrats, are two things: one, their people are neglected and poor and hopeless and two, they encourage the rise of other autocrats. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that similar abuses of power, views on Israel, views on the West, use of particular tactics—specifically terrorism, all occur in the same region. Nor do I think these views are inherent or historically necessary.

The conditions of the people in the Middle East, ie ½ of the equation of the Al Queda strand of terrorism, can be directly tied to the type of governing structures that do not adequately supply the people with economic and political opportunities via arbitrary justice, unfair distribution of resources, etc.. Granted, we have supported those regimes in the past because we benefited from “stability.” But in post-9/11 world, those regimes present a greater threat to the West.

This summarizes the soft connection of Iraq to 9/11…Iraq, like all other countries in the Middle East with autocratic governments, contribute to the conditions that give rise to terrorism.

Why Iraq vs. The Others?

I don’t think this means we need to invade every autocratic country to “liberate” the people. Certain regimes seem bound for internal change, see Iran. In other regimes, the risk of invasion seems to outweigh the risk of staying put, see North Korea with their massive army and nuclear weapons. Other countries show some desire to interact with the international community, despite being autocratic, see Pakistan and Syria.

In Iraq, however, Hussein consistently showed no intention of cooperating with the international community, both before and after 9/11. The fact that he murdered nearly a million of his own people adds further fuel to the fire. The fact he had a history of trying to get his hands on weapons of mass destruction and continued to evade inspectors adds more fuel to the fire. The fact that he has a history of invading his neighbors adds even more fuel to the fire.

But there are also other good reasons for deposing Hussein and having a more West-friendly Iraq: 1) Iraq’s citizenry is the most highly educated in the Middle East and 2) Massive oil reserves. Because Iraq is the most highly educated country in the Middle East, it stands the best chance of transforming into a democracy and hence, West-friendly. Because there are massive amounts of oil reserves in Iraq, the war will not need to be completely funded by taxpayers…but will be partially paid for by oil revenue. In short, while reconstruction of Iraq was not adequately planned, the basic assumption from these realities is that Iraq would be easier to reconstruct than say, Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.

And while it’s obviously difficult to measure the “worst” of these regimes, but I think Hussein would be the leading contender.

OKAY, We Agree, but what about the UN?

The Bush administration was clear about one thing: they were going after Iraq. In essence, they said: no more games. Hussein has been successfully playing the West off each other for years: playing the “practical” Arab countries off of the idealist Westerners who wanted Hussein gone in 1991; using the Palestinian suicide bombers as a proxy fight against Israel; leading the weapons inspectors around in circles, not coming clean, kicking them out when he thought the UN didn’t have the balls to do anything about it; laying low when he thought he was in trouble, and then biding his time to make another move. It didn’t have a major impact on the West—a few innocent lives in Israel lost, hundreds of thousands of Kurds massacred. Horrible things, but no one was shouting to depose Hussein. No one. Not liberals, not conservatives, not the media, not the French, not the Russians, not even human rights groups, who simply logged the numbers. No one thought between 1991-2001 that any organization, the UN, and certainly not the US, should invade and depose Saddam. (I’m sure there were a few, but those who did, should be happy that he has now been caught-better late than never, right?) In 1998 Clinton developed plans to invade Iraq after he kicked out weapons inspectors, but again, this was based upon not complying with UN resolutions, not with the humanitarian reasons.
9/11 changed everything. People became scared shitless of terrorism and for good reason. The prospect of state-sponsored terrorism and hooking up with WMD became an immediate problem.

Bush took the position, and I think correctly, that the burden of proof now falls on Hussein’s shoulders. He needs to prove to us, by allowing in inspectors that he is following the cease-fire agreement of 1991. If he does not, we will find him in materiel breach and get rid of him. We aren’t going to chase him around for 10 more years, knowing the first time we turn our backs and get complacent, he’ll try to do something damaging. Furthermore, with Hussein gone, other autocratic governments in the Middle East have one less government with a mutual distaste for democracy. Now Syria finds itself surrounded by fairly liberal states: Israel, Jordan, Turkey, and a US occupied Iraq. The Iranian student movement grows, knowing the future of autocrats in the region is limited.

The French, Germans, and Russians took another position: give the inspectors more time. We have successfully contained Hussein in the past by chasing him around. In the absence of a direct 9/11 connection, or evidence of WMDs, we can’t justify getting rid of him.

The idea of waiting “two more months” was a tactic to maintain this position. In two more months, Saddam would not have fully opened his books. The French, Germans, and Russians would have said the same thing: In the absence of a direct 9/11 connection, or evidence of WMDs, we can’t justify getting rid of him.

There is no logical reason to think Saddam would have opened up the books to demonstrate he did not have WMDs with more inspections. As it was, he was faced with the US invading his country…if that wasn’t enough prospect to open his books, I don’t see how Hans Blix would have gotten him to do it, backed up with a UN peacekeeping force.

So we said, screw the UN, they’re making a mistake. We will establish a coalition of the willing and get rid of Saddam ourselves. If we wanted to get dark, we accused the French of being cozy with Saddam and benefiting from his existence…after all, they were the ones who were building his nuclear reactor in 1981 that Israel blew up. Or, we accuse the French of trying to wrestle against the hemegony of the US by crippling UN action and forcing the US to go at it alone. While the French may have a point that a unipolar world is problematic, I think they are extraordinarily misguided if they think US power is a greater threat to the world than international terrorism. (Dean himself acknowledged this position in 1998 with respect to foreign policy, he said, characteristically, that the US can always count on the French to oppose our position…this has been a foundation of French foreign policy since De Gaulle).

And so we go at it alone and anyone who wants to join can, by providing troops and money. If a country provides troops and money and support, they will be in the short term rewarded with contracts. Long term, they along with the rest of the world will benefit from a freer Iraq, trading oil and participating in the world economy. They will also have done the correct thing: liberating Iraq, not for altruistic reasons, but for selfish reasons, because a “free” Iraq means a lower likelihood of international terrorist acts against Western targets. Furthermore, Hussein won’t be killing any more Iraqi’s, Kuwaiti’s, Israeli’s, or anyone else he could get his hands on.

This is my current position. I think we should continue to try to muster international support for the war, and I think it is important to graciously ask for help in the right moment. I’m not sure if Bush is capable of doing this. He might be too spiteful.

It will take time to measure the success or failure of the US lead invasion…the bottom line will be in ten years time when either international terrorism has grown to new heights, or people in Iraq and the Middle East are making strides towards modernism with some semblance of political and economic freedom, rights for women, and schools training for jobs as opposed to religious fundamentalism.

You Sort of Addressed Motivations…But I Disagree with you about Bush’s…he did it so he could make his buddies rich.

Maybe. But so what?

Well, his motivations for going to war will be reflected in how he conducts the war, ie his actions.

Exactly. We can only judge his actions. So let’s talk specifics. Should he ban the French from participating in contracts? Or put differently, should he reneg on the position he put forth when assembling the coalition of the willing that stated: your take a risk with us, and we’ll reward that risk to the extent we can. (fuck the idealistic stance, we should do this together because Hussein is a bad guy. Not a single known politician has put forth that position…not anyone in France, not any democratic candidate, no one, so while I love the idea, the fact that no one has picked it up demonstrates how unappealing and unrealistic that position is…I can go into the ethical questions, but I think you get the point)

I think the proper understanding is that the French took their position and we disagree. If they change and show a willingness to prioritize change in the middle east vs. the conservative position to do nothing in the region, we will listen. That is not to say we don’t stop making gestures to the UN for help, but recognize the limitations of doing so.

Another article that I feel the tone, but don’t agree with all the points:


This weekend I talked about the problem with the anti-war position is that there is a desire for failure in Iraq to prove the point that war was wrong all along. The Vietnam stuff in here gets pretty strong…but the general points he’s making are legit. I also like Card, him and Phillip Dick are really the only sci-fi writers I’ve much enjoyed…although I’d probably like Sagan, I’ve just never read him.

Here’s an interview with Dennis Miller, which is too simplified, but again, correct in tone

All in all, there are two major and scary ironies I have found in foreign policy related to terrorism. One, the progressive position is the Republican position, while the conservative position is the Dean/Snowcroft/Gore/Clark position. For a progressive, the best criticism of Bush is one from the right: Why haven’t we gotten Osama? Why haven’t we been able to shut down terrorist financing? What are we going to do about Syria and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? These are the hard questions that Bush likes to deflect by talking about Iraq. Hussein is a lightweight compared to Osama and the fanatics in Pakistan. We still have a lot to be worried about. The fact that the $25 mill was offered for both Osama and Hussein is reflective of a mistaken prioritizing of bad guys. Osama is at least twice as problematic to the US as was Hussein.

In any case, the other irony is that Osama might actually defeat his enemy with our support. His grudge is not truly against the West—it’s really a civil war in Saudi Arabia pitting religious fanatics against the corrupt Royal family. He started out realizing the Royals had to go, they are corrupt despicable people. Instead of appealing to modern ideas of democracy, he looked around at his country and realized, they aren’t ready for democracy and won’t be for a very long time. Furthermore, democracy and freedom aren’t all that great—see what it’s done for the Arab world, they are the bottom rung of a worldwide economic system living in poverty and hopelessness. If this is globalization of democracy, fuck it! I’ll take something else. So he retreats to a cave and fundamentalism. He knows he can’t defeat the Royals while the US supports them. So what does he do? He hits the root cause of his people’s anguish, knowing he won’t win, but to stimulate a reaction. They do similar things in medical procedures. This is the basis of ultrasound treatment, sending in sound waves to torn muscles to expedite healing. The sound waves encourage the muscles to start healing faster than they ordinarily would. The direct cause of healing is more blood flowing to the muscles or something like that, but you hit the muscles, stimulate the blood, and cure the symptons – pain, inability to walk, weakness. In the Middle East, the symptoms are poverty, hopelessness, and corruption…the direct cause is the autocrats, the root cause a capitalistic system dependant on oil from a region ill prepared to modernize.

So Osama builds and plots. He’s fanatical, yes, but that’s just a role and a tactic. He sends airplanes instead of sound waves and hopes to stimulate a reaction…to cut off the US support of the Royal Family. In the long run, I think with regard to the Royals, our interests converge…the US (and I mean the people, not the Halliburtons or oil traders) will be better off without the Royals and so will the Saudis and Osama. But he’s gonna fight us until they, and any other manipulative capitalists taking advantage of the Middle East are gone. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening, and so it’s us or him.

It’s our decision to live with corruption and do our job to fix the system from within….because the sound waves Osama decided to use were cancerous…terrorism. So while talking about the intricacies of how and why we want to cure the torn hamstring (global capitalism) are relevant and important, they won’t be if we ignore the cancer…