News and Views from the Dismal Science

Dr. Econ's commentary on local, regional, national, and global economic affairs
Why Go To War?

by Jurgen Brauer, March 2003
Copyright: J. Brauer. No reproduction without permission.

I am not sure that I am opposed in principle to the US going to war against Iraq. But neither I am sure why I should be for it. What worries me is that the Bush team wants to go to war for the wrong reason, just as I worry, deeply, that anti-war proponents want "peace" for the wrong reason, also.

Take the Bush line first. Iraq is dangerous, it is said. So are the French. No, Iraq has dangerous intentions! So does Israel. No, no, no. Dangerous intentions against the US. Really? If so, so does North Korea. If every dangerous intention resulted in war, the world would be in bad shape. Saddam Hussein is a dictator, Bush says. That he is. And so is Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

But what about ‘the terrorists'? Well, what about them? I figure that any self-respecting terrorist does not need Saddam Hussein's assistance. Indeed, I figure that any smart terrorist had better not rely on Saddam Hussein at all. And, at any rate, Colombian cocaine terrorizes the US far more than terrorists ever will, and costs us far more as well.

I figure that any self-respecting terrorist does not need Saddam Hussein's assistance. Indeed, I figure that any smart terrorist had better not rely on him at all.
So, no, I am not convinced that war is needed. But neither am I clear on what anti-war people want. Consider this: Human Rights Watch – generally no friend of US administrations – reports that since 1979, when Hussein came to power, some 290,000 Iraqi people have "disappeared," human rights lingo for "killed for political reasons." We also know that Hussein has wrought environmental disaster in Iraq, draining what once was a fantastic and unique marshland ecosystem and creating several tens of thousands of environmental refugees who, conveniently, happened to be his internal enemies anyway (they belong to the "wrong" branch of Islam). We further know that the so-called sanctions, which the stalwart defenders of the peace presumably want to continue, have resulted in several hundred thousand deaths among defenseless Iraqi children – The Economist magazine estimates 360,000 – while Hussein only added to his ample girth.

In a word, Saddam Hussein is evil but so are the 12-year sanctions. I will say categorically that fighting a war with Iraq now will not result in the 650,000 deaths that Hussein and "peaceful" sanctions have already cost Iraq and will continue to cost Iraq if Hussein is permitted to stay on. International peace with Iraq means continued war and death in Iraq! It is immoral for the world community to turn a blind eye.

The case for war has not been made; and the case for peace continues to imprison defenseless Iraqis to Hussein's wrath.
The case for war has not been made; and the case for peace continues to imprison defenseless Iraqis. In other words, "war or not?" is the wrong question, one moreover that is now converted into disgraceful horse trading at the UN Security Council that has everything to do with payoff promises to the likes of Angola (more millions into the pockets of Dos Santos, its president), and very little with the dictator in Iraq and the condition of the Iraqi people.

The only relevant question is this: what viable alternatives are there by which Iraq is rid of its dictator and its people can resume a semblance of life? Yes, going to war can be an answer - to Hitler for example - but isn't an answer in this case (nor was it the reason why the US entered World War II). And, no, turning a blind eye, for the sake of "peace," is not an answer either. If the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 enshrined the notion of national sovereignty, it is long past time to undo such terrible peace.

It is ironic that the Security Council's "serious consequences" have affected Saddam Hussein less than they have NATO, the EU, and the UN. To get out of this morass the smooth-tongued, three-pieced diplomats who are presently losing their cool need not to think of "war" or "peace" but of viable alternatives that will pry Hussein and his ilk out of power and into a human rights court. Regrettably, the US has refused to sign the treaty establishing an International Criminal Court. To have done so then would do us a lot of good now.

The stated reasons for going to war are weak; and so are the reason for staying with a blind and costly peace. Let us resolve to write columns on viable alternatives to either. And soon!


Dr. J. Brauer is Professor of Economics at Augusta State University's College of Business Administration. He can best be reached via his web site (http://www.aug.edu/~sbajmb).