I'm not one to use the word "evil" lightly. Even about war: although war inevitably leads to the doing of evil things (sometimes by intent, sometimes by accident, and sometimes as an unavoidable side-effect), I believe that there are circumstances (such as when we were attacked in WWII, or when Saddam's egomania led him to try to conquer the Middle East) in which the declaration and prosecution of war are not, themselves, "evil".
But sometimes they are, and I believe that's the case with Iraq. For two major reasons: one "legal", and one "moral".
In the aftermath of WWII, most of the nations of the world sought a way to prevent a repetition of the horrors that were still fresh in their minds, and came up with the UN Charter. The signatories (including the U.S.) agreed that they would only go to war:
a. To defend themselves if attacked by another nation, or
b. If the UNSC decided military action against another state was needed.
Over the years, a broad (but not universal) consensus has emerged that, in an age of WMD, a nation can construe "a." to include acting to stop/preempt an attack before it causes what could be millions of innocent casualties, instead of having to absorb the blow before fighting back (which is what the text literally requires).
Like every human-designed system, this has sometimes worked well, and sometimes worked very badly. The UN has stood idly by as evil people perpetrated monstrous atrocities because they were cunning enough to keep them within their own national borders, or had allies among the veto-holding powers who could stymie the UNSC.
Overall, though, the rule of "don't throw a punch until you at least see the other guy swinging" is about the best we've come up with so far for preventing both bar fights and wars. And it's the one that we, as a nation, agreed to live by when we ratified the UN Charter as part of our own "supreme law of the land".
On the "moral" side: partly because I live in a "military community" where the largest-by-far "industry" is the adjacent Army base, and partly because I've personally suffered the untimely loss of people dear to me, I'm acutely conscious of the fact that the oath our soldiers take to interpose themselves between us and the people who want to harm us carries a reciprocal obligation to not exploit their willingness to sacrifice lightly. The decision to go to war is the most serious one a nation can make, and demands that the people be as certain as possible that it's absolutely necessary.
So, how do these criteria make the Iraq war, not just a cause of "evil", but "evil" per se? Let's look at the legal aspect first.
The Bushies have gone to great lengths to deny their public efforts to insinuate that Iraq was an "imminent" threat (just as they have with their efforts to create a subconscious link between Saddam and 9/11). Over the years, I've argued that this is downright bizarre, because it amounts to an admission that the invasion was a "war crime" that clearly violates the "No First Punch" rule.
While those of us in the public might argue that the Bushies' insinuations led them to believe, incorrectly, that there was something in the unrevealed intelligence supporting the "imminence" of the threat, we now know that the NIE given to Congress included a "judgement" that Saddam wouldn't use or share his (hypothetical) WMDs unless his back was really against the wall because he was (rightly) afraid of retaliation.
In other words, the best information available to Congress at the time of the AUMF vote said that Iraq was not a threat that would justify military action under our laws. That makes a vote for the AUMF at least arguably a violation of their oath of office.
Now, what about that "moral obligation" to the troops? As far as I know (and I haven't researched this, so there are probably statements I don't know about), only one Congresscritter has told the press that he read the entire NIE before voting, while several have admitted that they didn't. I have no idea about the others: feel free to post information about them. But my contention (which I'm sure some will disagree with) is that those who didn't blew off their obligation to fully and carefully consider a vote that will turn out to be the most important of many of their careers. And that that failure should be considered "career-ending".
So, why haven't they been called on this (even by people who don't take as harsh a view of it as I do)? I think the answer, in large part, is that the American public also blew off its obligations.
We know, from this analysis of 2003 polls, that most of the support for the Iraq war came from people who people who believed things that simply weren't true, and which were contrary to facts that were readily available to anyone willing to spend a couple of hours on the net (or in a public library whose periodical collection wasn't donated by the local sporting goods store).
The ugly truth is that the neo-cons were able to sell the Iraq war because about half the country spent more time picking their fantasy sports league teams, their slots in the American Idol betting pools, or their big-screen TVs than they did on deciding whether it was a good idea to send people off to kill and die on our behalf.
This has already hurt our ability to find people willing to make those sacrifices. We can't afford to send the message to others contemplating that choice that we think it's okay to promote to Commander-in-Chief someone who won't give the decisions about whether to put them at the ultimate risk the time and attention they deserve.
Comments are closed on this story.