James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, can be ordered directly from Winepress Publishers — 1-877-421-READ (7323); $12.95, plus S&H. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at jkfitz42@aol.com.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
It indicates that the losing side in a debate over public policy will abide by the results of the political process and not resort to violence to achieve its ends.
Catholics with conservative political views are entitled to take some satisfaction from the way their side is debating the question of whether we should go to war with Saddam Hussein. Conservative columnists and commentators are debating the question admirably, coherently and vigorously, with a clear commitment to both the United States’ national interests and the moral dimension to the issue. Maybe we would win more elections if it were otherwise, but it is clear that our side does not adhere to a “party line.”
Hence there will be nothing on the American right comparable to what took place on the left during the years before World War II, when one of the most notorious flip-flops of all time occurred, as American Marxists pushed to keep the United States from initiating hostilities against Nazi Germany during the months when Germany and the Soviet Union were aligned through the Hitler-Stalin Pact, but then changed their tune as soon as Hitler attacked the Soviet Union in 1940. The American left reversed itself, pushing for the United States to ally itself with Stalin against the Nazis.
No, our side is arguing candidly and forcefully, both for and against a war with Iraq. The results are invaluable. We are being given the background and perspective we will need to make up our minds about whether such a conflict will be a just war and worthy of our support. We will have intelligent things to say when we seek to influence friends around the water cooler, wire our representative in the Congress or try to shape the debate by writing local newspapers to register our views.
Joseph Sobran has been forceful in his opposition to an invasion of Iraq. In his Washington Watch column in The Wanderer, he wrote, “One can conceive of circumstances when a pre-emptive war would be a just war. If your enemy is clearly poised to strike, you would be a fool not to strike first. But that doesn’t come within a mile of the present case. We are talking about an optional, discretionary, and wholly unnecessary war.” Sobran is convinced that Saddam Hussein has neither “any plan to attack the United States,” nor the means to attack if he wanted to.
Samuel Francis argues similarly, maintaining that Saddam’s “arsenal of missiles is virtually non-existent” and that he has “no means to deliver the chemical and biological weapons he probably does have.” Francis also points out that “there’s no evidence he’s supported any terrorist groups or activities.”
Complicating the scenario for Francis is his conviction that a “war with Iraq, so far from leading to the triumph of democracy, could easily destabilize and bring a larger and longer war to the entire Middle East and suck the United States into decades-long conflicts that are none of our concern.” He argues that the pressure for war is being initiated in the main by “the Israeli lobby, which is licking its whiskers for a good, bloody war against Iraq.” This is, of course, also the case that Patrick Buchanan has been arguing for many months. Charley Russell makes the same case.
Stephen Chapman is equally determined to silence the war drums. He points out that “Iraq is not one of those trouble spots, like Grenada or Panama, where we can arrive, take down the bad guys, and be home in time for dinner.” He cites a study done by the Brookings Institute, which estimates that 100,000 U.S. troops will be needed to invade Iraq, and that as soon as Saddam is defeated, “we’ll have a migraine headache to deal with: demands for independence from Kurds in the north and Muslim Shiites in the South.
In summary, says Chapman, “Americans have a great stake in containing Saddam Hussein’s aggressive instincts and deterring his use of weapons of mass destruction. But we have nothing to justify occupying Iraq and staying there as long as necessary to remake it in our image. The U.S. government is going to realize that reality sooner or later. Better to do so before we jump into the quagmire.”
Makes a lot of sense. Until you consider the words of William Rusher, one of the pioneers of the conservative movement and one of its clearest thinkers. Then second thoughts arise. Rusher understands the objections of those who see potential pitfalls to an invasion of Iraq, but feels their concerns “pale into insignificance when considered in the light of the testimony of a defected Iraqi nuclear physicist, who estimated that Saddam Hussein has enough fissionable materials, and enough scientists with the technical know-how, to produce two or three nuclear bombs within three years.”
What, says Rusher, if Saddam uses these materials “to plant one of his nuclear bombs in some major American city, to be detonated there on his order? He could then send a letter to President Bush (or his successor, since this will be in 2005 or thereafter) advising him of this fact and warning him that it will be detonated if America attacks Iraq or interferes unacceptably with any future moves Iraq may make.”
At that point, Rusher continues, “We would simply have to live, thereafter, with the sickening realization that all hope of ousting Saddam at an acceptable cost was gone. From that point forward, U.S. foreign policy would be hostage, permanently, to the approval of Saddam Hussein. If we miscalculated and displeased him beyond endurance, some major American city – probably but not necessarily New York or Washington – would be vaporized at a cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives.”
Walter Williams agrees: He refuses to wait “until a chemical or bacteriological attack kills millions of Americans or a ‘dirty bomb’ makes one of our cities uninhabitable for 100 years…if I see someone building a cannon aimed at my house, I’m not going to wait for him to fire it. I would eliminate him and anyone else in his house before he gets a chance to fire it.”
David Limbaugh takes a similar stance. He feels that Saddam has demonstrated his hostile intentions sufficiently to warrant a pre-emptive strike. He disagrees with those who argue that “we mustn’t invade Iraq unless we can establish a nexus between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda,” the terrorist organization responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. “We needn’t saddle ourselves with this artificial burden,” says Limbaugh, because we “know that Saddam supports the disruptive and murderous activities of terrorists against the United States and Israel. Saddam himself launched Scud missiles at Israel utterly without provocation during the Persian Gulf War.”
Moreover, Limbaugh continues, “Even if he didn’t organize or subsidize the Sept. 11 attacks, he will do everything he can to encourage and abet terrorist activities in the future. That’s all the justification we need,” according to just war theory, “for U.S. action against terrorists and those regimes that harbor or support them.”
Limbaugh proposes a hypothetical to reinforce his point: “Let’s assume that we had been tipped off about the Sept. 11 attacks in advance and knew precisely where the terrorists were training in preparation for the atrocities. Would we have been morally constrained to await their attacks before swooping down on their training camps with heavy ordnance? I think not.”
Neither do I. In fact, I can’t imagine anyone short of a pacifist who would disagree with Limbaugh on this point. The question is whether his analogy is apt.
There will be interesting days ahead, as this debate proceeds. The task for the Bush administration, if it decides to push for an invasion of Iraq, will be to demonstrate to the American people that the current Iraqi regime poses the threat that Limbaugh and Rusher think it does. That will be the fulcrum point.
