January 02, 2003

I have read more times than I care to tally that a powerful reason that we should not invade Iraq is because it would involve the death of 'hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and children.' The first few times I saw this objection, I dismissed it off-hand as absurd, but since I keep hearing it repeatedly from anti-war folks, I'd like to lay out exactly what's wrong with this argument. First of all, these sorts of arguments almost always involve a vast inflation of the probable number of civilian casualties; the arguer seems to be making the assumption that we're going to be carpet-bombing Iraq's cities, with the express purpose of killing as many civilians (and, of course, innocent children) as possible. It's far more likely that the number of Iraqi civilian casualties will be akin to the number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan, credible estimates for which hover around two or three hundred. Tragic, but how much did our destruction of the Taliban improve life for the remaining ~99.99999%? And of course, that's the heart of the problem with this argument. Assuming the objectors really do have only the best interests of the Iraqi populace in mind (dubious in some cases, but we'll grant them the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument), the question that needs to be asked is, Is it better for the Iraqi populace if we don't invade and occupy the country, or if we do? For some bizarre reason (or not so bizarre, if the aforementioned dubious assumption is not granted), this question seems to never be asked in anti-war circles. Yes, it is no doubt true that if we attack, some innocent civilians will die. Collateral damage will be minimized as it was in Afghanistan, and with the excellent precision of modern smart bombs and complete air superiority and constant satellite and UAV reconaissance, the number should be vanishingly small. It will still be tragic that some civilians will die as a result of our actions (and I have somewhat less pity for the imbeciles from western countries that are volunteering to stand in front of Iraqi military facilities as human shields), no argument there. But, overall, is it better for the Iraqi civilians as a whole, if we attack, or if we stand down? Talking to Iraqis who have managed to flee the country, the answer becomes crystal clear. Saddam Hussein's regime is brutal to the point of madness, a place of unbelievable savagery and pain. The citizens live in continual paralyzing fear of Saddam, to the point that they fear to so much as speak a single ill word of him. Dissent is crushed ruthlessly and the dissenters murdered; Saddam rules with an iron fist. Torture is routine. Saddam has used nerve gas on his own populace. For the wives and daughters of political dissidents and other 'undesirables,' the Iraqi government has a Department of Rape. Just that last fact alone should make the answer to the question obvious. Let me say again: Saddam Hussein has a Department of Rape. I heard one prominent feminist or another pontificating about how she opposed the war in Iraq 'as a mother.' She had children, she informed her listeners, and she feared for the Iraqi women and children if we were to invade. Whether she is uninformed or simply an idiot, I would like to tell her and all the sanctimonious blowhards like her that SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS A DEPARTMENT OF RAPE. (Am I the only one that finds it darkly ironic that just about all the prominent feminists in the West were deeply opposed to the war in Afghanistan, against a regime that was such a blatant and savage repressor of women?) Occupying Iraq, even if something goes terribly wrong in the invasion and several thousand innocent Iraqi civilians die, will make life so much better for the populace that it is absolutely ethical to do so. Why else would nearly all Iraqis living in the West be so fervently supportive of invasion? Why else would Iraqis in Iraq, when promised anonymity, wish for nothing else but Saddam's overthrow? I'll tell you why. Because Saddam is a brutal, evil tyrant, and life will be enormously better for them once he's gone. thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 11:56 PM | Permalink |