The Two Essential Steps Needed to Turn Iraq into a Peace-Loving CountryNews Abroad
The disarmament of Iraq is our aim, we say. And surely even if there's some slippage between our public statements and true motives, reducing the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) seems like a good idea.
Previous inspections for WMD in Saddam Hussein's Iraq failed because the Iraqis refused to cooperate and the inspectors were too few and too weakly supported to overcome Iraqi resistance. But even if the inspections had succeeded in the short term, a high-cost, intrusive inspection program could not have continued indefinitely.
So now we're going to try something else: regime change through conquest. Forcing out Hussein and his loyalists should allow the United States and its coalition partners to eliminate Iraq's present WMD capacity. But disarmament is difficult to sustain, even with total victory. What's necessary is the creation of a social and political aversion to weapons of mass destruction in New Iraq like that which developed in Japan after World War II.
Japan today could easily produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in large quantities in short order, but it has not done so. The Japanese population is deeply opposed to such weapons, owing to its unique experience as the targets of the only nuclear weapons ever used in war and to its suffering from conventional bombing. As a result, Japanese politicians have found alternative methods of defense through alliance and diplomacy.
There are two principal components to creating a WMD-averse environment, both essentially psychological: a sense of the humanity of opposing forces or neighboring populations, and confidence that one's defensive situation is not desperate. The United States fostered this attitude in Japan after 1945 by demonstrating the inhumanity of WMD, by creating a popular democratic and antiwar constitution for Japan, by committing itself to defend Japan, by supporting economic growth and by working to promote regional stabilization and democratization.
The vast majority of the Japanese public still believes that WMD -- and aggressive wars -- are unacceptable, and Japanese political leaders work hard to maintain strong diplomatic relationships with the United States and with the other Asian nations.
Both of those elements are fundamentally lacking in Iraq and have been since before the first Gulf War. This leaves us the question of whether we can replicate the dramatic turnaround of Japan in Iraq.
The only way that Gulf War II will succeed in long-term disarmament is if the United States can stabilize the political situation in Iraq and in the region to make WMD unnecessary and undesirable. Not only must we remove Saddam Hussein, we need to make certain that another aggressive and autocratic leader does not become popular. Not only must we eliminate WMD, but we must make the people of Iraq secure enough to be satisfied with conventional defenses.
If we fail, we face a potential disaster like that we helped to create in Germany after World War I. The Allies effectively disarmed Germany and dismantled its war industries. According to the 1919 Versailles treaty, Germany was forbidden to maintain substantial military forces. It was contained and democratized. But political parties in Germany established large private paramilitary forces. The Nazi movement transformed the Weimar Republic into single-party totalitarianism in 1933 by exploiting political deadlock and a sense of economic and social crisis.
The Nazi regime unilaterally abrogated the disarmament clauses of the Versailles treaty in 1936. International reaction was mixed but ultimately limited to a few harsh words. The United States was then uninterested in the problems of "old Europe," problems that had cost so much to fix in World War I. The League of Nations, also struggling with the invasion of Manchuria by Japan in 1932 and the invasion of Ethiopia by Italy in 1935, did little.
Germany then embarked on full-scale rearmament. With Germanys advanced industrial economy, military redevelopment was rapid. The Allies disarmed Germany completely after the World War I but still had to fight a second war twenty years later against another sophisticated and powerful German military.
The United States and the coalition against Saddam Hussein must commit to rebuilding Iraq's social, economic and political infrastructure, so that New Iraq does not have German-like lingering resentments or weaknesses to exploit. This means addressing Iraq's internal tensions and creating meaningful participatory political systems. But unless the region is stable, New Iraq will still not be secure, so we must commit to active and multilateral engagement in the region. This will not be easy: after all, we have fought two major wars in Asia since 1945, the Korean War (1950-1953) and the conflict in Vietnam (1954-1975), and still maintain a significant and active military presence in Korea.
But the alternative -- conquest followed by disengagement -- risks the catastrophe of repeating the mistakes that led to World War II.
comments powered by Disqus
Josh Greenland - 4/5/2003
How many steps will be needed to turn the US into a peace-loving country?
Jonathan Dresner - 4/1/2003
Just because Japan's anti-nuclear stance has a strong connection to its experience of nuclear weapons does not mean that it is essential for a country to experience nuclear weapons in order to be against them. For example, New Zealand also has a strong anti-nuclear weapons policy. And the vast majority of Japan's population today was not even alive in 1945, so direct experience is not a necessary precondition for opposition.
Nor is guilt. Japan has struggled for decades with the question of responsibility for WWII, and so far the majority of Japanese, both in politics and elsewhere, have successfully avoided the conclusion that Japan was more responsible than any other party for what happened in the 1930s and 1940s.
In fact, guilt may be a liability: one of the chief flaws of the post-WWI settlement were the "guilt clauses" in the Paris settlement, which lay the blame for the war entirely on Germany, when there was plenty of blame to go around.
What I am trying to argue is that, no matter how we win the war, it is our long-term engagement with Iraq and the Persian Gulf region that will determine the long-term result. And we must commit to long-term engagement now, in order to avoid the error of disengagement which we've made before.
Angie - 4/1/2003
I see a serious flaw with this article. It suggests that the only way a country will learn to abandon WMD's is to use them agaist said country.
Even if we bypass this serious moral injustice...lets remember that Iraq is not Japan. For one thing, Japan attacked us first, so they could at least see how aggression only leads to suffering. Iraq never attacked the US so the link isn't there. If anything Iraq will simply dislike the US even more. In this instance they better resemble Germany after WWI. Simply biding their time until they can counter attack. Not a good idea.
Nicholas von Hoffman - 3/31/2003
Mr. Dresner has come up with a corking good idea. Teach the Iraqis to eschew WMDs as the Japanese were taught. Give 'em a snootful of poison gas, a squirt of anthrax and a shot from a small tac nuke. We'll not need to concern ourselves about the little buggers ever again.
- When Jim Crow Reigned Amid the Rubble of Nazi Germany
- Why Suburban American Homeowners Were Accused of Being a 'Profit-Making Cartel' in the 1970s
- Animals large and small once covered North America’s prairies – and in some places, they could again
- Library of Congress acquires major archive of African American photographer Shawn Walker
- A farm boy became a fearsome warrior at Iwo Jima. And he did it with a flamethrower.
- Trump and the Christians: Evangelical historian John Fea on decoding the great paradox
- Six historians weigh in on the biggest misconceptions about black history
- Renowned presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin finally takes on George Washington
- Legal Historian Jed Shugerman Says William Barr's Actions Are "Remarkably Not Normal"
- Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat Quoted in Washington Post Article on Trump's Quest to Rewrite History