In the midst of worldwide protest against an impending war with Iraq, the Bush Administration and its allies have trotted out their trump card: Both Condoleezza Rice and Tony Blair suggest that the blood of Iraqi citizens will be on the hands of those who oppose attack on a tyrant. Strong language, but the moral calculus that underlies these condemnations is flawed.

“First do no harm” is as imperative for national leaders as for physicians. An invasion of Iraq to free its people faces two powerful counterarguments. The principal war strategy involves massive bombardment of Iraqi cities. Conservative estimates suggest that 100,000 civilians will die either directly from the bombing or from the starvation that results.

The Administration cannot honestly argue that it does not target civilians when both prior experience and careful contemporary analysis foretell massive losses. If humanitarian considerations guide policy, liberation of Iraq would be planned primarily through ground combat-- even if US casualties were higher.

Iraqis aren’t clamoring for a US air attack. Though most Iraqis detest Saddam, hostility doesn’t imply eagerness to face an aerial invasion. Guardian columnist Seamus Milne comments: “Even the main US-sponsored organizations such as the Iraqi National Congress and Iraqi National Accord, which are being groomed to be part of a puppet administration, find it impossible directly to voice support for a US invasion, suggesting little enthusiasm among their potential constituency.”

Just as the Administration disregards most Iraqi voices, so too it is tone deaf to the peace movement. That movement does contain a small minority unwilling to condemn Hussein, just as the anti-Vietnam War movement included a few who flew Vietcong flags and became apologists for Vietcong atrocities. Nonetheless, the great majority of today’s protestors regard Hussein as a butcher whose rule must be contested. Indeed, Rice forgets that while the US national security establishment armed Hussein in the eighties and even helped him cover up gas attacks on the Kurds, it was only elements of the Left who opposed his rule.

If Dr. Rice left the cloistered grounds of the White House, she would learn that the anti-war movement is a virtual forum on ways to depose Saddam’s without incapacitating his subjects. (I have an e file on such alternatives I would be happy to share with interested readers. ) University of San Francisco professor Steven Zunes points out that “ In the vast majority of cases, dictatorships were toppled through massive nonviolent action, "people power" movements that faced down the tanks and guns and swept these regimes aside. Some succeeded in a dramatic contestation of public space that toppled dictators in a matter of days or weeks, such as those that brought down the Communist regimes in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, overthrew Southeast Asian strongmen like Marcos and Suharto.”

Zunes points out that, unfortunately, current Iraqi sanctions only weaken the middle class, the source of many earlier rebellions against tyrannical states. Smarter sanctions could limit weapons development while enabling poor and middle class elements to rebound.

The UN disarmament process should be allowed to continue. Imperfect as that process is, it clearly limits Iraq’s military capabilities. The world community could also recognize an Iraqi government in exile based on that entity’s openness to diverse ideological and ethnic factions. That government could be granted access to growing portions of the oil for peace revenues and administrative control over areas of northern Iraq already essentially outside of Saddam’s orbit. War crimes indictments against Saddam and his closest allies could be sought even as amnesty is granted to others further down the chain of command. Such strategies would both encourage splits within the regime and help constitute alternatives to that leadership.

The most immediate task in curbing terror lies in an evenhanded resolution of the Israel/Palestinian conflict. The resolution of that conflict is unlikely without an international police presence to enforce secure borders and sanction terrorism. Such a peace process can model broader standards regarding border conflicts, human rights, and terrorism.

At some point, removal of tyrants like Hussein by military means might be appropriate or necessary. But where such actions are taken on the basis of regularly debated standards enforced by international authority, the risks occasioned by resistance to an occupying power or by inciting new generations of ethnically and religiously based terror are lessened.

No one should imagine that this agenda is easy, sure to spare all innocent life, or without continuing controversy. But the heart of this moral vision is its willingness to acknowledge its own limits. It stands in stark contrast to Bush’s. Like Rome at the height of its imperial power, the US under Bush would reduce the world to one monochromatic desert and call it peace. But genuine peace requires the collaborative development and periodic revision of standards of international law and practice. These cannot be ordained and imposed by one leader or nation. They will work and survive only as they are the product or a more democratic politics both within and among nations.

John Buell (jbuell@acadia.net) is a columnist for the Bangor Daily News

Mr. Buell,

I take great issue with your comments. Your Answering Moral Blackmail article. Below is your passages and some comments on them.

“Just as the Administration disregards most Iraqi voices, so too it is tone deaf to the peace movement. That movement does contain a small minority unwilling to condemn Hussein, just as the anti-Vietnam War movement included a few who flew Vietcong flags and became apologists for Vietcong atrocities. Nonetheless, the great majority of today’s protestors regard Hussein as a butcher whose rule must be contested. Indeed, Rice forgets that while the US national security establishment armed Hussein in the eighties and even helped him cover up gas attacks on the Kurds, it was only elements of the Left who opposed his rule. “

How can you say that was only elements on the left that opposed his rule for 20+ years and in the same breath after a MILLION and a half DEAD verified by international community and many leftist groups, decide that its okay for him to stay? And plainly the left hasn't scared him into disarming or stopping him from killing his own people with there “opposition” for the last 20+ years. Is your suggestion for stopping Saddam let him get old and gray and kill millions more like the fine examples you gave in this paragraph as an example of how peace can overthrow a dictator? ;

[If Dr. Rice left the cloistered grounds of the White House, she would learn that the anti-war movement is a virtual forum on ways to depose Saddam’s without incapacitating his subjects. (I have an e file on such alternatives I would be happy to share with interested readers. ) University of San Francisco professor Steven Zunes points out that “ In the vast majority of cases, dictatorships were toppled through massive nonviolent action, "people power" movements that faced down the tanks and guns and swept these regimes aside. Some succeeded in a dramatic contestation of public space that toppled dictators in a matter of days or weeks, such as those that brought down the Communist regimes in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, overthrew Southeast Asian strongmen like Marcos and Suharto.” ]

I lived in the Philippines during part of the rule of Marcos and Suharto. They only gave up power in their final days because being too weak and feeble to keep control. But not before Suharto killed 4 million people and Marcos stole billions. East Germany, and Czechoslovakia are free yes i agree but not in days or weeks. It took years with the constent presence of American Troops from Germany to Guam to hold them in check. If we hadn't freed all of their neighbors they would still be under that rule. Let us not ever forget that United states gave up 500,000+ soldiers in world war I & II instead of letting the dictators die of old age while killing millions of people. Germany, Austria France, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Liechtenstein, China, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Japan, Italy, Greece, Spain, Solomon islands, Indonesia, Korea, Philippines, and all countries in North Africa to just name a few. Germany, and Japan were defeated by war not waiting for them to dissipate or die of old age. We not only conquered them but we rebuilt them. Japan is the second largest economy on the planet. Germany is not far behind. Europe in just 58 short years is a prosperous peaceful place after the UNITED STATES FREED them. America did this by going to war to stop terror. My grandfather fought in China for 39 months. I have been to several of the Flying Tigers conventions with him. I am proud of him and this country for not shrinking at the responsibility they faced. Maybe you should read a few history books and watch a few of the old war films showing how tough it was for us to defeat the AXIS of evil. While I am glad to see we have used war as a last resort in this case it is clear that after 12 years and thousands of murders of his own people and years of ruthless rule he must go.

Weakness and inaction never deters terror. In fact history has shown us that it actually encourages it. Terror is not new it has been used for thousands of years. Attila the Hun killed millions using terror over a thousand years ago. Your statement below indicates we should curb terror when it won’t offend terrorist or terrorist nations as much. When might that be? It’s easy to say a blanket empty statement like this. I will afford you the benefit of the doubt please send me your litany of ways to make us safe without actually enforcing the international law the UN has handed down in 1441. Yes war is bad but history has shown us inaction is much worse.


“The most immediate task in curbing terror lies in an evenhanded resolution of the Israel/Palestinian conflict. The resolution of that conflict is unlikely without an international police presence to enforce secure borders and sanction terrorism. Such a peace process can model broader standards regarding border conflicts, human rights, and terrorism.”

Dane Hoover

Gee, Marcos and Suharto, huh?

Is that the same Marcos that we sent C130's over to fill with his and his wacky wife's booty when he high-tailed it out of Manilla, after propping up his pathetic regime and stifling efforts at real democracy for years?

And is that the same Suharto that Ford and Kissinger gave the go-ahead to for the invasion of East Timor...after which our foreign policy denizens cheered the slaughter of hundreds of thousands and continued to support him for years until he was no longer palatable to his own people?

Is that the Marcos and Suharto you are referring to?

Spare us the pontificating bullshit, pal...we know history, apparently better than you do.

"How can you say that was only elements on the left that opposed his rule for 20+ years and in the same breath after a MILLION and a half DEAD verified by international community and many leftist groups, decide that its okay for him to stay?"

Their deaths were largely the result of U.S. sanctions.