|
A US Invasion of Iraq Can Be Stopped
by Stephen Zunes
|
Despite increased preparation for war, there is a growing
perception that a U.S. invasion of Iraq can be stopped.
|
There is little question that were it not for the anti-war
movement, the United States would have gone to war against
Iraq already. It was the strength of opposition to plans
for a unilateral U.S. invasion that forced the Bush
administration to go to the UN in the first place. So far,
Iraqi compliance with the United Nations weapons inspectors
has made it extremely difficult for the administration to
proceed with its war plans.
UN Security Council resolution 1441 - written by and pushed
through by the United States to strengthen the power of UN
inspections and weaken the ability of Iraq to evade
them - was modified before passage so that military action
to enforce the resolution is possible only with explicit
Security Council authorization. In order for such
authorization to go forward, Iraq would have to do
something rather brazen and stupid which - while it
certainly cannot be ruled out - has thus far forced a
reluctant Saddam Hussein to cooperate with the new
inspections regime.
This does not mean that the Bush administration - which has
repeatedly shown its contempt for international law - would
not proceed with an invasion anyway. In October, the U.S.
Congress, with support of both the Republican and
Democratic leadership, granted President Bush the authority
to invade Iraq without UN Security Council authorization.
This war resolution was illegal, however, since such an
invasion would violate the United Nations Charter, which
was signed and ratified by the United States; Article VI of
the U.S. Constitution declares such international treaties
as "supreme law."
The Bush administration has demonstrated, however, that it
does not have great respect for the Constitution either.
What, then, might be able to stop an invasion?
Again, it would be the strength of anti-war opposition.
Already, a number of Democrats who supported the war
resolution and then saw their party lose miserably in the
November elections, are now arguing against a rush to war.
Among their fears is that a resurgent and clearly anti-war
Green Party could capture enough liberal votes to cause the
Democrats' defeat in the 2004 election.
Some top military brass and career officials in the
Department of Defense are quietly but firmly expressing
their opposition to the war, recognizing that an invasion
of Iraq would be the most complicated and bloody U.S.
military operation since Vietnam. This, in turn, would
strengthen anti-war opposition further. The Vietnam War
taught the U.S. military that it should not fight in any
major war without the backing of the majority of the
American public. Currently, the U.S. military is one of the
most respected institutions in America. It does not want to
go back to the days when military recruiters could not even
show up on college campuses without demonstrations breaking
out. As military officials, they will certainly obey the
orders of their commander-in-chief if called into combat.
However, the more anti-war forces grow, the greater the
U.S. military will be concerned about its own institutional
self-preservation.
The intelligence wing of the Central Intelligence
Agency - unlike the operations wing - is composed largely of
professionals whose concerns are less ideological. They are
focused instead on how to protect American security. CIA
cost/benefit analyses have shown that a U.S. invasion of
Iraq would threaten rather than protect American interests.
In effect, we have the ironic situation where the peace
movement finds some of its most significant allies are the
Pentagon and the CIA. These very influential actors in
foreign policy decisionmaking could potentially allow
cooler heads to prevail. Indeed, they are joined in their
opposition by top foreign and defense policy officials from
former Republican administrations, including Lawrence
Eagleburger, Brent Scowcroft, and retired General Anthony
Zinni.
There is also the international factor: While a number of
America's key European allies are willing to grant rights
to use bases on their soil for re-supply and to provide
other logistical assistance for war against Iraq in the
event of United Nations authorization, they are skeptical
about a unilateral U.S. invasion. Public opinion polls in
Europe show scant support for U.S. military action without
UN authorization.
In the U.S., public opinion polls have consistently shown
that while the majority of Americans support a U.S.
invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein, only a minority
support a war without authorization from the United Nations
or active participation of allied militaries, or one that
results in high American casualties. Since all three of
these appear very likely, it is not unreasonable to assert
that the majority of the American public opposes the Bush
administration's plans to unilaterally launch a pre-emptive
invasion of Iraq. Indeed, polls have shown support for war
declining.
The anti-war movement is strong and is growing. Already,
the demonstrations against a U.S. invasion of Iraq - which
hasn't yet happened - have been larger than those against
the Vietnam War during the first three years of heavy
fighting by American soldiers. Anti-war activities on
college campuses are also significantly greater than during
that same period. This is particularly significant since
this comes despite the fact that today's college students
do not fear for their personal safety through the draft.
The Roman Catholic bishops and virtually all major
Protestant denominations have come out against a U.S.
invasion, whereas it was not until the last few years of
the Vietnam War that so many churches came out with an
anti-war position. While the U.S. labor movement was
hawkish to the bitter end of the Vietnam War, several major
labor unions are also now on record in opposition to a U.S.
invasion of Iraq.
The economic impact of an invasion of Iraq - which could
costs upwards of $200 billion and could be significantly
more should there be a long-term U.S. military occupation
and administration - has raised serious concerns among
economists and business leaders. As the federal deficit
grows, domestic programs are cut, and states are struggling
with unprecedented deficits, the economic impact of the war
could be staggering. On January 13, a group of Republican
businessmen took out a full-page ad in the Wall Street
Journal denouncing the war. And a number of governors
facing huge budget shortfalls have joined the ranks of
administration critics.
Today's anti-war movement is far more diverse in terms of
women and people of color in positions of leadership.
Increasing numbers of poor and working class people are
becoming involved in anti-war activities, recognizing that
it is their loved ones who will be doing most of fighting
and dying and it is they who will be disproportionately
affected by the inevitable cutbacks in social programs made
necessary by this incredibly expensive military adventure.
The diverse age range of the anti-war movement is also a
significant indicator of its strength, blending the
experience of activists from the 1960s and earlier with the
energy and creativity of younger activists.
Despite all this, the Bush administration may still decide
to forge ahead with its planned invasion. It is far from
inevitable, however, and there are increasing signs that
this war can indeed be stopped before it starts.
- – Stephen Zunes
Stephen Zunes is an associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He is Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project and is the author of the recently released book Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism
|
|
