Should We Back US War?

The case for war hinges on the distinction between democracy and despotism. Rahul Sagar Research fellow at Harvard University.
High on the list of pre-war American casualties are the liberal credentials of Christopher Hitchens, the perennial dissenter whose reports have wounded many a conservative target. Hitchens now finds himself alienated from the American left for having made the case for a war against Iraq.Citing the example of George Orwell’s personal stand against Spanish fascism, Hitchens has made the argument, and rightly so, that in the end one must have the courage to face up to evil.
In this sense then there should be no moral regard for the blind pacifism occasionally being touted at global protests. Pacifists apart, the concerns voiced by global civil society address two important issues: First, whether America’s intentions vis-a-vis Iraq are honourable or imperialistic; and second, whether the consequences of a war will actually lead to greater global instability. Underlying both issues is a deep suspicion arising particularly from scepticism about the credibility of the Bush administration, and more generally from the mixed historical record of America’s overseas interventions.
The particular sentiment influencing global civil society is not unjustified. By initiating its term with a blatant rejection of international norms and agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, the Bush administration has laid the worst possible foundation for achieving an international consensus at this juncture.
Nevertheless, the picture presented by some protestors is little more than brute anti-Americanism. It is perhaps too much to expect a hegemon to be popular, but one must acknowledge the tremendous sacrifices made by the United States, most notably during World War II and the Cold War. The champions of a global civil society would be unwise to deprecate these momentous events in the history of human freedom. And if they turn upon their own governments to ask what role liberal democracies have played in maintaining the present Iraqi regime, they will find us all partially complicit in this evil. Apart from acknowledging the source of these sentiments, the US must also clearly address the world’s concern about its intentions and the possible consequences of a war against Iraq. Thus, to the extent that America wages a war that consciously seeks to minimise collateral damage to Iraq’s economy and infrastructure, limits innocent casualties, and guarantees the birth of a constitutional liberal democracy governed for, by and in the interests of the Iraqi people, it would have shown itself to be the first hegemon in human history to forego selfishness. And if America is just in its intentions then there will also be no injustice for men like Osama bin Laden to claim as their own patrimony.
America’s critics, moreover, will then be obliged to stand its defence against those who seek to reverse progress in Iraq. The position taken by India on the question of war should obey this logic. Our foreign policy has been admirably steered in recent years though our internal deficiencies in the form of our home-grown fascists threaten to undo the achievement that is India and undermine the historical capital we have built on the basis of our remarkable Constitution.
No foreign policy directed against illiberal regimes such as Pakistan can be maintained in the face of such schizophrenia. In choosing to support action against illiberal regimes, including Pakistan and Iraq, we must, therefore, abide internally by the universal principles we claim to value before we can hope to have others sympathise with our own predicament. Given its ideological commitment to third world solidarity, India has traditionally been circumspect in its criticism of dictatorships. This can no longer hold. The case for the war on Iraq and the forthcoming cases for the war on North Korea and Pakistan hinge on this crucial distinction between the historic achievements of liberal constitutional democracies and the infamy of failed illiberal states. Just as we frustratingly plead with America to shed its association with an illiberal Pakistan, so we too must scrutinise our ties with other illiberal states. In doing so both countries will acknowledge that only established liberal democracies should be entitled to their sovereignty. Given their unique trajectories and circumstances, India and America are unlikely to always share strategic interests. Nevertheless, we must remain friends in the sense of a higher commitment to certain valuable ideals. Alliances based on interests, as we have seen by contrast, are more transient. They can unexpectedly turn sour and leave in their wake illiberal regimes whose tyranny ultimately threatens us all.
We should, in short, support America if it seeks to export the ideal of genuine liberal democracy around the world and warn it of the fate which befell earlier hegemons that chose to pursue narrow selfish interests. This position, as their friend in freedom, is what we owe them. Frankness, in other words, must be the primary virtue of our often strained but nevertheless true friendship.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhetoric apart, America has never been uneasy about dealing with despots. Mahesh Daga Assistant Editor, TOI.
Renegade radicals have a habit of turning against their former selves, and with such blind fury that ordinary mortals can barely comprehend the passion that sustains the new avatar. Call him “the perennial dissenter� if you like but Christopher Hitchins belongs in that class. But Mr Hitchins is not the only one trotting out a new moral vocabulary to justify America’s war. There is a growing tribe of evangelists around the world — including not a few in India — who think that with the Cold War passing into history, America has both the opportunity and, more importantly, the obligation to make the world a more righteous place. And if that means waging illegal, unilateral wars, then so be it. Whoever thought morality came cheap. Or that the road to paradise was a peaceful one.
Opposing Washington’s war, charge the new prophets, is tantamount to supporting Saddam’s genocidal regime; a crime on par with the historical refusal of some in Europe to fight fascism. Then as now, to be anti-war is to be pro-tyranny. “In the end, one must have the courage to face up to evil�. Unsubtle minds weaned on George W’s “with us� or “against us� theology can’t perhaps tell the difference — and can one really blame them? — but to be against the war is not the same as being pro-Saddam. Hardly anyone at the barricades today is a closet lover of Saddam’s thuggery. It is a cheap fundamentalist trick to rubbish every voice of dissent as being the devil’s but it does not behove champions of freedom to do likewise. And let’s not even mention the bullying, bribing and now, wiretapping, that the leader of the free has unleashed to bring the doubters and sceptics in line. “The coalition of the willing� — from Bush to Blair to Berlusconi — is led by men who don’t give a damn for things like protests and public opinion. But their “liberal� cheerleaders needn’t be so arrogant and heedless.
The moral case for the war against Iraq has hardly been made. Saddam Hussein is no saint, but he is no mad monster either. Besides, this world is only too full of bullies and despots, many of whom owe their life and existence to American blessings. Saddam too was a friend of the White House once, but somewhere along the line his ambitions ran ahead of him. As for democracy and decency, they have seldom been requirements for America’s “imperial dependencies�. Who can forget the Batistas, the Suhartos, the Pehlavis, the Chung Hees, not to mention the long list of military dictators in Latin America, that Washington has patronised at different times, in every part of the world? (Invoking the tremendous “sacrifices� made by the US during the Nazi era and — did we hear right? — the Cold War hardly makes a good case for why it must be trusted to do the right thing today.) While Mr Bush likes to wear his Christianity on his sleeve, his case against Saddam has been mostly a political one. In the beginning, it was the question of a pre-emptive strike against the dictator’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, then came the orchestrated noises about his alleged links with bin Laden and Al-Qaida. In between there were allusions to strategic interests, regional stability, political Islam, even a hint of vendetta (“Saddam nearly killed dad�).
But it’s only in the past few weeks, when other arguments have failed, that the focus has shifted to Saddam’s inhumanity and oppression at home. In other words, from being an example of Washington’s new strategic doctrine (of pre-emptive strike against rogue states with weapons of mass destruction), the war against Saddam has become a moral imperative. As Tony Blair put it recently, “Ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity. It is leaving him there that is inhuman.� The problem in defining the objective of the war thus is that it would set the new democratic warriors against half of humanity — without making the world any safer or better.
Truth is, the US war has no moral purpose. Contrary to Thomas Friedman’s fervent imperialist plea — Please, Mr Pre- sident, “do it right� — the Bush people have no plans of installing a “self-sustaining, progressive, accountable� government in Baghdad. At the end of the long siege, the Iraqi people will not get a democracy, but another client regime, with an obligation to carry out Washington’s strategic brief. “Armed democratisation� might be a noble aim in theory, but it has few strategic benefits in practice. A democratised Arab world is sure to be more viscerally anti-American than the pliant autocracies that currently rule in Cairo, Riyadh and elsewhere.
Those who argue that New Delhi must throw in its lot with Washington because hanging on to the apron strings of the world’s only super power will take us to the high table of global geo-politics have at least got a certain cynical realism on their side. Not that it makes their case any more convincing. As someone recently said: “The cooks in Napoleon’s army were often on the winning side; unlike the emperor’s marshals, however, they were not usually ennobled for their pains.�