Means, Motives and Morality

The recent commotion about the possibility of bombing Iraq calls for a reasoned examination of objectives and tactics. A consideration of America's stated goals in Iraq specifically and the Middle East generally reveals that these objectives are best achieved by means other than bombing and engaging in mass destruction. Bombing Iraq is hardly the most effective measure and serves only to exacerbate instability in the region and fuel growing resentment against the U.S.

If our chief objective in Iraq is to facilitate United Nations' arms inspections, bombing the country is not the most sensible approach. The Hussein regime has allowed some U.N. weapons inspectors, but objects to certain inspection units due to a perceived anti-Iraq bias. Finding competent and neutral inspectors whom both the U.N. and Iraq can agree upon is not impossible. Consulting the Iraqis puts the ball in their court and pushes them to show commitment to fair and just inspections.

If we aim to remove Saddam Hussein from power, mass destruction is not the most appropriate technique. The Gulf War caused significant Iraqi losses, but Hussein remains in office. Some commentators have suggested that the U.S. support an internal rebellion in Iraq and use domestic divisions to bring about a change in leadership. The examples of American involvement in Afghanistan and in Nicaragua indicate that Washington is familiar with using civil war to pursue its policy ends.

Some advocates for air raids believe that bombing will worsen conditions in Iraq to the point that the Iraqi people will rebel. Statistics, however, show that the Iraqi situation could hardly get worse than it is now. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization reports that sanctions have led to the deaths of more than 560,000 Iraqi children--a total greater than the death toll of Bosnian genocide. In a country of 20 million, 1 million have died since 1990. The truth of the matter is that suffering caused by bombing will only add to already overwhelming misery. Bombing Iraq once again, especially if Iraq does not first attack another country, will just add to the growing resentment of the U.S. in the region. America is a foreign power exerting increasing influence, and the people of the Arab world notice the threat to their sovereignty.

Opposition movements gain popular support when governments are seen as playing into American hands, and this phenomenon adds to the instability of the Middle East. If the U.S. wants real stability and not tenuous regimes, we must be willing to honor self-determination, even if the results at first make us uncomfortable.

The possibility of bombing also raises moral issues that warrant serious consideration. Iraq is a country in crisis, and its people are in desperate condition despite the protection their rulers might enjoy. Health care facilities have suffered due to sanctions, and the risk of a child under five dying has risen nearly 500 percent in recent times. About 160 children die each day due to food shortages. Bombing such a beleaguered people seems simply inhumane, especially if alternative means are available to accomplish what the U.S. seeks. Unnecessary force is cruel and unconscionable when other policy options are available.

The readiness and enthusiasm with which some Americans approach the decision to bomb is linked to the disparity in human cost on the U.S. and Iraqi sides of the conflict. The Gulf War and its televised missile operations gave us an impression that the conflict was costless. For the Iraqis, however, it was not. If American losses were expected to be on par with Iraqi casualties, it can safely be said that we in the U.S. would not be so eager to attack.

Military regimes may be easy to dislike, but those suffering beneath them need not be punished. Recent history shows that the U.S. can facilitate weapons inspections or remove Saddam Hussein from power without resorting to bombing. Morally as well as strategically, bombing Iraq is not the wisest policy.

Aamir Abdul Rehman '99, a social studies concentrator, lives in Cabot House. His column appears on alternate Thursdays.