Rethinking Iraq

As San Diegans, with families and friends inextricably linked to the military, we may prefer not to ponder much about the situation in Iraq beyond “staying the course”, wishing for President George W. Bush to finally declare: “mission accomplished”.

Yet, after 4,000 plus deaths and more than a hundred thousand casualties since the war began March 19, 2003 – not to mention the estimated 1.2 million Iraqis killed, including innocent women and children (a study published in Lancet, the well respected British medical journal, documented 600,000 Iraqi deaths as of July 2006) – isn't it time for each one of us to rethink the situation there?

The 5-year war (the second longest war in American history) may be waged by the armed services under orders of Washington, yet it is, despite the much publicized international coalition, solely (at least, primarily) an American war. We, as citizens of the United States, are flat out responsible for the war – and its long-ranging consequences.

There is much talk about the soaring prices of gasoline. Isn't it ironic that the raison d'etre for the war was to secure our national interest in the Middle East (termed Pax Americana in foreign policy parlance) and that a major cause for interest in the Middle East is oil, $5 trillion worth of this hydrocarbon commodity? Yet, the war has weakened the US dollar and driven the American economy into a recession. It is not hard to figure the math. In September 2002, the former White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey estimated the war to cost around $200 billion, or 2% of the GNP. The U.S. Congressional Budget Office pegged the cost of waging war at $6-9 billion a month and of maintaining an occupying military presence at $1-4 billion a month.

The combined Iraq Afghanistan wars are now estimated to cost $600-$800 billion (ten times more than was originally estimated by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld) and is projected soon to reach a trillion dollar. Adding post war reconstruction, continuing foreign aid, long term medical care of the wounded and disabled, etc., the cost is projected to triple, as claimed in the book, The Three Trillion Dollar War, written by Nobel Prize winner (economics) Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes.

The original argument of course was that we could not afford to sit idly by while Saddam worked overtime to gather weapons of mass destruction and that dirty bombs from the splintered USSR were filtering into the back alleys of Islamic Jihadists. In the bitter aftermath of 911, who would risk the possibility of seeing our major cities blown to pieces? Who could comprehend the horrors of Disneyworld or a Superbowl stadium blasted to smithereens? Or millions of people dropping dead from drinking contaminated water? Then Secretary of State Colin Powell did make a compelling argument before the United Nations, pointing out that Iraq was capable of manufacturing not only chemical but insidious biological weapons.

Framed in the context of righting human rights abuses -- the noble and moral imperative of eliminating three decades of sadistic rule and mass graves -- then bolstered by the fear of a Middle East madman stockpiling an Armageddon arsenal of weapons while harboring Bin Ladin and Al-Qaeda, people rallied behind the American flag to confront the modern axis of evil forces. At the time, there were very few, if any dissenting voices. Having experienced first hand the abuses of a dictatorial regime under Marcos, Filipinos in particular felt the plight of oppressed Iraqis and the necessity of unleashing liberation forces from the democratic superpower house that was America.

One significant objection came from Pope John Paul II. But the Pontiff’s ailing voice was drowned in the frenzy to stop a potential nuclear holocaust.

It was difficult to understand why John Paul (the Great) was against the liberation of oppressed people. After all, the Holy Father lived under Communist oppression in Poland before assuming the chair of Peter.

Yet, didn't Pope John Paul's concerns about the war in Iraq turn out to be prophetic? No weapons of mass destruction were found. The US military combed every square inch and turned over every rock but found nothing, except a disheveled and emasculated dictator. Indeed, we effectively eliminated a strongman and his ilk, but is Iraq better off now? Moreover, are we, as a nation, better off? Is the international community better off?

Not to objective observers. Not to someone who was born and raised in Iraq and now practices in the U.S. as a physician. After morning rounds in the hospital, I often talk to him about the situation in Iraq -- what is publicized and what is not. Indeed, he thinks it was justified for American and allied forces to liberate his native country. But since we have metamorphosed from an invading to an occupying force, Iraq has groaned from one disaster to another.

Pope Benedict XVI did not specify Iraq nor did he denounce the United States when he addressed the United Nations on April 18th, on the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, his message to the US and the world was clear and unequivocal. Brief excerpts of the Holy Father's message are worth pondering.

“As Pope John Paul II expressed it in 1995, the Organization (United Nations) should be “a moral centre where all the nations of the world feel at home and develop a shared awareness of being, as it were, a ‘family of nations’...

This is all the more necessary at a time when we experience the obvious paradox of a multilateral consensus that continues to be in crisis because it is still subordinated to the decisions of a few, whereas the world’s problems call for interventions in the form of collective action by the international community.

Indeed, questions of security, development goals, reduction of local and global inequalities, protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate, require all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law, and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet...

What is needed is a deeper search for ways of pre-emptying and managing conflicts by exploring every possible diplomatic avenue, and giving attention and encouragement to even the faintest sign of dialogue or desire for reconciliation...

When faced with new and insistent challenges, it is a mistake to fall back on a pragmatic approach, limited to determining “common ground”, minimal in content and weak in its effect.

The promotion of human rights remains the most effective strategy for eliminating inequalities between countries and social groups, and for increasing security. Indeed, the victims of hardship and despair, whose human dignity is violated with impunity, become easy prey to the call to violence, and they can then become violators of peace.....

Today...efforts need to be redoubled in the face of pressure to reinterpret the foundations of the Declaration (of Human Rights) and to compromise its inner unity so as to facilitate a move away from the protection of human dignity towards the satisfaction of simple interests, often particular interests...

Experience shows that legality often prevails over justice when the insistence upon rights makes them appear as the exclusive result of legislative enactments or normative decisions taken by the various agencies of those in power. When presented purely in terms of legality, rights risk becoming weak propositions divorced from the ethical and rational dimension which is their foundation and their goal...

My presence at this Assembly is a sign of esteem for the United Nations, and it is intended to express the hope that the Organization will increasingly serve as a sign of unity between States and an instrument of service to the entire human family.

Peace and Prosperity with God’s help!”

Indeed, it is time to rethink the war in Iraq.