Perhaps the biggest argument in foreign policy decision-making circles today is whether or not the United States should pursue interventionist means when dealing with problem states. It is an extremely important discussion to have, especially as the war in Iraq continues well into its third year. Should the US have intervened in Iraq to begin with, and if so what made direct involvement with Iraq through military means an obvious choice over other so-called rogue states, such as Iran and North Korea? Defining a rule set for intervening in rogue states is essential before pro-interventionist policy can be cemented within US institutional memory, and that is assuming such a policy should be adopted for the long term. Current events in Iraq combined with history – Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iran all come to mind — suggest that US interventionism does not necessarily culminate with beneficial results for the country’s long term foreign policy objectives.
Understanding the different types of intervention is essential before any discussion can be had. There is preventive action as well as preemptive action. Preventive war is an offensive military action meant to stave off potential future threats, even if those threat do not currently exist within a problem state. Preemption is where knowledge of a future attack exists, and any action is technically defensive. The Iraq war was a preventive action on behalf of the Bush administration, and the question remains whether or not it has aided or harmed the United States’ security. Events in Iraq are currently unfolding, so piecing together an adequate view of the United States’ security based on Iraqi events is difficult and, at best, guesswork. However, how the Iraqi war and preventive intervention has affected the United States’ geopolitical standing in the region and world is currently being felt and will continue to affect US strategic moves for decades to come. It may be more helpful currently to examine how interventionism, or preventive action, has weakened the US by taking its attention away from other problem areas the world over.
The Bush administration targeted Iraq supposedly because it was developing weapons of mass destruction that were to be used against US targets. While that meme has been proven false and the intelligence faulty, the administration continues to suggest that the preventive action to topple Saddam Hussein has made the US safer. The argument seems laughable, however, when one examines the current danger posed by Iran and, especially North Korea. While the United States’ is bogged down in Iraq with scant little forces remaining to engage other potential threats throughout the world, North Korea retains nuclear weapons and Iran is potentially developing their own. If prevention is adopted as the new foreign policy framework, it would be best suited to deal with the most obvious threats to US security. Selecting potential targets for intervention is the most difficult aspect of the doctrine, and requires accurate intelligence collection and analysis, which cannot always be relied upon. Also, no matter what action is taken in another country the remaining threats to the US – be they states or malevolent non-state actors – will capitalize on the world’s most powerful military being occupied to further develop plans or undertake violent operations. By selecting Iraq, arguably the incorrect target for intervention, the United States’ interests may have been harmed, strengthening rival Iran’s influence in the region and world.
Iran is reaping huge rewards from the US military involvement in Iraq, realizing that it can push the international community on its nuclear program since no true threat of reactive force exists outside of Israel. With Israel being held on a short leash by the United States for fear of a potential crisis in Iraq propagated by Iran-backed Shi’ite militias, Iran is left with free reign to negotiate its own terms on nuclear development. Also, Iran’s control over massive oil reserves has granted it even more leverage, which could be increased further if it attempts to coordinate its petro-policy with Shi’ite-dominated Iraq and a Russia disinterested in pursuing wide-ranging international sanctions. Energy-hungry China also does not wish to pursue sanctions on Iran, since it directly benefits from Iranian oil. Having little recourse, the United States has had to weaken its line of negotiation since involvement in Iraq has made wide-reaching military operations impossible and sabre-rattling completely ineffective. With Iraq serving as a case study, it would appear the preventive intervention can cause more trouble than good since since the potential policy blowback was not taken into consideration.
Policy blowback, however, should have been forseen had Bush administration policymakers simply took the lessons of history to heart. Intervention has rarely worked in the experience of the United States, as in Korea and Vietnam. The Korean War signaled the true start of the Cold War, with Soviet-supported North Korea’s invasion of US-backed South Korea. President Truman decided to pursue full intervention in June of 1950. Despite the United States’ best efforts, the war reached a stalemate in 1953 where it technically remains until this day. Due to the failure of intervention, North Korea remains a threat to the United States and East Asia. Failure in Vietnam, however, is the most beneficial historical case study that the Bush administration should have taken lessons from. Similar to Korea, Communist forces from North Vietnam invaded US-backed South Vietnam and led to U.S. intervention. Despite massive military involvement and expenditure, the US was forced to withdraw in 1973 and left the Vietnamese to determine their own future.
Intervention, though, does not necessarily have to be on a full scale military level. Clandestine support for groups supporting US interests at one point in time may result in disastrous blowback, as in Afghanistan with the mujahideen fighters and in Iran with the coup of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. By supporting the Islamist fighters in Afghanistan against Soviet military advancement in the 1980s, the United States trained and armed the future al Qaeda. By toppling the elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953, the US set events in motion that would eventually lead to the rise of the Islamist movement and Ayatollah Khomeini.
None of what has been mentioned is to suggest that intervention as a tool of foreign policy should be completely discarded. Obviously, intervention is sometimes required – prevention, however, may not be. Vietnam, Korea, the Afghan-Soviet War, and the rise of Mossadegh were all events that did not directly harm the United States, and all were deserving of greater scrutiny at the time. Indeed it is easy to point out the mistakes of the past, but it should also be simple to see those mistakes for what they are now and apply them to current situations. The Bush administration failed in doing that with Iraq, and has harmed the case for preventive war and intervention almost irrevocably. It is unfortunate since when intervention is required one day the American public may not be so willing to trust their government – the Vietnam Syndrome replayed as the Iraq Syndrome, preemption mistaken for misguided prevention.
Related Posts:One Response to 'Arguments Against Preventive War'
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
on December 26th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
I find it interesting in an essay that tips its hat to history, that only one reason for going into Iraq militarily is mentioned, i.e. the presumed presence of weapons of mass destruction. As I recall the debate leading up to the U.S. invasion, dozens of reasons were offered, and indeed, were included in the Congressional resolution passed in support of authorizing President Bush to use military force. In addition, the 17 resolutions passed by the U.N. since the imposition of the no-fly zone post-Desert Storm were flagrantly violated, and were being ignored not only by Saddam Hussein, but even by the French, Russians, and Germans. Secretary of State Colin Powell himself, frequently quoted by the Left, was of one mind with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others that the sanctions regime was unraveling and that, left unchecked, Saddam was likely to develop weapons of mass destruction. That he had launched scud missiles against Tel Aviv in the 1991 war is a fact of history. How much more devastating would it have been to have those missiles be nuclear tipped?
Now we see a greater danger lurking from Iran and North Korea, but was that apparent at the time?
We can second guess now, and call the Iraq war a fiasco. However, that’s nothing but 20/20 hindsight. Sitting in the chair of our leaders back then, exactly what other course of action should have been proposed? An 18th U.N. Resolution through a corrupt U.N. which included the Oil for Food corruption that reached as high as Koffi Annan’s son? Should NATO have swung into action? It’s so easy to say that the current administration blew it. I’ve yet to find among the heated criticism a reasoned case for what would likely have worked better. The fact is, Bush, Blair, Howard, and the other members of the Coalition may have chosen the course of action that, in the end, was the least destructive to our collective interests. Five years after 9/11/2001, we’ve yet to experience an attack on Western soil that equals what was perpetrated on that day. Senator McCain continues to argue that clear-cut victory in Iraq is the best thing we can do to make sure that peaceful record continues.