The Terrorist Attacks of 9/11 and the Iraq War
The Debate in the United States
Paul Walker 
To many Americans, the terrorist attacks of September 11th seem like they happened just yesterday. The striking images of aircraft slicing into the World Trade Center in New York City, and then into the Pentagon in Washington, DC, crashing in Pennsylvania, and the subsequent collapse of New York's twin towers have all been indelibly imprinted into the minds of Americans today. We will all remember the final chilling phone call from the Pennsylvania aircraft passengers—"Let's roll!"—apparently relating to a fight which broke out between the passengers and hijackers.
Although many of us are wary of a future war in Iraq in the coming month, for many Americans we are already at war, chasing Al Qaeda members from the Canadian border to the mountains of Afghanistan. An attack by U.S. forces against Baghdad is therefore seen by many only as another necessary step in the ongoing fight against terrorism and Al Qaeda. By a growing number of Americans and Europeans, however, it's perceived as an unnecessary escalation in global conflict.
I still very well remember that unique and horrifying Tuesday in September, almost seventeen months ago. I had driven to Logan Airport in Boston to take my weekly flight to my office in Washington, and was waiting at my gate when all flights were suddenly delayed. A few minutes later we learned that at least two aircraft which had departed from our Logan terminal an hour earlier had flown into the Trade Center. We stood in shock as we watched the terrorist attacks on television and kept thanking our lucky stars that our own flights that Tuesday were not those hijacked. Suddenly the airport filled with police, all flights were cancelled, and we all were evacuated from the airport, at a complete loss for words to explain the horrific events of that historic morning.
The loss of some 3,000 Americans that day, followed by still unsolved anthrax attacks in Washington DC, New York, and elsewhere the next month, has catalyzed a serious sense of loss and vulnerability throughout the U.S. Americans, long grown used to the natural protection of two oceans on either coast, and friendly neighbors in Canada and Mexico to the north and south, quickly realized that their homeland was now a vulnerable target to some obscure enemy. At the time we had no idea who could have perpetrated such an act of terror and only over several months were we able to piece together the conspiracy with at least nineteen kamikaze attackers. But the victims of September 11th remained visible on a daily basis in full page articles and photos in the New York Times and other print and electronic media throughout the U.S.
This shock has left Americans asking many fundamental questions. Perhaps the most important is trying to define the enemy. What is the threat, or threats, today to our security? And how do and should we deal with it? Do we need to attack Iraq? What should we do with North Korea? How do we best meet these crises in the immediate future, while preserving peace and security for all over the longer run?
Threat Assessment
One of the very basic steps in building a secure environment is to define the threat to one's vital interests—citizens and investments both at home and abroad. For decades since the 1950s the U.S. defined its defense policy in terms of being able to simultaneously wage 2 ½ wars two major wars in Europe (against the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact) and in Asia (likely against North Korea), and a smaller war in Southeast Asia, Cuba, or the Middle East.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty Organization, this threat assessment was reduced to 1 ½ wars—a major war in Asia, and a smaller war elsewhere, likely in the Middle East. Active duty troops in the U.S. were reduced by over a third, from 2.1 million to 1.3 million. Over 350 military bases were closed or reduced through four large rounds of base closures in the late 1980s and early 1990s. And former enemies in the East turned into allies, friends, and members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
And yet there was still a search for what the new threat environment might bring. Some defined this as military alliances such as NATO "in search of a mission" to justify its own existence; others envisioned new potential threats on the horizon and wanted to "keep the gunpowder dry," so to speak. The good news, I believe, was that the likelihood of a massively destructive world war involving nuclear weapons became almost nil. This lifted a tremendous psychological burden from us all. The bad news is that, in light of the undefinable nature of future threats, any projected economic peace dividend from military savings evaporated quickly. This year's U.S. military budget—some US$ 380 billion, for example, had the largest annual growth since the early 1980s during the massive buildup under President Ronald Reagan.
And yet serious questions remain about the applicability of traditional Cold War weapons and military units to today's potential threats. For example, will heavy investment in space warfare and ballistic missile defense protect us from terrorists and September 11th attacks? Do the Marines still need the capability for massive amphibious landings? Are thousands of nuclear warheads a good investment in non-proliferation? Does NATO need to continue to plan for major wars with large investments in traditional military equipment—aircraft, ships, and tanks, tough burdens especially for new members from Eastern Europe?
The Looming War in Iraq
The invasion of Kuwait in 1990 by Saddam Hussein was a wake-up call to the risks and dangers in regional conflict areas. The subsequent Persian Gulf War, launched twelve years ago by the U.S. and a support coalition of forces, successfully pushed the Iraqi army out of Kuwait but left a legacy of thousands of deaths of both soldiers and civilians and widespread environmental and economic damage. Iraq was placed under strict economic and military sanctions, and played along with intrusive United Nations inspections until 1998. The ouster of U.N. inspectors four years ago really started the clock ticking on the crisis today.
President George Bush has accused President Saddam Hussein of seeking weapons of mass destruction in this recent period, although prohibited by U.N. resolutions after the Gulf War. He cites reported Iraqi efforts to purchase weapons materials, including nuclear fissile materials, and the fact that Iraq has still not accounted for thousands of chemical weapons and tons of biological material since the end of inspections in 1998.
The recent discovery of sixteen empty, 122 mm chemical weapons shells in Iraq lends some credibility to these allegations, but for many insufficient evidence—no "smoking gun"—to warrant a massive invasion.
So where does this place us today, especially after the January 27th reports of chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix and IAEA inspector Mohamed ElBaradei to the U.N. Security Council? Some 100,000 U.S. troops, hundreds of fighter aircraft, 4–5 naval aircraft carriers, and thousands of additional weapons have been deployed around Iraq in preparation for a major attack, most likely in February or March. Inspections have built up over the past two months, but this week's report lends evidence that Iraq has not been fully truthful or fully cooperative with inspection efforts.
Six months ago, still suffering from the September 11th images, and the ongoing terrorist attacks in Pakistan against Daniel Pearl, against military and commercial ships in Yemen, and elsewhere around the globe, most Americans were supportive of a unilateral attack on Iraq. As discussion was raised at high levels in the national and international communities, especially in the United Nations, and U.N. Resolution 1441 was passed demanding complete compliance by Iraq with disarmament requirements, American public opinion split. Almost two weeks ago hundreds of thousands of Americans marched in Washington DC, Boston, New York, San Francisco, and other cities to protest a war. Just four days ago a major two-page advertisement signed by 45,000 Americans including prominent politicians, writers, and entertainers also called for a peaceful resolution to this crisis.
None of us, I believe, would call President Hussein a stabilizing force in the Middle East. He is well known as a brutal, ambitious, and dangerous dictator who has killed perhaps as many as a million Iraqi citizens in the wars against Iran and Kuwait and in maintaining his power in Baghdad. But the larger question is whether Iraq can be contained, guaranteed without nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, and whether there are less violent options for bringing these changes about.
After months now of debate, and sixty days of intrusive inspections in Iraq, it remains unclear whether the lack of a "smoking gun" will halt the march to war. A majority of Americans now believe that the U.S. should not go to war unilaterally, but only if more evidence is found and if a war is supported by the United Nations Security Council. Americans are increasingly concerned about the costs of a war in terms of lives and money—potentially thousands dead and tens of billions of dollars in costs; about the possible negative impact on the U.S. economy which is already in a recession; about the long-term risks for destabilizing the Middle East, with Arab allies such as Saudi Arabia continuing to voice deep concern; about the long-term needs for rebuilding Iraq, with no clear successor group to Saddam Hussein and deep splits among the many Iraqi factions; about the impact on Turkey, a NATO ally, and the Kurds; and about the potential for a long-standing U.S. military force occupying Iraq, raising historical images of our past Vietnam 'quagmire.'
We've now been in Afghanistan for over a year and still have yet to find Osama bin Laden. Just this week was another major firefight along the border with Pakistan with opponents of President Hamid Karzai. Could the same take place in Iraq? How long, how many lives, and how much money will it take to bring peace and security to these regions? Is it really our responsibility? Will a war in Iraq worsen our problem with terrorism? That is, will it increase Islamic recruits for Osama bin Laden and anti-Western terrorism?
There is also the concern that a pre-emptive war in Iraq could open the door to other unilateral attacks around the world. Russian colleagues tell me that they will feel free to invade Georgia to chase down Chechen rebels. Would India attack Pakistan? Would the Israelis invade the West Bank and Gaza, more than they are at present? A unilateral attack on Iraq, without more justification, will therefore set dangerous precedent for such unilateral actions.
It is still too early to predict what might happen in Iraq, but I remain optimistic that a resolution short of war may be feasible. The inspections, with more intelligence and intrusiveness, will likely become more successful. The military build-up has already served some purpose in forcing Saddam Hussein to co-operative with the United Nations. And longterm trade and military restrictions could very well solve the problem from an international perspective, if not from a domestic Iraqi human rights perspective.
The Korean Crisis
Interestingly, we have a second crisis on our hands as well. Kim Jong Il in North Korea has recently thrown out United Nations inspectors, shut down U.N. inspection cameras at the Yongbyon nuclear facilities, announced withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, threatened to use either plutonium from spent fuel or enriched uranium to build nuclear weapons, and also threatened to break out of a missile testing moratorium.
The United States has in turn stopped food aid and support for light-water reactor construction, part of a 1994 accord, and at first refused any discussion with North Korea until they stopped their nuclear weapons program. However, this dangerous political standoff has been softened somewhat with the informal diplomacy of South Korea, Russia, and China. The U.S. has now shown willingness to talk, if not formally negotiate, with North Korea.
But, why are we not threatening North Korea, which already may have a couple of nuclear weapons in its arsenal and is well known to also have chemical weapons, like we are threatening Iraq? Primarily because the use of force against North Korea is not a feasible option. War on the Korean Peninsula would likely decimate the whole region, possibly also affecting Japan and China, which makes the risks too high.
I recall a briefing I had with the Clinton Administration in 1994 when a similar Korean crisis developed. I was on the staff of the Armed Services Committee in the House of Representatives at the time. The White House was seriously considering a 'first-strike' against the nuclear weapons development program in North Korea at that time. When we asked whether an attack could preclude the release of radioactivity on the Korean Peninsula, or whether we could guarantee that the North would not respond by attacking Seoul, the response was negative. We therefore told the Clinton Administration that war was not an option and subsequently the 1994 food and reactor deal was signed. My hope and expectation is that a new agreement can be reached with North Korea in the coming months which will both stop nuclear weapons proliferation and also aid the people of North Korea.
Preventive Engagement
The era of violent, unpredictable terrorism that we find ourselves in today illustrates that we need a policy other than allout war and military force to meet and defeat these threats. We can neither be isolationist, as the United States historically has been known to be, nor can we be interventionist in a unilateral fashion. Human rights and international law must be supported, along with multilateral enforcement of these international norms.
I would propose a policy of 'preventive engagement,' that is, addressing crises before they arise, and in a preventive way. If I can use a public health analogy, we all know that we should maintain a good personal exercise and diet regime to maintain our health. But many of us tend to overlook this good advice and wait until we have our first heart attack. We are all notoriously crisis - oriented, thus requiring major intervention—heart surgery or, in international politics, war—when the crisis takes place, with the hope that we don't die on the operating table or in the violence.
The two contemporary cases of Iraq and Korea both well illustrate that crisis intervention is too little too late. We will pay a high immediate price in terms of lives and costs, and possibly an even higher price in terms of regional destabilization. We need to resolve these cases in a non-military, preventive way or live with new nuclear powers, potentially in a more destabilized regional context.
The following steps would help bring us into a more effective, peaceful, and preventive world:
(1) Abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). If the nuclear powers, especially the original five—the U.S., Russia, China, France, and Britain—want to inhibit or even stop proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, they must begin to take their obligations under Article VI of the NPT more seriously, that is, move towards full elimination of all nuclear weapons. The NPT was signed twenty-five years ago and yet it still maintains a double standard between nuclear 'haves' and 'have-nots.' It's ironic that we decry a few nuclear weapons in North Korea, and yet refuse to eliminate any of our 7,000 or so in the U.S.
(2) Support destruction of Cold War weapons stockpiles. The U.S. has spent some US$ 5 billion over the past decade to help the former Soviet Union destroy its stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in a safe and environmentally sound manner. Yet the Europeans have been terribly slow to join in this historic effort until the July 2002 pledge of the G–8 to spend up to US$ 20 billion over the next decade. Included in this effort is the abolition of chemical weapons, the first time a whole class of weapons is beeing eliminated. It would behoove all states, including Poland and Eastern Europe, to help in this effort to overcome dangerous legacies of the Cold War, vulnerable to theft and diversion.
(3) Focus military forces in NATO and elsewhere on peacekeeping and anti-terrorism. The new challenges which face the world are not major world wars but rather limited use of force in regional, ethnic, religious, and civil wars, as well as the use of force by subnational, terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda. Our military troops must be trained and their equipment oriented towards meeting these new challenges. This requires changing old Cold War structures including the NATO alliance.
(4) Develop a professional mediation and peacekeeping service, perhaps under the United Nations. We've had much success in the past in Northern Ireland, the Middle East, most recently Cote d'Ivoire, and elsewhere in mediating resolutions to crises and conflicts. But these efforts by George Mitchell, Kofi Annan, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and others have always been on an ad hoc basis. We need a quick-strike, professional mediation team as much or more than we need quick-strike military forces. We need a larger toolbox of options to address crisis situations and to engage in preventive engagement.
(5) Preserve arms control regimes and develop new ones. With U.S. withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty last year, and now North Korea's withdrawal from the NPT, the long-standing arms control regime, including some twenty treaties and agreements, is now increasingly threatened. We need to preserve these stabilizing agreements and work to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; place limits on missile testing, fissile material, and arms trade; strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention; and universalize the Chemical Weapons Convention. Bilateral and multilateral arms control and disarmament agreements, when backed with strong verification and implementation, are a central part of a future, peaceful world.
(6) Link development and disarmament. Many of the countries and regions burdened with Cold War stockpiles are in dire need of socio-economic development. We need to use development assistance to bolster efforts in stockpile destruction, especially in the Former Soviet Union. Much of our work in the Green Cross Legacy Program is focused on chemical weapons destruction in the U.S. and Russia; the stockpile sites in these countries must have substantial infrastructure investment to complement their weapons burden. A development-disarmament link is a win-win for all.
(7) Address environmental security. With the closure of innumerable military bases, the destruction of weapons stockpiles, and the need to continue some military training and firing ranges, facing the global need for cleanup of military environmental pollution will provide tremendous gains in global security, both for our troops and for our citizens.
(8) Speak softly, but carry a big stick. This phrase was spoken by former U.S. President Teddy Roosevelt and is good advice today for the U.S. and others. I am concerned that the Bush Administration is not taking this advice seriously, especially when senior officials make bellicose and non-diplomatic statements. For example, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's description of our European allies as "old Europe" this month was an unnecessary and undiplomatic step backwards for NATO relations. Likewise, President George Bush's use of the phrase "axis of evil" to describe potential enemies has only exacerbated international relations. A policy of active engagement and negotiation, for example, with both Iraq and Korea now, will provide much more effective and peaceful results over the longer run than policies of hardball confrontation and possibly war.
This script was written for a conference at the University of Breslau, Poland, on January 31, 2003, and also summarizes the presentation of Paul Walker at the conference "International Arms Control, Transparency and Verification in a European Russian Framework of Cooperative Security" organized by INESAP and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation on January 24–26, 2003, in Berlin, Germany.
|
Global Green USA (www.globalgreen.org), the United States affiliate of Green Cross International, fosters a global value shift toward a sustainable and secure world through education, advocacy, partnerships, and programs focused on the safe elimination of weapons of mass destruction, stemming climate change, reducing resource use, and preventing conflicts over fresh water. Acting as a catalyst, facilitator, and mediator, Global Green encourages collaborative approaches and crosscutting solutions to environmental challenges. |
||||
