[Naturally, discussion of the invasion of Iraq comes up often enough in my circles. Ronald C. Tobin asked me, "Any thoughts on the war?" and then told me he was "absolutely opposed to this crusade…" My reply appeared in The Thought # 134 (2003 March-April).]
I am, of course, against this war. My reasons? I don't give a whit for the United Nations or other international institutions. While I also don't like the Bush Administration – or any administration for that matter, including those of Clinton, the earlier Bush, and so on back to long before you and I were alive – I don't see that as good and just reason to oppose the war. Nor do I see the major elements of Left antiwar movement – a conglomeration of irrationalism, anticapitalism, ignorance, bad music, and nipple rings – as getting it right here. They're turning being against this specific war into a call for vandalism and the otherthrow of civil peace. (Funny how so called antiwar types are against civil peace. Would they substitute civil war for international war?)
My reasons are because I think the current war will lead to a worse state of affairs afterward - one that could have been avoided. This is on the domestic front (both in the US and other Western nations), on the international stage, and even in Iraq, the country it's purported to help. Domestically, it's leading to more government (taxes, regulations, new offices and expanded powers for our glorious government), a strengthening of certain interest groups (the Axis of Corporate Evil: the War Merchants and the re-builders who will move in after the troops are finished; to be honest, if it's like Afghanistan, the troops will never be finished yet the rebuilding will happen anyway) at the expense of everyone else, more polarization at home (note how the war has split various countries – though maybe not down the middle) leading to a less civil society, and, ironically, more terrorism, both from the state and from groups similar to Al Qaeda newly formed or just re-energized by these events.
At the international level, the notion of a war to avert something that might happen years hence will probably speed up the process of armament and nuclear proliferation. Why? Now, any nation state that is not held in esteem or, at least, ignored by the global central planners in Washington could be a target. Granted, they can only take only so many countries at a time, but any nation that believes it might be a target will have a huge incentive to arm itself to the teeth. (Not that they don't already. Nations generally are insecure because of the nature of the international system.)
This can lead to several outcomes should no countervailing forces intervene. One is a global American empire. That would be the final apotheosis of the welfare state – in so far as such things can happen in the human world. We'd have a new and improved Rome. Like the old one, in many ways, it will increase some freedoms in some places. However, the general trend will be for the state to continue to aggrandize its power with few checks on it – since the only workable checks will now be purely internal. Culture and politics will become ossified. (Some might ask, "So what has changed?") Eventually, this state will probably disintegrate, but that will only happen after a long period of decline.
Another outcome might be that the US unwittingly creates a coalition to balance against it. This outcome in the short run – the next decade or two – can take different paths in the long run. The balancing might be stable (or meta-stable since no secular order is permanent) – neither the US and its enemies get the upper hand – or unstable – one side does get the upper hand. In the latter case, we can have the new Rome outcome – the US wins and devours the world – or the like Athens, the US is eventually subjugated by the coalition. Neither of these is a good outcome. If the US wins, well, I've already covered that. If the US loses, does anyone suspect it will be to a coalition of freedom loving, justice seeking, and benevolent peoples? Athens was crushed by Sparta and though its traditions of philosophy and freedom eventually resurfaced again, Athens didn't and her people were no longer masters of their destiny after that. (Though I'm being dramatic here, there can be total wars or mere proxy wars and cold wars to push this along. The process, too, from an individual standpoint can seem very gradual and slow – just as the recently ended Cold War last fifty years and changed little during much of that time because most of the changes were subtle or behind the scenes.)
In Iraq, we will most likely see a replay of Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. In other words, a new regime will replace the old one but will mainly rely on foreign occupation to assure its continued existence. While Saddam Hussein and his crew will no longer be in power, butchering the Iraqi people, different groups will do this under the cover of the occupation – as in Kosovo today where the Albanians are now free to harass and murder Serbs. Yes, the targets will change, but the society and culture probably won't. You can't beat Western values, as good and fine as they are, into people. This is especially true in societies that have little tradition of freedom to graft these onto. Japan and Germany, the favored examples of the imperialists in our capitol, had liberal traditions long before their defeat and occupation. Surely, the overall level of oppression, torture, and murder might decline. It's hard to imagine a worse regime than the current Iraqi regime, but is it worth risking all this blood and treasure not to get a free society or a safer future, but merely a slight diminution in tyranny in one small region along with less freedom, certainty, and safety everywhere else?
These are my reasons not to support the war.