If liberals
and the left are united behind anything in our allegedly post-ideological
age, it is that human rights and humanitarian considerations must
always trump realpolitik. The left opposed the punishing economic
sanctions endured by Iraqi civilians from 1991 to 2003, despite
the sanctions' undoubted success in "containing" the
former Iraqi regime. The Bush administration, unable so far to
detect a single spore of anthrax in Iraq, is now selling the invasion
retroactively as a "humanitarian intervention," mostly
to well-deserved hoots of derision from left-liberals.
Yet even
before the war, American hawks had expropriated solidarity with
suffering Iraqis for their side. If a commentator was talking
about the bloody repression of the Shiites or the horrors of former
dictator Saddam Hussein's prisons, the chances were that he was
arguing for war. As war inched closer this year, UK Prime Minister
Tony Blair even claimed that the lifting of sanctions was a goal
of intervention. "Ridding the world of Saddam would be an
act of humanity," Blair intoned. "It is leaving him
there that is in truth inhumane." The hypocrisy of Blair's
homily did the anti-war left little good. At the time, many leftists
were pulling for France to succeed in extending UNMOVIC inspections,
which would have meant another rollover of the sanctions.
The story
of how the peace movement lost the humanitarian argument before
the war offers some lessons for the serious challenge posed to
the left by the US occupation of Iraq and the ambient chatter
about "democratizing" the Middle East. For all the energy
spent exposing bogus evidence of weapons of mass destruction,
the plight of ordinary Iraqis under the murderous Baathist regime
was the only intellectually honest reason to support war -- and
to this anti-war forces devoted insufficient attention.
The broader
left-liberal current inherited a deep split in the anti-sanctions
movement over "what to do about Saddam." A handful of
ultra-leftists demanded that all sanctions be dropped, including
measures
preventing the regime from reconstituting its arsenal of conventional
weaponry. Groups that publicized the humanitarian devastation
wrought by the sanctions opted, for various reasons, not to discuss
the regime's share of responsibility for their continuation. Meanwhile,
human rights and arms control NGOs called for international tribunals
and inspections, provoking accusations of mimicking the hawks'
rhetoric. The left's failure to reach a consensus on a positive
alternative to sanctions and authoritarian rule yielded the floor
to the hawks. Such an alternative was needed when the belligerency
of the neo-conservatives shifted the debate sharply to the right,
leaving many leftists uncomfortably defending Secretary of State
Colin Powell and the CIA. What humanitarian concerns were expressed
by the anti-war movement tended to be fears of worst-case scenarios
-- mass civilian casualties, refugee flight and disease.
Left-liberals
who opposed the war are now grappling with the complexity of what
is occurring on the ground in Iraq, searching for an alternative
to US occupation and, ultimately, the neo-conservatives' doctrine
of "democratization" by the sword. In the absence of
this alternative, another lowest common denominator of a slogan,
this time one proclaiming "US out of Iraq," is on many
lips -- including those of some Iraqis.
One line
of argument, pushed in the US by Democrats wanting to weaken President
George W. Bush, relies on the politics of fear: Soldiers are being
killed at an alarming rate. Iraqis are learning to hate Americans.
The occupation is fostering radical Islamism and allowing Al-Qaeda
to regroup, all at a cost of $4 billion a month. Eventually, the
electorate will realize that the war has made Americans less safe
and clamor for a military withdrawal.
Those who
predict this outcome forget US nationalism, which is just as likely
to rally behind intensified military retaliation to attacks on
soldiers, especially if the casualty rate increases and Iraqis
appear ungrateful for their "liberation." The focus
on Americans' safety neglects the needs and aspirations of Iraqis
themselves. The left would do better to hold the occupying powers
accountable for delivering what they promised in Iraq: security,
electricity, clean water, jobs and giving the Iraqis a say in
their own governance. Iraqis want the war criminals of the former
regime to stand trial. Kurds and other minorities want a system
that guarantees their civil rights. These are worthy goals. The
present policy of the occupation -- focused on rooting out supposed
"Saddam loyalists" -- does little to advance them.
At one time,
the left won arguments with the politics of hope. It needs to
take this ground back. The neo-conservatives, though they have
befouled it with their ulterior motives, will not relinquish it
voluntarily.
Chris
Toensing is editor of Middle East Report in Washington.
He wrote this commentary for The Daily Star.
