How the Persian Gulf crisis is resolved will determine the new world order for the post-Cold War era. On this point President Bush is correct. A world torn by conflicts long suppressed or ignored in the Cold War years faces a fundamental choice: to keep the war system or to transcend it.
The danger of war is mounting rapidly. Tanks are massing on both sides of the Kuwaiti border. The cost of the waiting game in the desert exceeds $1 million an hour. The president calls for patience, but the "squeeze" on Saddam Hussein is unlikely to work soon, if ever, and the cries to "get it over with" will become more shrill.
Whether an attack on Iraq or an invasion of Kuwait or both are planned for this fall, the administration, through calculated leaks and interviews, wishes to convince Saddam that this is the case. But the situation is explosive and volatile. There are many players -- Iran, Israel, Arab nations, terrorist organizations -- and the president is not in control.
One provocative incident is all that is needed to trigger a major war. You cannot expect to threaten war on this massive a scale and not have one.
The American people usually support their presidents in the call to war, but throughout our history wars have deeply divided the nation. The recent military interventions -- against Grenada, Libya, and Panama -- were supported by an overwhelming majority of citizens and then quickly forgotten. These were short wars, and the stated objectives were quickly achieved with a minimum loss of American lives. (Most Americans are unaware of the thousands of Panamanian lives lost in the December 1989 invasion.) But the war in the Gulf will not be short, regardless of how the military operation turns out.
THERE ARE THREE BASIC scenarios for a Gulf war. The first is a "surgical" strike against Saddam's government and war machine, including the plants that produce poison gas. Then-chief of the United States Air Force in the Gulf, Gen. Michael J. Dugan -- later fired for indiscretion, not for releasing false information -- announced plans for a "decapitation" strike to kill Saddam, his family, and his mistress.
Some have suggested that this attack be carried out as "punishment" and that it be followed by withdrawal of the American organized expeditionary force from the Gulf. But what happens after the rain of destruction on Baghdad and other population centers is over?
Once having destroyed much of Iraq, the United States would be locked into a permanent military presence in the Gulf. The basically American force in the desert would find itself facing fanatically angry Arab people throughout the region. A hostile regime, whether headed by Saddam or not, would still be in charge of Iraq. None of the strategic objectives of the United States would be achieved by this act of frustration and revenge.
A military "solution" requires an invasion of Kuwait and Iraq. Enough troops can be committed to push Saddam out of Kuwait. But the losses in lives, including American lives, will be fearful. And no one knows to what level this conflict could escalate. Poison gas could be used, and the pressure to respond with the use of tactical nuclear weapons could be considerable.
The world would then cross another divide on the road to full-scale nuclear war. Even if the war against Saddam ends in a "victory" purchased with thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of civilian casualties, millions of refugees, and hundreds of billions of dollars for the permanent forces that would then have to be stationed in the desert as occupation troops, this would be the beginning of hostilities, not the end. Nothing less than protracted conflict would be involved in the physical effort to turn Iraq into a pro-American client state.
To undertake a war against Saddam without removing him from power would be the height of folly -- a dangerous king to wound. However it turns out, the war would increase instability and disorder in the Gulf for years to come.
The third scenario no one talks about. It is one in which Saddam strikes back by widening the war. He attacks Israel, hoping to turn the conflict into a holy war against the focus of Arab and Muslim rage in the region. The destruction of lives and hopes would be beyond our ability to imagine. The one thing we could be sure of is that it would not usher in the new world order the president is hoping for. To make a graveyard of the Middle East is not peace.
THE UNITED STATES CAN still take action to defuse this conflict and set the stage for a new and decent world order based on a genuine understanding of the conditions of peace. Five steps should be taken immediately.
- The United States should suspend the buildup, step up its efforts to settle the conflict through diplomacy, and bring its stated objectives into line with the aspirations of the people of the region. Thus it should drop the demand for the restoration of Sheik Sabah to the throne of Kuwait. The American people have no interest in tying their fortunes to a feudal regime. Most of the world does not support the idea of shedding blood to restore a rich, greedy royal family that has done little for the impoverished Arab people.
As desirable as it would be were Saddam to retire to pursue his new interest in religion, his disappearance would not assure peace. For two generations the whole approach of the United States to the maintenance of peace in the Middle East has stimulated war. Massive military support for authoritarian rulers deemed to be "stabilizers" -- the Shah, Sadat, Saddam himself, and now Assad of Syria, a man whose hands are no less bloody than Saddam's -- has fueled bloody war for years.
This clumsy political intervention to create clients for oil-consuming nations is an endless process that always backfires. The guarantee of peace in the region is a United Nations responsibility, and with all its limitations, it has a better chance of achieving President Bush's stated objective than the doomed political strategies of the past.
- The orderly creation of a genuinely multilateral peacekeeping presence should begin immediately. Such a multilateral force must necessarily be de-Americanized, so that the interests of the community of nations are reflected, not just the interests of the president of the United States. In accordance with detailed provisions of the United Nations Charter, which the Soviet Union now endorses, a non-American should take command.
The unity that President Bush advertises but has been unable to deliver would be better served by a genuinely international force sanctioned by the United Nations, which would have the legal and moral authority it needs to restore genuine peace and security. The test of whether the force is genuinely international is whether it is acting in accordance with the explicit provisions of the United Nations Charter and is committed to carrying out all U.N. resolutions.
American men and women are bearing disproportionate risks for countries far more dependent on Persian Gulf oil than is the United States. This country is not serving any legitimate interest by acting as a mercenary force for its primary commercial competitors, who themselves refuse to match the United States in either money or a willingness to spill blood.
- The United States should devote its primary energies to a political solution. Iraq's annexation of Kuwait is not negotiable; but how, when, and in what context Iraq withdraws are appropriate issues for diplomacy.
Specifically, the United States should seize this moment to move the rapidly deteriorating political situation in the Middle East toward a more just order. "Stability, " the newly reaffirmed global goal of the United States, cannot be achieved at gunpoint. It rests on a legitimate political, legal, and moral order. Otherwise, stability is a mirage, just a slogan to fight wars over.
- A renewed peace effort in the Middle East should begin immediately. Given the cooperation of the Soviet Union, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia in this crisis, the moment is at hand for a new effort at a regional settlement. Negotiations should be undertaken separately to deal with the major conflicts that have long destabilized the Middle East: the regional arms race; the equitable use of oil for the development of the region; and the Arab-Israeli conflict and justice for the Palestinians.
It is clearly in the interest of the United States and other nations to end the military threat posed by Iraq's huge army, its poison gas, and its nuclear ambitions. This can only be done by agreements to reduce armies, stop the arms traffic, and ban weapons of mass destruction. Unless this happens the Middle East will continue to be a time bomb. Disarmament imposed by war is not stable. It requires more of an occupying force than the United States or any other nation can or will afford. Given the end of the Cold War, negotiated disarmament in the Middle East is not a utopian goal if two things happen: progress in settling the issues surrounding Israel and its neighbors can be made; and the nuclear superpowers reduce their stockpiles, stop claiming that nuclear weapons are legitimate instruments of war or diplomacy, and announce that they will produce no more of them.
Serious diplomatic effort would be a huge and difficult exercise, but if successful, it would have a historic payoff. It would usher in a new era in human affairs built on the fundamental recognition that in the 21st century no legitimate national interest can be served by war.
- The United States must refit its economy, lifestyles, and pretensions to the realities of the 21st century. Efficiency, conservation, and the development of an alternative energy base are absolutely essential for the survival of democracy in the United States, for a workable economy, and for peace. The moral bankruptcy of waging war for oil ought to be clear. The impracticality of basing a gas-guzzling culture on a permanent war economy will become apparent.
Oil extracted at gunpoint is never cheap. Oil addiction leads not only to environmental destruction, but eventually to bankruptcy.
Richard J. Barnet, a former Sojourners contributing editor, was a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and the author of The Rockets' Red Glare: When America Goes to War (Simon & Schuster, 1990) when this article appeared.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!