replytepper

Issue #44

Last Update March 2, 2006

International The Boys from Syracuse Redux by Gerry Krownstein Michael Tepper, in his thoughtful and reasoned reply (A Reply to the Boys from Syracuse, October 2003) to my article (The Boys from Syracuse, September 2003) has focused on a small part of my argument, that the war with Iraq was arguably an aggressive act on our part, and missed the main point of the article. He points to a UN resolution, a Congressional resolution that was not a declaration of war, and a pattern of deception on the part of Saddam Hussein as legitimizing our invasion of Iraq. They do not, but the larger point made in my article is that, even if the legal fictions are made to hold, the action was unwise, and indicative of a failure to recognize the perils the administration's course places before us.

The main point of the article was that our military, superbly fitted to fight short, violent wars against a foreign army, is not structured to perform multiple long-term tasks without a reinstitution of the draft. Similarly, our economy, already bleeding from a recession and its attendant unemployment masked by faulty economic reporting, and further crippled by unwise tax cuts that prevent the government from performing one of its fundamental tasks, the building and maintenance of national physical and economic infrastructure, is now being asked to shoulder an enlarged military budget and enhanced, though woefully misdirected, homeland security costs, at least some of which are required only due only to the bad decisions made by President Bush and his advisors. Mister Tepper grants that this is an interesting issue to ponder. I contend that this issue is of such importance that discussion of the legitimacy of the Iraq war is almost irrelevant, except as a guide to the capability of the current Administration to act wisely.

As for Mr. Tepper's argument that Mr. Bush had a Constitutional duty to act as he did, the facts are against him. Most of our allies, and the preponderance of the UN, argued that the previous UN inspection regime had been effective, that the threat from Iraq was not immanent, and that, given suspicions (fostered by Saddam Hussein himself) that Iraq was developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, a reimposition of UN inspection and its attendant destruction of any weapons found was sufficient to alleviate any future threat. Facts now in evidence have proven the effectiveness of the previous inspections forced on Iraq after the first Gulf war. The UN resolution threatened force, but did not authorize it.

Similarly, our Congressional resolution (where Congress whimped out and abdicated its Constitutional responsibility over the declaration of war) occurred after an exposition by the Administration of "facts" purporting to show a clear and immanent danger, accompanied by statements that our intelligence on the matter was so complete that we knew exactly where the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and research facilities were to be found. These "facts" were false then and have been shown to be so since. Mr. Tepper can make his own choice as to whether this situation reflects Mr. Bush's duplicity, incompetence, or ideological blindness. Regardless of which he chooses, he has no reason to continue his confidence in the Administration.

Mr. Tepper stated, "Is Mr. Krownstein arguing the U.S.'s moral and legal right to wage war under the circumstances following the 9/11 attacks - which I think would be well defended - or the competence of the mission? On both accounts, it seems the facts are against him." Actually, my article did not question our invasion of Afghanistan. As for Iraq, and threats to other nations made by the Bush Administration, I am arguing both our moral and legal right to unilaterally wage war is definitely in question, and that the incompetence of the Bush Administration is incontrovertible. On both accounts, it is clear, the facts have borne me out.