Material Breach: Against an Absurd War

Mark Desrosiers

The idea of a war against Iraq is an absurdity, a blatant and even slightly comical repudiation of the very idea of the 'just war'.

The idea of a war against Iraq is an absurdity, a blatant and even slightly comical repudiation of the very idea of the "just war". It is stark insanity to wage such a costly war against a heavily weakened opponent -- an opponent who will undoubtedly respond, not with conventional Clausewitz military tactics, but with some truly dirty face-to-face terrorism. Moreover, a preemptive attack on Iraq violates the convention of casus belli -- the centuries-old idea that the cause of an armed conflict presumes a well-defined act of belligerence or aggression. I am tempted to call this "war for war's sake", but I do see some motive beyond revenge-for-daddy, blood-for-oil, and spook-the-terrorists. America now wants hegemony, and it will pursue it at all costs, even at the risk of trivializing the United Nations and destroying the norms of rational and peaceful conflict resolution.

For the first time in American history, the federal government is cutting taxes at the same time as it prepares to wage an expensive war. Not only is Bush doing something unprecedented in storming ahead with "preemptive warfare", but he's casting fiscal sanity to the winds at the same time. He prefers the idea of extending America's dubious hegemony in the Middle East to the ethos of making America a strong and principled nation. Popular protests in hundreds of cities throughout the world have been screaming constantly in Bush's ear that this war is a dangerous lunacy with grave consequences. And these aren't just gentle beer-bong peaceniks placing daisies in gun barrels: the protesters include blue-collar workers, investors, grandmothers, Gulf War veterans, farmers, priests, peasants, and politicians. President Bush is not eyeball-to-eyeball with Saddam Hussein. He is eyeball-to-eyeball with the rest of the world, and I fear that his administration's arrogance will reap some tragic and embarrassing results.

As for the threat Iraq poses to the world, we have seen the supposed "evidence" of both Colin Powell (lexical shell-game) and Tony Blair (plagiarism) get shot through with doubts and inconsistencies. We have witnessed America's dirty Soviet-style surveillance tactics in trying to secure U.N. Security Council votes for a war (see this Observer article for more information on that little-reported story). We have witnessed absolutely no proof of connections between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda (or other international terrorist organizations, for that matter). And we have seen Iraq make some concerted efforts to disarm itself in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. Yet a war seems inevitable despite the absence of aggression on Iraq's part, and despite the wide variety of strict and thorough means by which we could avoid a war, for example by more vigorous, long-term inspections. I hear a future echoing with hollow pity and laughing historians, and there's no doubt in my mind that George W. Bush is the worst President my country has ever seen. Ulysses S. Grant, Warren G. Harding, and Richard Nixon were peaceful, wise, and pragmatic sages in comparison.

I think the key moment that illustrates the farcical nature of this conflict was when Saddam Hussein challenged George W. Bush to a debate on international television. The Mother of All Debates, and the world would have dropped everything to watch it. Bush and Hussein are not the brightest bulbs ever to light up the diplomatic landscape (though some accounts have it that Hussein is quite intelligent despite the blood on his apron), and both are completely insulated and advised by yes-men who reinforce their peculiar worldviews. Imagine the surreal overtones of such a debate: both opponents secure in their own visionary status, spouting rhetoric and dripping mutual contempt. The semi-coherent transcript would have pulsated like a blinding headache, and I shudder to think who would be the debate's unlikely "winner". But think about it: Saddam Hussein wants to talk, not fight. Hussein -- the slightly berserk thug who stopped at nothing to pummel Iran and invade Kuwait during the 80s and 90s -- he doesn't want a war! How can we claim that he's a threat after hearing his pitiful offer of a debate?

I agree that Saddam Hussein is a nasty, two-bit gangster who should never have been allowed to murder his way to the status of modern leader. And I agree that his own ambitions in the Middle East over the past 24 years -- a secular Islamic Nebuchadnezzar with Israel crushed under his heel -- have been frightfully grandiose and irrational. But I find the idea of raining bombs on Iraqi citizens in order to effect a "regime change" (and the new "regime" will be the American military, according to the sunbeam predictions in USA Today) to be much more repulsive than the alternative: a neutered Saddam barely ruling a steadily disarmed and heavily monitored country. So maybe this is all about realpolitik, not upholding principles or uprooting evil. Maybe America is doing what all the lefties are accusing it of doing: imposing a Pax Americana on the Middle East, creating a nice quiet political-economic atmosphere born in fire.

The idea of realpolitik has always been a bit irrational and strange in its results. Take, for example, America's support for Cambodia's Khmer Rouge coalition government-in-exile after a semi-heroic Vietnamese-backed safe'n'sane regime fought its way into Phnom Penh in December 1978. You remember Pol Pot, right? Evil man, genocidal, ruthless, etc. etc. Well, America backed this bloodthirsty Communist at the height of the Cold War, and there's realpolitik for you. At the same time we were also backing crazies like Suharto and Ferdinand Marcos, and we continue to back crazies like Ariel Sharon (whose attitude toward his own population is often rather more hostile and brutal than that of Saddam Hussein, based on recent evidence). So the absurdities and inconsistencies of our supposedly principled and pragmatic position multiply and refract, and who knows what sort of sputtering cauldron will start glowing red as Saddam slouches grey-jowled in exile and American soldiers arrogantly assume the levers of power in Baghdad and a bomb-wrecked historic Mesopotamian landscape falls silent and countless formerly peaceful Arabs (and Kurds) start wincing and glaring angrily across the Atlantic Ocean.

It's a dire scenario. But no matter what the American media blows your way, don't believe this war with Iraq is inevitable. Hell, even the American Gulf War Veterans Association has come out against the war. Sure, General Norman Schwarzkopf and Secretary James Baker have withdrawn their initial opposition to an unprovoked war (I sense a bit of arm-twisting and spinelessness in this odd flip-flop -- the initial decision seemed brave and principled, but their new views just ape that of the administration.) But Douglas Hurd (Britain's foreign secretary during the Gulf War) remains vehemently opposed, saying such a war will turn the Middle East into "a sullen humiliation, a fertile and almost inexhaustible ground for recruiting further terrorists." And to top it all off, even Dubya's dad, former President George Bush has come out against a unilateral war. We need to demand more vigorous and thorough arms inspections, and we need to keep this war from happening. Write your political representative. Take to the streets. Sign a petition. Visit for some practical ideas on how to oppose the war.

I believe the only place in the world now where wars are waged without casus belli is in the highlands of New Guinea, where such conflicts are a cultural necessity and almost a form of recreation. Ritualized motiveless warmaking might be acceptable -- even benign -- in the primeval world of the south Pacific, but it will be a boundless horror in the Middle East. Let's not let it happen.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.