Print

Mail

wiki links

Attack on Iraq entails peril for East Asia

In his June 1 address to graduating cadets at West Point, US President George W. Bush said the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment will not work against terrorist networks or unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction.

"If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long ... our security requires all Americans ... to be ready for pre-emptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives."

As an optional tactic, pre-emption is appropriate when there is a clear and imminent threat emanating from a group of shadowy and fanatic terrorists. But pre-emption as a military doctrine raises many troubling questions, especially as applied against another nation.

First, the doctrine runs counter to the UN charter, which reserves to sovereign nations "the inherent right of individual or collective defense," but only in response to an armed attack. The Bush administration has not demonstrated a specific and imminent threat from Iraq.

Second, a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq by the US will create an undesirable precedent for other nations to ignore international law and engage in unilateral, anticipatory self-defense whenever a threat is perceived. The result could well be global anarchy.

Third, as regards Iraq, other means should be tried to reduce the potential danger, such as sanctions, reintroduction of weapons inspectors and dialogue with Baghdad.

If a danger emerges despite such efforts, the US can then act with the support of the UN, allies and other friendly nations.

Fourth, the consequences of a victory over Saddam Hussein are hard to predict. The US could end up having to occupy Iraq for many years. Should there be substantial civilian deaths, the US could alienate its friends and allies and further inflame the Arab world's resentment against the US. A new generation of willing Muslim martyrs could be created in the process. Unilateral military action may thus be counterproductive.

Fifth, to safeguard the US from attacks by chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, it may be more important and more fruitful to intensify counter-proliferation efforts in Russia and to enforce non-proliferation agreements with China.

Finally, the US is already deploying new forces in the Persian Gulf in anticipation of a war against Iraq. An invasion of Iraq will take some 250,000 troops, including six or seven aircraft carrier task forces. A mobilization of this magnitude will stretch America's military capacity and leave Taiwan and the US forces deployed in East Asia vulnerable to a pre-emptive blitzkrieg by China. The strategy of the PLA is to launch a multi-pronged surprise attack on Taiwan and coerce the island into submission, before US forces can arrive on the scene.

A military defeat in East Asia will inflict catastrophic, long-term strategic damage on both Japan and the US, damage which will far exceed whatever security the US may gain through a regime change in Iraq. The notion of pre-emptive strike was apparently developed with Al-Qaeda and Iraq in mind. It should not be expanded and elevated to the status of a strategic doctrine. Otherwise, the US would need to address potential threats from all nations in the axis of evil, including those emerging from the rise of China, without the advantages of deliberate statecraft and propitious timing.

In the long run, US security interests will be better served by an international system in which nations are more law-abiding, collaborative and inclined to adopt peaceful means of resolving disputes. Prudence calls for a candid debate on the pros and cons of a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq before the momentum towards war becomes irreversible.

Li Thian-hok is a freelance commentator based in Pennsylvania.
This story has been viewed 2083 times.