A just cause?

I find it quite ironic that two recent viewpoints, one by Carl Martin (Who will be the enemy of tomorrow, March 8) and one by Gary Leupp (Opposing an unjustified war and occupation, March 10), have so fervently criticized the war and rebuilding efforts in Iraq, when perhaps the most positive and hopeful event yet on the long road to democracy there occurred this past Monday: the signing of an Iraqi interim constitution.

Yes, there were struggles over certain clauses of the document, and the signing even got delayed for a day because of some important disagreements, but it was signed nonetheless. To my mind, that is considerable progress, and something to be hopeful about.

I implore the anti-war/anti-occupation crowd to separate the means from the ends in this debate, just for a moment. Get rid of your hatred for President Bush, get rid of your knowledge of the build-up to the war, the lack of U.N. approval, and get rid of your anger that there haven't been any WMDs found or proof of an Al Qaida-Saddam link.

Now analyze the situation. From this perspective, we have the world's most powerful state (along with some important allies) forcing a brutal dictator from power, and providing the chance for democracy and human freedom for the first time in a long-oppressed polity. Does it still look so bad?

Democracy in Iraq would be good for Iraqis, the Middle East, and also (realists may not want to proceed reading here) for the United States, Europe, and every other freedom-loving country as well! Democracy, human liberty, and free markets in Iraq and the rest of the region would curb the appeal of terrorist organizations, allow these states to become productive members of the world community, and would surely mollify some of the anti-Western sentiment that has become so pervasive there.

Let me turn to some specific criticisms of the argument presented by Professor Leupp. In the opening paragraph, he declares that "Iraq ... was not a threat to U.S. security." I happen to agree, but I would qualify the statement by saying that Iraq was not an imminent threat. And even then, so what? Arguing against the war is, ultimately, arguing for the continued rule of Saddam. How can you justify that to the millions of Iraqis who have been tortured and oppressed for decades under the Baath regime? Furthermore, should we only intervene in countries when they are a direct and imminent threat to U.S. security? The human rights crowd would be, literally, up in arms. What if one of our European allies was under attack from some rogue country? Would we not intervene? How about for a mass genocide in a foreign territory that had no real consequences for American security? I just don't accept the notion that we should use force only when our security is overtly threatened.

Well then, the argument goes, why aren't we intervening in every oppressive dictatorship around the globe? Because the United States has to balance its liberal optimism with realistic assessments of its capabilities. We don't have the capability to democratize and free every oppressed country in the world, so we balance that desire with our strategic interests. Iraq is a case in point. There were surely selfish reasons to invade: maybe oil, maybe other corporate interests, maybe military presence in the region. So when these strategic goals are juxtaposed with the promise of an effort to democratize the country, it seems like a good deal for everyone.

Another flaw in the Leupp argument is a narrow focus on the negative. He claims that "the occupying troops did not meet with riotous jubilation but with sullen tolerance at best." Perhaps some Iraqis strongly disapprove of our presence, but surely there are others who truly welcomed it, and are assisting in many ways to help establish the rule of law (for example, Saddam would not have been captured without the help of Iraqi citizens). Absent from Professor Leupp's argument is any acknowledgment whatsoever of the progress that has been made, such as the training of an Iraqi Civil Defense Corps, the productive debate going on in the Iraqi Governing Council, and most significantly, the recent signing of the interim Constitution.

Furthermore, Professor Leupp points to the casualties that have been inflicted during the effort -- both military and civilian, Iraqi and American (among others). Of course, no one wants to see this happen. But freedom has always come at a cost, and part of that cost is human casualty. To be sure, a history professor would be intimately familiar with cases in the past where soldiers and civilians have died in vain for ostensibly "good" causes, and would translate this knowledge into opposition to a war effort like that in Iraq. But one must also recognize that the beloved freedom enjoyed by Americans, western Europeans, and many others today was only made possible by centuries of long, hard, extremely bloody struggles. Would we relinquish our beloved freedoms today if it meant we could bring back all those valiant men and women who have died for that very cause?

Finally, I was incredulous at the suggestion to "bring the troops home now." This would surely create many more problems than it would solve. The threat of civil war, outright anarchy, or the re-establishment of an oppressive military dictatorship would be the likely result of an American withdrawal. Professor Leupp's analogy to the kidnapping thug who stays around after the crime is based on an erroneous premise. The invasion of Iraq was not a wanton crime, and the long-term prospect of democratic nation-building was one of the goals from the start.

It is certainly true that eventual democracy in Iraq is no guarantee, and I have no doubt that the Bush administration should be taken to task for obscuring the evidence for the war, misleading the public about a bin Laden link, and failing to achieve a more representative coalition. But I also recognize that part of the cause -- destroying a dictatorship and trying to establish the rule of law- has many virtues, not least of which is the hopeful prospect of representative government and individual liberty in a hitherto authoritarian country. I truly hope that the effort in Iraq becomes the vanguard for a democratic Middle East. I know that's the kind of future that most Americans, Iraqis, and citizens of the world hope for as well. If, however, we maintain a perpetual state of inaction vis-...-vis the most abject autocracies, how will the world ever witness the next frontier of freedom?

Todd Walters is a senior majoring in Biology.