 |
  |
 |
|
|
BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: As the U.S. military buildup continues in the Middle East, debate also continues over the morality of going to war. Today, a special report on the moral arguments, for and against. I spoke with William Galston of the University of Maryland, where he is a professor at the School of Public Affairs and Director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy. Also with George Weigel, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington. Weigel says modern weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein threaten necessary order. He also argues that that combination is not just a potential danger but aggression that has already begun.
GEORGE WEIGEL (Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center): And it seems to me, when a demonstratedly aggressive regime acquires weapons of mass destruction -- not for purposes of deterrence but for purposes of attack -- it is legitimate to say, in moral terms, this is an aggression under way to which there is a morally legitimate claim to response.
ABERNETHY: How sure are we that Saddam Hussein has weapons that are a threat to us?
Mr. WEIGEL: We certainly know that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction that are a threat to his neighbors, that are a threat to order in the Middle East, and that over time or through terrorist connections could be a threat to us.
ABERNETHY: Professor Galston opposes a preemptive strike on Iraq in part because, he says, it does not meet the historic criteria for a just war.
Professor WILLIAM GALSTON (Director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy): The threat has to be grave. It has to be immediate. It has to be such that the costs of delay are unbearable. In my judgment, the criteria for justifiable preemption have not been met in the case of Iraq.
ABERNETHY: But what about the argument that modern weapons are so dangerous they require a new definition of self-defense?
Prof. GALSTON: It is one thing to say that a country has a weapon. It's a very different thing to say that the country has the intention of using that weapon against us. So the question becomes, does Saddam Hussein have, or is he likely to have, the intention of using weapons of mass destruction against us? In my judgment, the answer to that is almost certainly no, except if we send him a signal that he is going down, that he has nothing left to lose. That is the one scenario under which he might conceivably unleash weapons of mass destruction against us, if he can.
ABERNETHY: Galston argues that deterrence would be a better policy than going to war.
Prof. GALSTON: Whenever we have sent a serious signal to Saddam Hussein that something would be intolerable if he did it, he has not done it. When we have not sent such a signal, he has done it. But that is our mistake. We have every legal and moral right to disarm Saddam Hussein, and the fact that neither we nor the international community acted forcefully enough to enforce that claim during the 1990s is not an argument in favor of preemption, it is an argument in favor of enforcement.
Mr. WEIGEL: The case with Iraq turns on the nature of the regime. This is a man who has demonstrated that deterrence does not work with him. He has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He has used weapons of mass destruction in a war against Iran. He would undoubtedly have used weapons of mass destruction in the Gulf War had he had the opportunity to do so. We are not dealing here with a Congress of Vienna, 19th-century polite diplomatic environment. We are dealing with perhaps the most wicked political leader in the world today, and prudent statecraft, which is moral statecraft, cannot grant him the assumption of deterrability, if you will.
ABERNETHY: And you are convinced that that threat is imminent?
Mr. WEIGEL: I am convinced that it is real and present. I am convinced that it is a real and present danger. And I am further convinced, in terms of building a world of order, a world in which laws and diplomacy are the normal means of resolving conflict, that removing this kind of threat from the international equation will build peace over the medium and long run.
ABERNETHY: Galston says the U.S. must honor international law because America needs the unforced respect of other nations.
Prof. GALSTON: I think that if we turn in a different direction -- whatever our intentions and whatever the truth of the matter -- we will be seen as the reincarnation of the Roman empire. Let me be very personal. I am delighted to be a citizen of a constitutional democracy. I do not want to be a citizen of an empire.
GEORGE WEIGEL (Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center): And it seems to me, when a demonstratedly aggressive regime acquires weapons of mass destruction -- not for purposes of deterrence but for purposes of attack -- it is legitimate to say, in moral terms, this is an aggression under way to which there is a morally legitimate claim to response.ABERNETHY: How sure are we that Saddam Hussein has weapons that are a threat to us?
Mr. WEIGEL: We certainly know that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction that are a threat to his neighbors, that are a threat to order in the Middle East, and that over time or through terrorist connections could be a threat to us.
ABERNETHY: Professor Galston opposes a preemptive strike on Iraq in part because, he says, it does not meet the historic criteria for a just war.
Professor WILLIAM GALSTON (Director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy): The threat has to be grave. It has to be immediate. It has to be such that the costs of delay are unbearable. In my judgment, the criteria for justifiable preemption have not been met in the case of Iraq. ABERNETHY: But what about the argument that modern weapons are so dangerous they require a new definition of self-defense?
Prof. GALSTON: It is one thing to say that a country has a weapon. It's a very different thing to say that the country has the intention of using that weapon against us. So the question becomes, does Saddam Hussein have, or is he likely to have, the intention of using weapons of mass destruction against us? In my judgment, the answer to that is almost certainly no, except if we send him a signal that he is going down, that he has nothing left to lose. That is the one scenario under which he might conceivably unleash weapons of mass destruction against us, if he can.
ABERNETHY: Galston argues that deterrence would be a better policy than going to war.
Prof. GALSTON: Whenever we have sent a serious signal to Saddam Hussein that something would be intolerable if he did it, he has not done it. When we have not sent such a signal, he has done it. But that is our mistake. We have every legal and moral right to disarm Saddam Hussein, and the fact that neither we nor the international community acted forcefully enough to enforce that claim during the 1990s is not an argument in favor of preemption, it is an argument in favor of enforcement.Mr. WEIGEL: The case with Iraq turns on the nature of the regime. This is a man who has demonstrated that deterrence does not work with him. He has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He has used weapons of mass destruction in a war against Iran. He would undoubtedly have used weapons of mass destruction in the Gulf War had he had the opportunity to do so. We are not dealing here with a Congress of Vienna, 19th-century polite diplomatic environment. We are dealing with perhaps the most wicked political leader in the world today, and prudent statecraft, which is moral statecraft, cannot grant him the assumption of deterrability, if you will.
ABERNETHY: And you are convinced that that threat is imminent?
Mr. WEIGEL: I am convinced that it is real and present. I am convinced that it is a real and present danger. And I am further convinced, in terms of building a world of order, a world in which laws and diplomacy are the normal means of resolving conflict, that removing this kind of threat from the international equation will build peace over the medium and long run.
ABERNETHY: Galston says the U.S. must honor international law because America needs the unforced respect of other nations.Prof. GALSTON: I think that if we turn in a different direction -- whatever our intentions and whatever the truth of the matter -- we will be seen as the reincarnation of the Roman empire. Let me be very personal. I am delighted to be a citizen of a constitutional democracy. I do not want to be a citizen of an empire.
ABERNETHY: Weigel and Galston differ sharply over the likely consequences of attacking Iraq.
ABERNETHY: And, after the fighting, is the U.S. prepared to occupy Iraq for many years?
Mr. WEIGEL: It was also said in the fall of 1990 that if we took military action to expel Iraq from Kuwait, the Muslim street, so called, would rise up. None of that happened. I don't think it's likely to happen in this case. I think the danger in this case is of terrorist activity, probably here in the U.S., perhaps in Britain and elsewhere. But what's the alternative? I mean, can we let ourselves be held hostage to these kinds of wicked forces on the chance that they may do something wicked? No, we prepare for that, as we are preparing for action in Iraq.
Prof. GALSTON: I have reached the judgment that, although many people I respect believe that it would do more good than harm, that in fact it would do precisely the reverse. An invasion of Iraq would expose the U.S. not only to physical jeopardy and political jeopardy but also [to] moral jeopardy. We might win a quick victory, but I think in the long run it would be a setback for the U.S. and for the case of global democracy and freedom that we rightly and proudly sponsor.
