North Korea’s recent belligerent announcement of what
everyone already knew ““ that it is developing nuclear weapons
““ has stirred up the Iraq debate.
Thus far, though, it seems most commentators, at least campus
commentators, are missing the point. Just because the two nations
possess similar weapons programs doesn’t mean each should be
treated the same.
Many anti-war activists have leapt at the chance to add North
Korea to the catalogue of dubious hypocrisies that serve as their
argument against every policy option the United States has tried
with Iraq since Saddam Hussein’s takeover. They scoff that
the United States seems eager to pursue war with Baghdad over
weapons of mass destruction whereas it turns to diplomacy to deal
with Pyong-Yang.
They claim this shows that the Bush administration is
hypocritical, eager to spill blood for oil, or eager to gain
vicarious revenge for Papa Bush.
This argument ignores the critical distinction between Iraq and
North Korea with regards to deterrence: One can legitimately bluff
that it has nuclear weapons; the other cannot. Because North Korea
might have such weapons, it gets treated differently than Iraq.
Worse for this line of argument, the North Korean case actually
makes it seem more necessary to go to war with Iraq now. The
failure of diplomacy in North Korea suggests that diplomacy will
also ultimately fail in Iraq as well and encourages preemptive
action to head off proliferation.
There are a host of other reasons why Iraq is more pressing than
North Korea. Let us suppose for a moment that there were no
differences in either nation’s weapons of mass destruction
program. If so, then the first reason for pursuing a different
policy in North Korea is that it sits on China’s doorstep.
When it comes to international politics, there’s a certain
understanding that you just don’t go picking fights with
other heavyweights’ entourages.
Secondly, there are no international resolutions specifically
attacking North Korea’s weapons program, and it will take
even more work than it is taking on Iraq to build one.
Third, Iraq has proven to be a greater offensive threat than
North Korea. This is in part due to Iraq’s relative regional
strength compared to North Korea’s relative regional
weakness, but it also has to do with Hussein’s high tolerance
for risk.
Hussein seems more likely to do something risky with his weapons
than North Korea, and he is also more likely to provoke a crisis in
which he will use his own tolerance for risk to extort concessions
out of his neighbors.
There are, of course, accurate reasons for going to war with
Iraq that protesters allude to. Because of the successes of the
U.S. military in Afghanistan, a war with Iraq is assumed to involve
less casualty risk for Americans than a war with North Korea. A war
with Iraq has something to do with the war on terrorism really
being a war on Islamic terrorism. A war with Iraq may have positive
consequences for Israel and the oil industry. It could also be a
catastrophe for both, but let’s assume that everything works
out as well as possible for American interests.
Even still, it is unfair to suppose that a war with multiple
effects is somehow mono-causal. Just because the United States may
gain from this war in strategic terms does not preclude it from
also doing what is right in a humanitarian sense or for
international law.
Sometimes what’s right and what’s in your own
interests align. You should be comforted by this, not protesting.
It’s like finding out that the girl you’ve been eyeing
is also respectable, strong and a pleasant conversationalist.
Should you refrain from pursuing her just because of your
selfish interest in having sex with her? Wouldn’t it be wiser
to celebrate because your coarser desires align with your nobler
ones? When Truman integrated the military, it had positive
electoral consequences. It was also the right thing to do.
Which motive was decisive? Who cares? The right thing got
done.
One doesn’t have to celebrate the war to be in support of
it. We build war memorials to wars we had to win ““ not to
wars we wanted to engage in. A humanitarian is not necessarily a
pacifist. As Theodore Roosevelt said, “A just war is far
better for a man’s soul than the most prosperous
peace.”