Why we must win in Iraq: a better reason

I want to briefly consider the most common arguments that the United States "can and must win in Iraq." I take it for granted that the "can win" part is right, so let me focus on the "must win" part.

My least favorite is what I think of as the neocon argument. It goes something like this: America should spread its superior democratic values to as many corners of the globe as possible. The middle east, Iraq in particular, is a place sorely needing our kind of democratic values. We must win in Iraq so that we can establish a democracy in the middle east, and thus enable the spread of our values to other nations in that region.

There are a lot of variations on this argument. We should bring freedom to the middle east, we should oppose autocracy in all its forms around the world, and so on. The key is that we appeal to some moral principle that implies that we should help the less fortunate (like the Iraqis).

Now I reject this reasoning for a simple and straightforward reason: I despise the values to which my neocon friends typically appeal. Democracy, liberty, and so on. I have no desire to see them spread to other nations when I want to eradicate them here!

(My position on democracy and liberty is a bit more complicated than this makes it sound. I'll post a blog on this soon.)

Another argument I reject is one that I think of as the "Pearl Harbor Argument," though I think this one isn't as bad as the neocon argument. It goes something like this: Iraq is the central front of the War on Terror. If we lose in Iraq, we lose the War on Terror. We must win the War on Terror because (insert reason here). Therefore ... Of course, this one has many variants too, but are substantially similar to this version.

I reject this reasoning because I think its a bit silly. This is because I think the idea of the War on Terror is a bit silly, but that is a topic for another blog.

There is one argument that does impress me, and I think its the obvious argument. I think more than a few people would agree with this, but no one has the courage to say so in public. Let me be among the first. I'll call this one the Hegemony argument. The reasoning goes like this:

(1) We need to maintain the U.S.'s position as the sole Superpower.
(2) China and Russia (our real enemies) are using their vast energy reserves as leverage to challenge the U.S.'s status as the world's sole Superpower.
(3) The more energy resources the U.S. and its allies control, the better its ability to maintain its lead over China and Russia.
(4) The Middle East contains vast energy resources, relatively easily controlled by a Superpower and/or its allies.

Therefore:

(5) The U.S. and its allies should try to win control of those energy resources in Iraq and the middle east in general.

People's first reaction will be to accuse me of being an imperialist. Of course, they would be right about that, but that's irrelevant. I think every American, no matter his/her political position, should endorse this argument.

A right-winger who endorses (1) might challenge my claim that (5) follows in something like the following way: America gives up its moral superiority by taking control of Iraq by force. Without that superiority, America has no business as a Superpower. In other words, if we do as (5) suggests, then (1) is false. If you think that, fine. Don't think of it as the U.S. taking control of the Iraqi oil reserves. Think of us as helping the Iraqi's take control of it themselves. We just ensure that they remain our allies. So if you accept (1), (5) still follows.

So the real challenge to this argument would be to (1). I think, though, that everyone should endorse (1). Now there are a huge number of reasons to oppose it, so I can't address them all. Let me address what I take to be the most common reason: some commitment to peace, liberty, justice, and so on. If you have such a commitment, though, you should still endorse (1). I refer you to history. Recall phrases like "Pax Romana" and "Pax Britannia," These phrases describe the unprecedented peace that exists when one nation far outstrips it's rivals in power. No large wars take place when this is the case because no groups have the power to oppose the dominant group. This phenomenon is, I think, well documented in history.

My favorite example of how this ends badly is the end of the Pax Britannia. The nineteenth century was an unprecedented era of peace in Europe. This was most likely the result of Great Britain's overwhelming power. The Pax Britannia ended when Germany became strong enough to challenge the Great Britain's power. And we all know (or should know) about the kind of bloodshed that followed.

Don't fool yourself. The situation is much the same today, with Russia and China standing in for Germany, and the U.S. for Britain.

So if you want peace, or liberty, or any of that nonsense, your best bet (ironically, I admit) is to see the U.S. maintain it's dominance. If China and Russia (or even the E.U.!) manage to challenge the U.S., then we will see the kind of wars that we usually see in history: bloody, destructive, expensive, and wasteful. These are the kinds of wars that we haven't seen in six decades. Most people who want to reject (1) will not want to see wars like this. So those people should accept America's world dominance as the lesser of two evils (and lesser by far, I might add).

Let me make one more comment to avoid a likely confusion. Left-leaning people often accuse the Bush Administration of cooking up the war with Iraq and trying to control its oil reserves for money. That is, personal enrichment was the motivation. Notice that that is NOT my motivation. Personal enrichment is all well and good, but there are more important things. My argument that we should control the middle east's energy reserves is not so that we can become richer. It is only so that we can become stronger. Don't confuse me with the greedy.