Professor outlines argument against Iraq war

To the Editors:

Over the last month several articles in the Review have outlined the arguments for war in Iraq. In this letter I outline one of the many reasons why I take the opposite position: for peace and against war.
No one knows precisely what will happen if the United States invades Iraq. President Bush has outlined this best-case scenario: (1) Resistance is relatively mild, and the people of Iraq welcome U.S. liberation from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. (2) Saddam does not set fire to the Iraqi oil wells when he departs. (3) After a two-year occupation, Iraq emerges as a prosperous, stable, democratic nation. (4) Seeing the vast improvement in the quality of life of nearby Iraq, the Israelis and Palestinians stop fighting and become peaceful residents of two adjacent nations.
If this outcome were to occur, it would be a good thing. It would not solve all our problems: for example, al Qaeda does not and never has had extensive operations in Iraq, so this outcome would leave the United States as vulnerable as ever to fundamentalist terror. Nevertheless, such an outcome would be welcome. What is the probability of this best-case outcome?
(1) Most nations resist invasion even by a friendly force. General Omar Bradley wrote eloquently about the dislike that French civilians felt toward U.S. forces during World War II, even though those forces liberated the civilians from the hated Hitler. I estimate that the chances of a welcomed invasion are about 1 in 5.
(2) Saddam is a power-hungry dictator. He set fire to oil wells when he was forced to abandon Kuwait. There is even more reason for him to set fire to oil wells when he is forced to abandon his homeland of Iraq. The chances of Iraq emerging from war with an intact oil industry are 1 in 1000.
(3) Anyone who has watched the emergence over the last 40 years of new nations in Africa, Latin American, and the former Soviet Union knows that a stable democracy is a precious and improbable thing. Indeed, anyone who knows American history knows this as well: our nation faced three major rebellions in the first 100 years of its existence (Shay’s rebellion, the Whisky Rebellion, and the Civil War). Furthermore, the United States has rarely shown the desire to nurture new democracies: right now, the U.S. administration is working hard to undermine democracy in Turkey, because the Turkish parliament is not giving the administration what it wants. The chances of Iraq emerging as a stable democracy after two years of American occupation is 1 in 100.
(4) President Bush believes that a change in government in Baghdad will lead to peace 400 miles away in Israel. It is just as likely that a new mayor in Ottawa will cause declining tensions in Oberlin. I appreciate the President’s optimism, but in this case I can see no grounds for it. I optimistically estimate the chances of an invasion of Iraq resolving the ancient animosities between Jew and Arab at 1 in 10,000. The overall probability of the best-case outcome is 1 in 5 billion.
How about a worst-case scenario? (1) Resistance is relatively mild, and the U.S. sets up an force to occupy Iraq. Hatred of America grows enormously throughout the Islamic world. (2) Pakistan’s pro-American military government of General Pervez Musharraf, already unpopular, is unable to maintain power in face of the growing anti-American sentiment of its people. The government topples and is replaced by a fundamentalist regime, perhaps the Taliban. (3) The fundamentalist regime gives Pakistan’s nuclear weapons to al Qaeda or another terrorist group. (4) In a coordinated action not much more difficult than the September 11 attacks, the terror network smuggles these nuclear weapons into major American and pro-American cities, and destroys large parts of these cities. (5) The enormous loss of talent, resources, culture, and hope sets humanity spinning into another dark age. Unlike the dark ages following the fall of Rome, which affected only Europe, these second dark ages are worldwide. Instead of lasting for 1000 years, they last for 7000 years.
Let me emphasize the obvious: the worst-case outcome is far more bad than the best-case outcome is good. What is the probability of this worst-case outcome?
(1) We have already seen hatred of America grow from merely talking about invasion. If the invasion actually happens, the probability of increased anti-Americanism is 100 percent.
(2) Musharraf’s government is already unpopular, and Pakistani governments come and go regularly. The probability of Musharraf’s ousting in favor of a fundamentalist regime is 1 in 5.
(3) The chances of a fundamentalist regime giving nuclear weapons to a fundamentalist terror group is sizable: about 1 in 5.
(4) America has long, lonely, and porous borders. It would not be hard to smuggle in a small nuclear bomb. If terrorists get nuclear weapons, the chances that they would carry out the attack I envision are about 1 in 10.
(5) Today’s closely networked world is more vulnerable to disruption than was the Roman Empire, which was peopled largely with self-sufficient farmers. I estimate the probability of a new dark age as 9 in 10.
The overall probability of my worst-case outcome is 9 chances in 2500 or about 1 chance in 300. A small probability, no doubt, but far greater than the 1 chance in 5 billion for the rosy outcome. The bad outcome is not only much more bad than the good outcome is good, but it is far more probable as well. There are many reasons why I support peace and oppose war in Iraq — this is only one of them.

—Dan Styer
Professor of Physics