Hypocrisy and Iraq

“Hypocrisy” is a word that is getting a lot of use in the political arena lately. I heard it used by a Republican senator against a U.S. general who had become outspoken against the Iraq War. And a Democratic candidate for President made frequent use of the term during a campaign speech I was watching, particularly with reference to the ability of America to project its influence throughout the world as a peacemaker. In each case, the one using the term sounded oh-so holy and high-minded, but in my opinion, missed the point, albeit for different reasons.

When taking actions on anything, they must be done within a certain context. If a general in Iraq expressed support for the war effort there while he was on active assignment then, then he was doing so within the context of his then-role as an active military officer carrying out his Commander-in-Chief’s mandated policies. Once retired, that general’s context shifted to that of a private citizen, and he expressed his views about the war honestly and critically. The point is that if his context had been the same and he had said different things to suit his own aims, then I would agree that he had been guilty of hypocrisy. As for the United States (or any other sovereign nation for that matter), foreign policy decisions are made in different contexts as well, and some of them may seem to conflict with each other and present an appearance of hypocrisy as well. On 9/11/01, the U.S. was attacked by terrorists on a grand scale, and have since devoted a large portion of its foreign policy to armed conflict against those terrorist organizations deemed culpable, as well as against countries that were adjudged to be aiding them. This is the context of war, which unfortunately seems to happen from time to time. With the rest of the world, the U.S. conducts its foreign policy in a peaceful context, and thus sees itself as a “force” for resolving international disputes peacefully between other countries. The question of hypocrisy comes up in regard to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Was it done in the context of the “War on Terror”, as the Bush Administration claims, or did the U.S. commit an act of war against a peaceful nation? To the second question, consider that Iraq under Saddam Hussein invaded two neighboring countries in the span of ten years, used chemical weapons on Iranians in Iran as well as its own citizens, and broke the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that allowed the belligerent Iraqi regime to remain in power. These facts would tend to give credence to the suggestion that Iraq was belligerent, not peaceful. On the other hand, the U.S. never officially declared war against anyone, leaving the delineation between the contexts of peace and war fuzzy both at home and abroad. And it is here, I believe, that it is susceptible to charges of hypocrisy. However, in a very technical sense, the U.S. administration can and has argued that since the Iraq had violated the cease-fire provisions ending the first Gulf War, then that cease-fire agreement was voided and hostilities were again in effect. And this gave the U.S. its needed context of war in order to launch its invasion.

The bottom line is whether the United States should be criticizing other countries for their aggressive postures when it itself invaded another country. My problem with our actions is that some of the same criteria used to justify occupying Iraq could also be used in regard to several other countries (that they were helping terrorists and were openly expressing hostility to our country and its objectives). And they know it! That’s why some of them are rushing to acquire nuclear-weapon-capability.