War with Iraq
March 15, 2003

There is a rather puzzling law regarding the reading of the book of Esther on Purim – and let me remind you that we will celebrate Purim on Monday with the Megillah reading Monday night. The strange rule I am referring to is found in the Mishna, which is one of the earliest Jewish law codes. The Mishneh states, "if one reads the Megillah backwards, then one has not fulfilled the obligation of reading the scroll.”

This statement sounds like a Purim joke. Why in Heaven's name would anyone want to read the Megillah backwards? Yet, the Mishneh raises the issue quite seriously. Israel Baal Shem Tov, the founder of the Hasidic movement, explained that the Mishna is referring to one who reads the Megillah as if its events occurred ONLY IN THE PAST. Somebody who reads the Megillah as if it were merely a recollection of something that happened a long time ago in Persia has missed the point of the Purim story and hence has not fulfilled his or her obligation. The Purim story is about today as much as it is about events of ancient times. After all, what are an essential themes of book of Esther? They are bigotry and hate, which, regrettably, are still rampant in of our world.

Another, still very much relevant theme of the Purim story as told in Megillat Esther is how hatred almost succeeded in its design because of indifference to it. Haman’s plan for genocide went unchallenged by the general population. It was condoned by King Ahesverous. Ahesverous and his subjects weren’t evil. But anti-Semitism wasn’t a burning issue for them. King Ahesverous expresses horror at Haman's diabolical plan only upon realizing it would affect his beloved Queen Esther. The Megillah read and understood properly is an archetypal story of evil and how apathy in the face of evil makes horrendous crimes against humanity possible.

For me, the whole debate about Saddam Hussein boils down to how we deal with evil. Saddam Hussein is devoid of all humanity. He is savage and uncaring in his treatment of his own people. He has used his nations fabulous wealth to build extravagant palaces and line his family’s own pockets which his people live in dire poverty. He utilizes rape as a means of punishment. He employs methods of torture that are almost unimaginable: suspects are slowly dipped into vats of acid; raw voltage is applied to sensitive parts of the body. People who speak ill of him have their tongues cut out. Caring people, it seems to me, should view liberating twenty-five million Iraqis from this brutal regime as a mitzvah, as a humanitarian and moral deed.

In addition to being a vicious tyrant toward his own people, Saddam Hussein is a perpetual threat to his neighbors. He has used gas and chemical weapons against them in the past. His dogged pursuit of a nuclear capability for the past several decades suggests that he is planning to unleash it against them one day as well if it suits his purpose.

All the while the world community has given warnings, imposed sanctions, sent inspection teams to Iraq to monitor compliance with promises made, and yet even with all the warnings, threats and monitoring, the international community cannot trust Saddam Hussein’s word that he has demolished all his missiles and all his weapons of mass destruction. Even the French and Germans believe that he is not yet in compliance. They just want to give him another chance. But what do you do with a person who has defied so many last chances? Keep giving him more, or finally bring down his regime?

To me the dangerous situation developing with North Korea is instructive. It shows how scary it is to deal with an irrational leader of a nation who has access to nuclear bombs. Do we want to deal with a Saddam Hussein, a confirmed risk taker, who may have them very soon if not stopped? The United Nations is stating that its arms inspectors can keep Iraq from developing nuclear weapons. The problem is that the past is not supportive of this hope. Four years after the Persian Gulf War, the International Atomic Energy Agency was so certain that it had eradicated Iraq’s nuclear program that it wanted to end aggressive inspections in favor of passive “monitoring.” Then a slew of defectors came out of Iraq and reported that not only had outside pressure failed to eradicate the nuclear program, it was running full steam ahead and was cleverly spread out and concealed.
In the late 1990's, international nuclear experts again concluded that the Iraq’s nuclear program was dormant. Then another batch of defectors escaped to Europe and they told Western intelligence services that after the inspectors left Iraq in 1998, Saddam Hussein had embarked upon a crash program to build a nuclear weapon and that the regime had devised methods to hide the effort. So the question is: given Saddam Hussein’s determination to develop nuclear arms and his skill at hiding his activity, can the world feel confident that UN inspectors will discover what is really happening?

Why does Saddam Hussein need nuclear weapons? Iraq’s war with Iran in the early 1980's and its invasion of Kuwait in 1991 are the key. Saddam Hussein has a vision of Iraq becoming the super power of the Middle East — with the goal of rearranging its map. Based on the reports of defectors and other sources of intelligence, Saddam Hussein believes that his vision can be realized once he has nuclear weapons, because then the United States, afraid of a nuclear confrontation, will not dare to stop his attempts to invade, threaten or blackmail his neighbors.

The great rabbinic sage, Moses Maimonides stated: “One does not wage war with anyone in the world until one first seeks peace as it says in the Torah: ‘When you come near a city to attack it, you shall offer it words of peace.’ If they agree to peace not a single soul among them may be killed."

America, its allies and the United Nations have all sought peace with Iraq. But Iraq’s consistent response has been deception. Clearly, Saddam Hussein is playing a game right now with the UN inspectors. If his intentions are not evil, why doesn’t he simply give the biological and chemical weapons up and disclose the locations of his nuclear weapons laboratories?

The point the United States is trying to make to the world is why wait until something terrible happens? Isn’t a preemptive war with Iraq today preferable to war against a nuclear armed Iraq some time in the future?

Is there a down side to this war? Of course there is. Above all there will be significant loss of life. There will be extensive property damage. We have to fear that Iraqi agents or sympathizers might execute terrorist acts in the streets of America.

The war could also ignite rage in the Muslim street. Saddam Hussein is not popular with Arab leaders, but the masses see him as a symbol of defiance to the hated United States. It is conceivable that in the wake of a war with Iraq, the streets of major Arab and Muslim cities will erupt in anger, and if the situation gets out of control, the entire Middle East could become dangerously destabilized.

And what if as a result of our toppling Saddam Hussein, Iraq breaks apart into warring Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions, and we are not able to put Iraq back together again? Another significant problem is the cost of the war and of reconstruction. Will a world-wide weak economy become very much worse because of tens of billions of dollars needed to fight the war and then provide aid for Iraq to rebuild?

But what if instead of the worst scenarios happening, we get lucky. The hope is that a war against Iraq will not only put an end to an evil tyrant, but will lead to a better Middle East and a safer world. A democratic Iraq would be a model for other Middle Eastern countries to emulate. Thomas Friedman, a columnist for the New York Times, has argued that only through democracy can the Middle East extricate itself from the extreme poverty, backwardness, frustration, anger and self-pity in which it is currently mired.

Israeli optimists hope that the Iraq war will benefit their nation. Without the financial and moral backing of Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat may be more compliant in striking a peace deal with Israel. In addition, America’s show of might against a terrorist nation might scare Syria into withdrawing its 20,000 troops from Lebanon where they protect and support Hezbollah. The withdrawal of Syrian troops and the disarming of Hezbollah would calm Israel’s northern border and might lead to Lebanon becoming the third Arab nation sharing a border with Israel to recognize Israel and establish diplomatic ties with it.

A war in Iraq brings with it great risks. It also holds out the possibility of great transformation. Let us hope and pray that if the war does come, that the most optimistic predictions come true and as a result, the world will be safer, less cruel and more open to democracy. Certainly, these are goals worth fighting for.

Shabbat Shalom