TheWeekInCongress

IRAQ: A WAGER OR A WEEK SELLING POINT?

by Robert H. McElroy

(2002) When 18^th Century mathematician, philosopher and odds-maker Blaise Pascal presented his Wager on the existence of God it was more of an intellectual exercise rather than a mandate requiring a choice. Mr. Bush’s wager on Iraq is far more than a quandary to be discussed over coffee. He is selling our next war.

Pascal saw a faithful or faithless decision as such: God’s existence can not be proven so the chance of your choice being correct is fifty / fifty-a wager. Believe in God and find at your death that he exists and be assured of eternal bliss. Believe or don’t believe and find he does not exist and you have lost nothing. If, however, you don’t believe and find he exists you will suffer eternal damnation.

For Pascal the choice was simple; Believe, but with a caveat. You should not pay lip service to your belief or you could find yourself in eternal hellfire.

President Bush seems to be offering a similar wager: If Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and we attack then we have taken a step to make our world a safer place. If we do not attack those weapons could be used against us. If those weapons do not exist, attack or otherwise, we have lost nothing.

Mr. Bush seems insistent on Americans making a decision in favor of his view, but he offers little to go on that would support an unaggravated attack on a sovereign nation other than his belief that those weapons exist. The evidence, it would seem, is in the past behavior of Saddam Hussein not current evidence that he has the means with which to carry out an imagined diabolical plan. We are told Mr. Hussein gassed his own people during a civil war and is creating nuclear weapons and hoarding chemical and biological weapons.

Probably the most unconvincing aspect of Mr. Bush’s Wager is that the evidence can not be shown to us because it would compromise intelligence activities. Equally as questionable is the fact that the scant evidence he has provided has been given in response to skepticism, not laid out from the beginning as the reasons for this new war.

Americans earnestly attempting to decide have little to go on but a fear of potential danger. A fear lingering from last year’s terrorist attack. That fear, in the absence of evidence of a real threat, is a strong motivating factor to go along with the president. Like Pascal’s caveat to believe-but to truly believe-or face the consequences of hypocrisy, believing in Mr. Bush’s Wager because it is a safer bet than not believing could bear similar consequences.

There is no wisdom in confronting a despot like Mr. Hussein if he is seen as capable of a heinous response and has the means to do so. But, for him to do so would certainly evoke a response from the US and the rest of the world that would likely destroy his country in its entirety. A wager Mr. Hussein may not be so maniacal to venture. Many believe that such an attack in a region of the world that uniformly despises us and has developed into a breeding ground for individuals and organizations that have turned that dislike into murderous attacks will increase the likelihood of future attacks. And that would seem to be a more credible source of fear than the speculation that somewhere hidden in Iraq is a missile aimed at the United States.

Adding to the struggle Americans are having with this Wager is the lack of originality and general crassness of the theme with which we are to be convinced to support this war. “Take down the wall, Mr. Gorbachov,” said Ronald Reagan. “Get out of Kuwait, Mr. Hussein,” said George H.W. Bush. “Let’s get this guy before he gets us,” is Mr. Bush’s theme.

If Mr. Bush’s Wager is based on uncertainties the outcome will be certain, weapons of mass destruction or none. Hundreds of US soldiers will die or be wounded, thousands of Iraqi civilians-men, women and children-will die or be injured. Oil, the center of middle east and central Asian wealth, will become an unstable and so an expensive commodity and America will have shot it’s way into a geographical region that not only does not function culturally, socially or politically like us but a region that tends more to despise us for out lifestyle.

As we stare into this unknown the answer is ahead of us and Pascal’s words take on new meaning, “but to which side shall we incline? … A game is being played … where heads or tails will turn up... What is your bet?”

No reproduction, language translation or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)