Non-violence and the Iraq war

Here is the discussion I am currently having with someone in the following website:
http://www.nonviolence.org/comment/viewtopic.php?t=535&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=420

Here is my first comment about the issue:

Here are some basic questions. Please give me answers!
Is the Iraq war still a "just war" once we know:
1> There are no WMDs, Saddam Hussein was not a threat to US
2> The 9/11 terrorists were not Iraqi but Saoudians.
3> Iraqi people haven't called for US to free them from Saddam H. Is the Bush claim that US is helping install democracy in Iraq credible in that context?
Next questions: About the "War against terror"
1> Was it correct to declare "war on terrorism" when terrorists are not an army for one particular country but plain murderers acting under political cover?
2> Why did the British, the French and the Spanish succeed in their past attempts to stop terrorist activities in the 1990s?
_________________Sailom

Here is the reply from this person:

I'll tell you what... I'll answer your questions, but in return, I ask that you answer my one recurring question. After many, many pages of liberal dodges, Margaret is the only liberal who has had the intellectual courage to answer it.
My question is this: What is a present, viable, nonviolent alternative to the way the Coalition is handling the situation in Iraq?
Here are the answers you wanted:
1. We do not "know" that Saddam was not a threat or that he did not possess WMD's. We know for a fact that he did possess WMD's because we gave them to him when his regime was our ally against Iran. The WMD's were not fully accounted for as of the beginning of Gulf War II. Demonstrating the destruction of the WMD's we knew they had was the regim'es one way to avoid overthrow under the terms of the ceasefire that ended Gulf War I. They did not meet that demand, so they had no way to avoid overthrow. On that alone, Gulf War II, which was really a continuation of Gulf War I, was justified. The further justification is based on the fact that the Hussein regime had proven itself to be a terrorist organization that supported other terrorist organizations and was an enemy of the United States. They had taken over Kuwait, provided incentives for suicide bombers in Israel, shot missiles at Israel and Kuwait without provocation, supported Hamas and other terrorist enemies of the U.S., attempted to assassinate a former U.S. president, and committed mass rape, torture, killing, and other terrorist actions on the people of Iraq, including gassing thousands and thousands of Kurds with sarin gas (a WMD that we have found since the beginning of Gulf War II). (By the way, the fact that we have not found other WMD's since the beginning of Gulf War II does not prove their nonexistence any more than your not being able to find your car keys proves the nonexistence of your car keys. Also, we have found labs and materials for making WMD's. This situation is not a joke.)
The two premises of your question are false, except for the fact that the question was hypothetical. In answering your question as a hypothetical regarding the first premis, my answer is still, "Yes." There were many justifications for the war. In regard to the second premis of your hypothetical, my answer would of course be, "No." However, that is a premis I highly disagree with, as I illustrated above.
2. Yes. We did not overthrow the Hussein regime under a belief that the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi. Bush vowed to go after governments that support terrorism. That included the Hussein regime. The fact that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi does not mean that their government automatically supported their horrible actions. If the hijackers had been Canadian, we would not be overthrowing the government of Canada. Similarly, the nationalities of the hijackers would not support overthrowing the Saudi government.
3. Yes. The Iraqi people could not publicly express support for an overthrow of the Hussein regime. The regime put people through shredders (literally), raped their family members in front of them, killed them, tortured them, or other things or combinations of such things for speaking out. They had the people of Iraq living in fear of breathing the wrong way. All the more reason to overthrow the Hussein regime. Note: Although most Iraqis hate the U.S. occupation (which I would too), they are glad that the horrible Hussein regime is gone. Wouldn't you be?
1. Yes. The list of terrorist groups is way too long to declare war on all of them by name. We are going after all of them.
2. For the same reasons we often did. Also, we are the world's leading liberators, humanitarians, and police, so we have more terrorists to deal with than those countries. The French government is a wuss government that doesn't have the power or the morals to do much that would piss off the evil bastards of the world. The same is generally true of the Spanish government, and they still got slammed by Al Qaeda. The French are hated by Al Qaeda too, despite their cowardly, inconsiderate ways.
What is your answer to my question?
_________________Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward... - John Kerry, 12/15/03

Here is my reply to his question plus some comments:

Non-violence practice should be the most important weapon of a soldier. That's what I believe, I'm going to tell you why.
A war zone is a situation of uncertainty where most of the time, there seems to be peace, but actually, you are under threat to be killed.
1. Non-violence principles would dictate to consider the local population as victims of war and to seek their cooperation.
2. If you are under attack, take cover first and wait for confirmation where the agressors are. Attack the enemy when you know where he/she is and you are sure there are nobody else in the area than these agressors. In your counter-attack, try to take your opponents alive if it is still possible.
3. You and your mates are at risk to be killed at any time. You have the right to shoot the opponent to save your life.
Are you surprised? This is non-violence. Non-violence doesn't mean NEVER using violence. It means acknowledging that non-violence works better that violence against "agression". You need to be brave and you need to have self-control.
At political level, the most urgent task is to give authority to a legitimate Iraqi administration. In the current context of insurgency, it is not possible.
Therefore, the next priority is to "win hearts and minds" by showing:
1. US authorities acknowledge publicly that there were wrong to attack Iraq without being under threat.
2. Ask for help from foreign nations (particularly muslim ones) to help reestablish a secure environment to organize elections.

I understand that replying to your question is commenting on the quote from J. Kerry:
"Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward... - John Kerry, 12/15/03".

J. Kerry opposed the (undisputable) fact that Iraq is not part of the war against terror (Saddam Hussein is not Al Quaida etc.) with his belief that a victory in Iraq will be positive in the victory in the "war against terrorism".
Whenever I will comment on something, I will let you know if I am convinced of my arguments or if I don't know enough to make a judgement.
1. The war against terrorism itself is a controversial endeavour. Not of course because acts of terrorism are morally wrong (killing innocents) but because terrorist networks are hidden (for good reasons!).
2. The war against Iraq is a divisive issue as it is not morally right - US was not attacked (no self-defense), the facts are the Iraqi population didn't call for help against Saddam Hussein (before March 2003), and even afterwards, the Iraqis as a whole consider themselves as "occupied".
3. A victory in Iraq will not defeat terrorism. I am 99% sure about this. The terrorists don't come from Iraq! (However they probably have some success in recruiting terrorists now that Iraq is occupied by a foreign nation).
Why did J. Kerry say something like this? He was flying with the wind of optimism following the arrest of Saddam Hussein. At least G.W.Bush does have a point when he says that J. Kerry keeps changing his mind. That doesn't mean G.W.Bush is a better president (by the way).
Now, I will comment on your replies:
"We do not "know" that Saddam was not a threat or that he did not possess WMD's. We know for a fact that he did possess WMD's because we gave them to him when his regime was our ally against Iran. "
I don't understand how come "we do not know". Here are a few facts: Early in 2003, the Bush administration tried very hard to convince the world that Saddam Hussein was a significant threat through these WMDs. Claims were made that there was significant intelligence on these WMDs. Then, the Bush administration constantly downplayed or plainly ignored calls from weapons inspectors to give them more time to finish their job. These facts in themselves should be enough to convince you that the Bush administration did deceive the American people (and a big part of the world) and that it had dishonest intentions. Starting war is an extraordinary decision that needs strong moral justifications. Saying "we do not know" is irrelevant. A war may be waged only when "we do know" that it is morally justified. By the way, the evil Saddam Hussein regime could not have been at the same time "an ally" against Iran and "a foe" after the invasion of Koweit. This is embarrassing... How come USA made a pact with the devil?
"They had taken over Kuwait, provided incentives for suicide bombers in Israel, shot missiles at Israel and Kuwait without provocation, supported Hamas and other terrorist enemies of the U.S., attempted to assassinate a former U.S. president, and committed mass rape, torture, killing, and other terrorist actions on the people of Iraq, including gassing thousands and thousands of Kurds with sarin gas (a WMD that we have found since the beginning of Gulf War II)."
Yes, they did at least part of these things, and that's why there was a first Gulf War, supported by the UN, and even supported by "coward nations" like France. There was a clear moral case to wage a war and it was waged. Are you aware that the gassing of thousands of kurds were done when Saddam H. was an "ally" against Iran? Are you aware that the US administration knew it and did nothing concrete to protest against these acts? When stating all the crimes of Saddam H., be careful to the time and the context. I don't know all the facts about the agressions of Iraq against Israel, wasn't it done during the first Golf War?
"Yes. We did not overthrow the Hussein regime under a belief that the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi. Bush vowed to go after governments that support terrorism. That included the Hussein regime. The fact that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi does not mean that their government automatically supported their horrible actions. If the hijackers had been Canadian, we would not be overthrowing the government of Canada. Similarly, the nationalities of the hijackers would not support overthrowing the Saudi government."
You forget to mention that before the start of the war, the Bush administration constantly gave the illusion that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, I don't have quotes available but I could find them. What you say about the nationality of the terrorists and the support / lack of support from some governments are self-evident. However you don't reply to my question. If you do believe that because the Saddam H.'s regime didn't condemn the 9/11 attacks then they were helping them.... Well, I cannot convince you!
"Yes. The Iraqi people could not publicly express support for an overthrow of the Hussein regime. The regime put people through shredders (literally), raped their family members in front of them, killed them, tortured them, or other things or combinations of such things for speaking out. They had the people of Iraq living in fear of breathing the wrong way. All the more reason to overthrow the Hussein regime. Note: Although most Iraqis hate the U.S. occupation (which I would too), they are glad that the horrible Hussein regime is gone. Wouldn't you be? " Yes, I would be happy to be in democracy, but this is not the case of the Iraqis (yet). Now, you come to the current logic behind the alleged legitimacy of the war and occupation of Iraq. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a dictator, yes, he did murder opponents, like most dictators. This is not enough to wage a war from the perpective of a foreign nation.
Before you blast the screen of your computer, let me give you an example. Let us imagine that a politician is elected president of the USA, for many reasons, this president is accumulating so much power that he has now installed a dictatorship. Is there anyone challenging his power? he has him/her killed. A coalition of "compassionate" muslim powers decide to intervene and help install democracy in the USA by invading USA, killing all US military opposing their action, getting rid of all the political system and civil servants behind the former regime. Chances are that most Americans will not like it. Why? They are occupied by a Foreign army. These occupiers have a different religion and a different culture. Besides, some Americans may have been part of the political system and part of the US army because they thought they had no choice to make a living, and because they believed in defending the "national interest" of the state. In the process of "installing democracy", this coalition of Muslim countries do not hesitate to use violence to "root out the evil". How would you react as an American?
"1. Yes. The list of terrorist groups is way too long to declare war on all of them by name. We are going after all of them. "
You don't reply to my question. Going after terrorists is the right thing to do, just like arresting murderers is the right thing to do. My question was about the strategic mistakes of saying "we are at war" after 9/11. This was not a war. This was the first time, a terrorist act managed to hit so many people at the same time. The only weapons of the terrorists were knives. Think about it.
"2. For the same reasons we often did. Also, we are the world's leading liberators, humanitarians, and police, so we have more terrorists to deal with than those countries. The French government is a wuss government that doesn't have the power or the morals to do much that would piss off the evil bastards of the world. The same is generally true of the Spanish government, and they still got slammed by Al Qaeda. The French are hated by Al Qaeda too, despite their cowardly, inconsiderate ways. "
USA is the first economic and military power in the world, the responsability of the USA is greater than any other nation because of this power precisely. No need to glorify it. It's a fact. It's not a political will. I'm talking about the political will to use this massive resources wisely. Please be more specific about the "sins" of the French. Opposing the first economic and military power during the UN debates was the opposite of cowardice. It was very brave. The French government was taking a serious risk to be isolated and side-lined. It was also reflecting the European views that there was no case for invading Iraq.
"The same is generally true of the Spanish government, and they still got slammed by Al Qaeda. The French are hated by Al Qaeda too, despite their cowardly, inconsiderate ways. "
Once again, European public opinon is against the war, not only their governments. Yes, Al-Qaida hates the French. The French didn't wait for the Americans to act against the fundamentalist terrorist networks. Please make some research on the Algerian fundamentalists, the potential impact of fundamentalist Islam in the French society etc.
To be honest, trying to defend the decision to invade and occupy Iraq is a pretty hopeless cause. Why not arguing that even though the Americans were wrong to attack, there is no other political legitimacy in Iraq, so they have to stay until there is such political legitimacy? That's a more rewarding debate.
By the way, as this web-site is dedicated to the promotion of non-violence values. I have to say that I do believe that non-violence is central to the struggle against terrorist networks. Because they are killing innocents, terrorists are losing credibility. The use of violence must be used against those who are terrorists only (if they don't surrender). The most important factor for "victory" would be to gain the trust of local populations. Inversely, every time an innocent Iraqi die from US fire, moral respectibility is given to those groups who support terrorism. You seem to have some confusion between non-violence and cowardice. Have a look at my own web-site (with links to Gandhi and Luther King philosophies):
http://sailom.blogspot.com
_________________Sailom