So the war in Iraq seemed to be quick and definitive. Now nearly three months on, the almost daily attacks on coalition troops, the deep resentment by the Iraqis and the inability to find any weapons of mass destruction has caused many of us to revisit the justifications for war. It is true that Saddam’s Bathist regime was extremely brutal and repressive, but did its removal warrant the killing of tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers? Why is Gorge W. Bush any better then Saddam? Saddam killed and repressed his enemy and so did Bush, the only difference being that Saddam killed his enemy at home and Bush killed his enemies abroad. So we find ourselves asking does Bushs’ coalition really control the moral high ground? Is the coalition really anything more than just a bunch of murderers with good spin-doctors?
The following Biblical story may help guide us through our perplexity. During the time the Israelites were camping in the desert (circa 1400 B.C.E) a man named Korach accompanied by Moses’ erstwhile foes Dathan and Aviram, incited a mutiny challenging Moses’ leadership and the granting of the priesthood to Aaron. 250 distinguished members of the community joined them; they offered the sacrosanct incense to prove their worthiness for the priesthood. They were punished for their insurgency: the earth opened up and swallowed the mutineers, and a fire consumed the incense-offerers. The great Jewish sages tell us that the prohibition against causing communal disharmony is derived from this story. Furthermore they say that this story is a prime example of an argument that was not for the sake of heaven.
However, for those of us living in a western style democracy this story seems absurd. The right to demonstrate and have an efficient opposition is integral to our society. The unnatural death that was handed down to the mutineers in the desert is rather harsh for what on the face of it was a peaceful protest against the governing powers – Moses and Aaron. What was it about Korach’s opposition that was so negative? Why did it deserve such a severe punishment?
The answer lies in the fact that Korach’s dispute was not for the sake of heaven. This means that Korach’s opposition to Moses was selfish and not for the betterment of society. Moses’ leadership was good and fair. There was no need for a change of leadership. All the needs of the community were being met. A Tabernacle had just been built. Food and water was being provided. Judicial institutions had been established. Korach’s activities were narcissistic and contentious. They were ruining an otherwise successful and harmonious community. This type of divisive, egoistical and power-crazed opposition cannot be tolerated and must be dealt with severely.
This is the defining difference between Saddam Hussein and President Bushs’ “coalition of the willing.” In 1956 Saddam Hussein took part in an abortive coup attempt to overthrow the ruling Hashemite dynasty. After the overthrow of the Hashemite dynasty two years later Saddam connived in a plot to kill the prime minister, Abdel-Karim Qassem; the conspiracy was discovered, and Saddam fled the country. This was obviously a man bent on seeking power no matter the price. From the beginning he had all the makings of what was to come – a despotic tyrant. After he seized power in 1979 he continued along the same self-centered and divisive path. Here are the most famous examples: 2 August 1990 Saddam sent his troops to invade and annex Kuwait – a megalomanic act of aggression. Kuwait did not need Iraq’s assistance; they were doing just fine on their own. During the current Intefada Saddam was funding the families of Arab homicide bombers who targeted innocent Israeli civilians. He mixed into a conflict and fanned its flames, rather then trying to make peace. These are just a few examples of the aggressive, egocentric, oppressive, megalomaniacal and divisive style that characterized his ill-fated career.
In a democracy before any politician can be elected to high office they must show that they care for the people and the country. The politician must make known how he/she will implement improvements. An aspiring despot simply will not get voted in. In a democracy violence does not buy you political power. For this reason there can never be a moral equivalent between the actions of a despotic dictator and a democratically elected leader.
Thus, the Bible tells us that a person – such as Korach – who demonstrates megalomaniacal and despotic aspirations, a man whose argument is for his own sake and not for the sake of heaven (or the betterment of society) must be stopped before serious damage is done. The example of Saddam has shown that once they have gained power the human cost of removing them is far greater. This explains the extreme action taken against Korach and his aides.
Saddam should have been stopped before he came to power. However, the fact that the Iraqis did not have the political system to weed out a person like Saddam does not relieve us of our responsibility to remove him. Thus, the United States were justified and right in removing Saddam from power – although the cost to the Iraqi people was high the cost of inaction would have almost certainly been higher. The United States sin, however, was aiding Saddam in the early years of his tyrannical regime – during the Iran Iraq war. If the US wants to maintain the moral high ground it must be consistent. If despots and megalomaniacs are bad and therefore worthy of “regime change” than all tyrannical dictators must be treated in a similar vain. If the United States and its allies only implement a policy of piety when it suits them, then however noble their cause may be, one will always question both their claim to the moral high ground and their motifs. Let us hope that in the future the Biblical example of Korach is taken to heart and action is taken to stop aspiring despots early on.