Three cheers for the axis of evil

I am tired of hearing snide remarks about President Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech. Every time I begin to feel sluggish in precept I am jarred out of my reverie by someone's comment about US arrogance or about how unsophisticated or unproductive it is to label our enemies as making up an "Axis of Evil." Of course the problem is larger than that — these criticisms are being heard around the world.

This evening Princetonians will gather in Frist to discuss the seemingly inevitable war with Iraq. It seems an appropriate moment to put in my 10 cents on the Axis of Evil.

Firstly, there are evil regimes in this world: Iraq, Iran and North Korea are only three of them. Anyone who thinks otherwise has nuanced himself into inane and amoral incoherence. All three of these governments seek to control every aspect of their peoples' behavior, and even their thoughts, through state propaganda. All three build increasingly destructive weapons with which to threaten Americans and their neighbors. All three impose ideologies that degrade the individual, whether through Islamic theocracy in Iran, Baathist fascism in Iraq, or paleo-Stalinism in North Korea. All three, particularly Iran and Iraq, have directly sponsored international terrorism. All three have governments that are bad, not relatively, but absolutely.

The best thing about President Bush making these remarks at the start of America's long struggle against terrorism was that he placed the war, or rather, wars, on terrorism in a moral context. War is not always immoral. War for immoral purposes, such as Saddam's invasion of Kuwait or his gassing of the Kurds — is immoral. War for moral purposes — like America's liberation of France in WWII or our impending removal of Saddam Hussein — may be a tragic necessity, but it is the height of morality. The moral implications of military action should be especially important to us at Princeton. College students have often been the conscience of the nation, standing up for idealistic causes ranging from the environment to gay rights. When we contemplate the coming conflict with Iraq we should find comfort in knowing that it will be about more than oil, or even self-defense. In a very real sense, America will be fighting the good fight.

Yet the United States cannot replace every bad government on the world. Some ask how we can pick and choose which enemies to fight. They speciously argue that if the US moves against Iraq it must also make war on Iran and North Korea and all the other international thugs who are trying to build a bomb.

The difference is in Iraq's track record. Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction before — in aggressive wars, and to massacre his own people. That a leader with this kind of history might develop a nuclear weapon is a dreadful possibility. With a nuclear bomb Saddam could threaten to destroy all his neighbors, including America's close ally Israel; pass nuclear weapons on to terrorists, or use them as a deterrent shield beneath which to engage in conventional aggression. The mounting danger from Iraq contrasts sharply with the student movement slowly liberalizing Iran and North Korea's recent openness to U.S. and Japanese diplomacy.

Back to the Axis of Evil: many people remain uncomfortable with the President's talk of good and evil. Some object that while these regimes may indeed be "evil," it is foolish to actually say so; that we have to work within an international community resentful of our having the courage to identify "evil" and "non-evil" regimes. By this argument, President Bush's moral clarity was a jingoistic mistake that interfered with a diplomatic imperative to refrain from overt moral judgment.

Though this may not be the best moment to discuss the wickedness of Chinese Communism, saying what you mean and meaning business with a phrase like "axis of evil" can go a long way in the international arena. Moral clarity creates powerful incentives by underscoring America's resolve. Though straight talk may upset Europeans, multilateralists and my colleagues from precept, history and current events indicate that it can provoke clear thinking from dictators and may offer the last best hope for peace.

Ronald Reagan's denunciation of the Soviet Union as an "evil empire" set in motion forces that ultimately brought peace and freedom to Eastern Europe. In the context of our current struggle with terrorism, it is likely that North Korea's opening was more than a little motivated by American resolve towards Iraq and a corresponding wish to heed the writing on the wall. Historians of the first Gulf War often argue that Saddam felt safe invading Kuwait because U.S. diplomats were not clear about U.S. unwillingness to acquiesce to aggression. In contrast, Iraq's offer to accept weapons inspectors, though gravely insufficient, provides another example of how being direct about America's commitment to a moral cause — regime change and nonproliferation — can bring results.

As the campus community gathers to debate the situation in Iraq, both tonight and in days to come, we would do well to refrain from sneering at the obvious and see the Iraqi regime for what it is — unspeakably vile and dangerous. Americans should not be ashamed to tell it like it is. "Axis of Evil" sums it up nicely.