strange days and manic moments

People who have been on this mailing list for a while know that I seldom discuss political issues. I've made a few stabs at it, to be sure, but my inherent hatred of politics has caused me to avoid political subjects more often than not.

Now, we find ourselves in a crazy place.  

Let's face facts. We're going to war. Maybe soon, maybe not. But it will happen. Even Colin Powell, the most patient man in our current Administration, is starting to push the issue.

There's one obvious problem - most people do not want this to happen.

It's easy to say that it shouldn't. I, for one, am very much against the idea right now. To be honest, I do feel that something must be done to stop Saddam Hussein from continually laughing in the face of the U.N. Resolutions that were placed on him over ten years ago. However, our current administration's obnoxious cowboy talk is nauseating. Even Qaddafi says publicly that Hussein is not stable, but when the White House press secretary defines the cost of a war as "the cost of one bullet", one almost can't help but get annoyed.
     
What's the most frustrating is the fact that if our current administration would just ease up on the yee-haw war talk and simply present the facts, most people would support the idea of ousting Hussein. As I mentioned earlier, even Qadaffi thinks he's unstable. Does he think he's a threat? No. But he doesn't trust him. Saudi Arabia has even come up with a diplomatic "solution" to get Hussein to step down.

The idea of a unilateral attack on Iraq is not only not supported by most Americans and most Europeans, it may not be realistic. Only Monday, a dangerous gunfight broke out in Afghanistan. Remember them? We went to war there about a year and a half ago. Obviously, our attempts at rebuilding the area have fallen very, very  short.

So are we ready to do it again? Especially in an area as dubious as the Middle East? We must understand that going to war against Iraq will change everything. If we are successful in ousting Hussein, how will that affect the region? How will the fundamentalists who already want us dead react?

The idea of removing a dictator who is only known for destruction and death is a good idea. But our President must understand how important it is to make it clear to America and the United Nations what the exact threat is. Making vague statements will not justify a unilateral attack, and it will not convince the United Nations that an attack is justified. And everyone must recognize that an unjustified attack against a sovereign nation may inspire even more attacks against our homeland.

What seems like ages ago, Robert Mueller was asked if Iraq was an immediate threat to America. He responded that they weren't. He was then asked under what circumstances Iraq would be a threat to America. He responded that Iraq would be a threat to America if we were to attack them. He was then asked if he supported President Bush's idea of a war on Iraq. He responded that he did support a war against Iraq.

The logic here is mind-boggling. But at the same time, it does beg the question, "What do they know that we don't?"

People point towards France and Germany and Russia as beacons of peace, United Nations countries who will not be swayed by Bush's rhetoric. They point to Tony Blair and others as Bush's puppets. It would be nice to think that these countries were acting only in the name of world peace, but that really isn't true. Unfortunately, all of these countries have oil contracts with Iraq. From the Boston Globe:

"Since the beginning of the decade-long struggle between the United States and Iraq, France and Russia have been the leading powers sympathetic to Saddam Hussein. Linked by oil contracts, military sales, and loans, they have been Iraq's partisans, protectors, and proxies. Now, with a growing sense that Bush sees Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs as regional or even global threats, the State Department is keeping an eye on France and Russia. If the two, members of the United Nations Security Council, deplore UN sanctions and help Baghdad buy more time in its efforts to restrict the movement of weapons inspectors or to keep them away entirely, the administration will know that diplomatic efforts will be unavailing. If, on the other hand, France and Russia begin to take a harder line against Iraq, they will be sending a potent message inside Iraq."

Unfortunately, it becomes apparent that whether you are on the side of peace or the side of war, it still ends up boiling down to money.   

 Another frustrating fact - Iraq has not (let's be realistic, they just have not) obeyed any of the original U.N. cease-fire resolutions.  This leads to yet another nightmare - the fact that every other member of the U.N. seems to not care about this fact.   

Can this situation become any more complicated? I doubt it. We've got a rogue leader who laughs in the face of International Diplomacy, yet hides behind public support from the same United Nations. We've got a country (well, us..) who has suddenly decided that this leader needs to go, yet is unwilling to provide the hard proof that is needed to convince these other nations that it's all a good idea. At this point, the cowboy talk won't work anymore. Give us the facts. Make it clear to us all what is going on. Make us believe.   

There is a positive end to a war on Iraq. Bringing democracy to Iraq, if completely followed through, may help bring freedom into a region that is tied down by religious and governmental handcuffs. Let's be honest here. Forget weapons of mass destruction, forget nuclear capabilities. This is a man who has tried to slaughter the minority Kurds on more than one occasion. If a democracy were to succeed in Iraq...if women in the region had full rights...if minority people could live in peace...

Wouldn't that send a great message to the rest of the Middle East?

It would be nice to think it would. But are we that devoted to the region? Are we that willing to spend years there? Are we ready for the backlash? Because there sure as hell will be one.

As written in the New York TImes...

"Although President Bush has cast the war in Iraq as being about disarmament - and that is legitimate - disarmament is not the most important prize there. Regime change is the prize. Regime transformation in Iraq could make a valuable contribution to the war on terrorism, whether Saddam is ousted or enticed into exile."

Why? Because what really threatens open, Western, liberal societies today is not Saddam and his weapons per se. He is a twisted dictator who is deterrable through conventional means. Because Saddam loves life more than he hates us. What threatens Western societies today are not the deterrables, like Saddam, but the undeterrables - the boys who did 9/11, who hate us more than they love life. It's these human missiles of mass destruction that could really destroy our open society.
 
Are we really ready to go there? And is the core of America which supports the idea of war against Iraq aware of everything that this may lead to?

Can we really do this without the United Nations?

I am not about to say that Hussein should be ignored. If Qaddafi doesn't trust him, I sure as hell don't trust him. But our current administration needs to understand that the American people need to know what they know. When it comes to the idea of a culture-changing war, saying "trust me" just doesn't cut it.

Present the evidence before you attack. Granted, for the Kurds, the evidence has been proven tenfold. But for most Americans, it is currently dubiously unavailable. If we have information that the United Nations and the inspectors don't have, pass it on.

I don't like being this afraid of our President.

It may be foolish, but I am convinced that the majority of war protesters (myself included) would be willing to accept the losses if the rewards were made more clear and our government was more devoted to them.

As much as I may fear our current administration's attitude, I do still give them the benefit of a doubt. However, telling the American public and the United Nations that we are going to war with no justification? To me, that in itself is a weapon of mass destruction.

back to top