|
Back to Essays
|
I haven't written anything in here a couple of weeks. Busy with too many commitments, but also mulling things. Marched in several more anti-war events, exchanged mails and conversation with people who aren't as sure that invading Iraq is a bad idea. Wondered about motivations, mine and the government's. Am I naive? Is the government cynical? Why do I still feel I need to protest? In some respects, we're all debating in a big void, because what do we really know? Just whatever we find in whatever media we trust. So I start with the caveat: I know nothing. Or at least, very little. Given that, here's where my thoughts take me. First, to rebut people who write about how badly Hussein treats his people: If addressing that were our motivation, wouldn't we have done something about Pol Pot, or any other bloody tyrant in the last 20 years? No, the fact that Hussein treats his countrymen despicably is only a sideline; it's useful material for the people advocating war. It's easier to go after an enemy who really is dirty, and useful to publicize this. The conservative-owned television media (CNN, Fox news) are going after this side of the story full force. They also talk about war in terms of "when;" the teaser titles are phrases like "America at War." As far as they're concerned, the war has already begun. And I suppose it already has begun for the hundreds of thousands of troops being shipped there, and their families waiting at home. But when it comes down to it, why are we really going there? I've read a lot of opinions. National security. Stop terrorists. Build a puppet country to keep oil prices low. Stabilize the region. Build a democracy in Iraq, to encourage other countries in the region (Pakistan? Iran? Saudi Arabia?) to build their own. Perhaps the last is the administration's official goal. But could any of these really happen as a result of invading Iraq? That's the big gamble. And it's a gamble I, personally, don't think we will win. Poverty and despair breed terrorism. And war breeds poverty and despair, by destroying infrastructure: homes, businesses, communications systems, water and sewage systems, transportation, government. I fear that the one lesson Hussein learned from Bush the elder is to force us to bomb his cities in order to get him. Military targets will be hidden among civilians, this time. We'll have to destroy the country to get him. And then -- what? Will we be welcomed as liberators, hated as destroyers, or ignored while the various factions fight among each other? How many years will we have to be there? How much will it cost? Doesn't this sound like colonialism -- liberating the "natives" for their own good? How well did such liberation work in Korea, in Vietnam? How good are we at picking leaders to support -- didn't we support Hussein in the war against Iraq? What makes us think we will make better choices this time? What could we do instead? Back the U.N. investigators. Work with the U.N. to agree on smaller but decisive actions to take if it is clear Iraq is not complying -- you might not get the U.N. to agree on invading Iraq, but you might convince them to bomb a military target if the U.N. inspectors are not able to do their work or they reasonably feel that a target is a danger. Yes, I think dealing with a tyrant sometimes requires force. Would this be enough? I don't know. I don't believe, however, it would be as costly or dangerous as invasion and full-scale war. But like the German ambassador to the U.S., I also ask, "Why now?" What makes Hussein a bigger threat than he has been for the last 10 years? Only one thing I can think of -- our recent rhetoric. We've had him in check for all these years. Was he really on the move before we started saber rattling? He was probably watching the increasing violence in Israel and Palestine; do we think he was going to exploit that? If so, wouldn't addressing the problems in Israel and Palestine be a more effective deterrent? Or is Hussein really allied with Al Quaeda? I haven't seen any proof, although it seems plausible that some of the factions in his country might be, in an attempt to get rid of Hussein -- the training center Powell displayed is in a Kurdish-controlled, anti-Hussein area [according to an article by Joseph Cirincione, author of Deadly Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction]. We might push Hussein and Al Quaeda closer together, by our saber rattling: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." But more likely, we'll just be doing Al Quaeda a favor. They don't like Hussein, and we'll get rid of him for them. At the same time, we'll create an angry populace ripe for terrorist proselytizing and set ourselves up as a big, obvious target. It's a win-win for them. And if the U.S. goes into Iraq alone, then we are the single target for terrorists. When it comes down to it, I fear we are building our own Palestine. So, I fall back on my gut feel. I march around with others who think war is a bad idea. I send faxes and letters to my Senators. It all seems pretty futile -- I do not think the Bush administration will listen. But without the baby steps, how can we go further? The S.F. Chronicle ran a series of articles on this subject, with various predictions for the war's outcome. Have a look: Cirincione:
The new American colonialism |