Alternative radio had an excellent debate on the issue of war in Iraq. And considering the way things are going, timing's just about right. If our president and his buddies are to be believed, the bombs'll start falling in a very few weeks.
Now, remind me please, why are we attacking Saddam?
They say Saddam is a national security threat? Sure. And North Korea isn't? And that terrorist dude, the one who's all but disappeared from the news, yeah, that one, Osama, isn't? Instead of worrying about a country which has nukes, and long range missiles, we worry about one without either.
Or they say he's used weapons-of-mass-destruction in the past, and he'll use them again once he gets them. Of course, he has used them in the past, against the Iranians and the Kurds. Rumsfeld was in Baghdad about that time. I don't recall him complaining then. What's all the fuss now?
And then, to make the argument somehow "loftier" they talk about human rights. Saddam's an evil and terrible man, they say. And they're right. He attacked and slaughtered thousands of Kurds they say. True. Turkey did too. From 1999 to the present, they've killed thousands of Kurds, and they're still doing it today. Are we proposing attack Ankara? Are U.S. troops lining up to wade ashore Istanbul? How about the Saudis and Egyptians who routinely violate human rights. Heck, Israel still allows torture of prisoners. Will we bomb them?
Of course, somewhere along the line, somebody'll say something about democracy. Which is utterly ludicrouse considering that the Saudi and Egyptian dictatorships exist solely because of U.S. money and aid. If we want to start working on democracy, why not start in our client states?
Probably most ludicrously of all, someone will say that removing Saddam will further the cause of peace in Palestine. Just how these two are connected, and just how this will be more effective than directly pushing for peace in Palestine, I can't say.
The final argument made usual centers on international legitimacy. Saddam's defied U.N. resolutions left and right, they say. If we don't do something, we're sending a bad message. Now mind you, there are other nations who have violated U.N. resolutions. Some of them have nukes. How about Israel and India? Why then we are obligated to go in and attack Saddam, most likely without any U.N. resolution backing us up (mind you military action without the Security Council's backing is also illegal, unless in direct self-defense)?
You see, the fundamental fact is, all the arguments being given for the war are specious. This administration hasn't suddenly developed an appetite for democracy, or human rights. Saddam Hussein hasn't suddenly started threatening the U.S. The whole thing is a fait accompli. The administration wants a war with Iraq for their own reasons, and their willing to use anything to justify it.
Now it's not for me to speculate on their motives.
Anyhow, regardless of motive. This war is stupid. We kill lots of people, take out a two-bit thug, anger much of the rest of the world, and get stuck with the bill and the dirty work. War is not cheap, either in lives or money. And then there's the law of unintended consequences.
No, going to war for reasons only a select few know is a bad idea. This war is neither just nor practical. Our success will be bitter, cheered only by defense contractors and Islamic radicals. I do not think those are the groups that should be benefiting from American foreign policy.
War on Iraq is neither intelligent nor just.
But this is America.
We shall go to war.
And we shall reap what we sow.
