With weapons inspection reports and State of the Union addresses in the news, The Daily Cardinal's opinion columnists sound off.
In the wake of the last presidential debates, the general consensus was that then Gov. George W. Bush \exceeded expectations,"" if only because Vice President Al Gore--the brighter and the duller of the pair--did not give Bush a thorough thrashing. But since his election, and particularly in the months after the terrorist attacks on the East Coast, the public has, over time, demanded more from the President. And if the recent shift in his job approval numbers is any indication, their expectations have not been met.
During tonight's State of the Union address, the President will attempt to sell an invasion to the nation and world. This task will not be made easier by Monday's delicately-worded Resolution 1441 report, which contained neither a clean bill nor a condemnation. But it is a task the President is obligated to attempt. And our expectations have never been higher.
So what must he do? For one thing, he has to go beyond catch-phrases. From the debates, ""it's the people's money"" to the present ""a coalition of the willing,"" he has shown a fondness for them. But they are perfectly useless. The President would be better off if he provided fact-based responses to the pertinent questions.
Does Saddam Hussein control--right now, and not 15 years ago--un-conventional weapons? If he does, when will the U.S. provide proof? Are there going to be civilian casualties when the war is taken to Baghdad? Is Israel going to get involved? How is either eventuality going to help the Israel-Palestine region, or us? Is our invasion going to instigate new terrorism? How long are we going to occupy Iraq? How much will war and occupation cost? Is it going to be worth it?
The President has to provide full answers to these questions, and others, in tonight's speech. But I do not expect that he will.
The question on Iraq is not whether we will go in, because it's pretty obvious at this point that we will. The question is not whether we will become mired down in attempts to depose Hussein, because chances are that Hussein himself can be defeated quickly. The really tricky bit is what comes next regarding the future of the Middle East.
A lot of dire predictions were made by opponents of the original Gulf War, that it would destabilize the region. That never happened because the rest of the region united behind coalition efforts to control Saddam Hussein and prevent his territorial ambitions from threatening their own position. Thus any potential backlash or infighting in those countries was controlled by their own governments. That hasn't happened here--none of the other Arab countries have gotten behind us like they did 12 years ago.
Plus, our goal here is not a limited one, as it was 12 years ago. Instead of simply driving Hussein from Kuwait, our goal here is to overthrow him entirely and install a friendly government. That's a lot more complicated than it sounds, and requires troops to be stationed there to control the situation for years to come. That requires other Arab countries being on our side, which as mentioned before has yet to occur.
Going at it alone is not a prudent course of action. This is not simply a matter of the United States requiring permission from others for moral authority; it is certainly possible that the rest of the world is wrong and we are right. This is a matter of whether the proposed course of action is workable, and thus far it doesn't appear that the Bush Administration is getting it right.
Several weeks ago the subject of a potential war with Iraq surfaced at a social gathering I was attending.??The usual topics were covered--the expected outcome of the inspections, Saddam's personality, the risk of a block-by-block urban battle in Bahgdad. But everyone--including myself--stopped dead when one person delivered an educated, well-reasoned list of potentialities arising from a successful war.
Even the best case scenario of a short war will likely have a terrible impact on the people of Iraq, the stability of the region and the role of the United States in the world.
So what happens if, or perhaps rather when, we win? How will we address the refugee situation we have created by attacking Iraq' How will we tackle the problem of creating a legitimate government for Iraq from scratch'What sort of unbelievable arrogance makes us think that we can solve any of the serious problems with political legitimacy that the region suffers?
These are not questions that the Bush administration particularly wants to answer, which is entirely unsurprising.??
But they are also not questions that the growing peace movement seems to want to face. The anti-war movement that has begun to gain momentum in this country is noble, and I am glad to see it and am proud to participate in it.??
But the momentum for war has been cultivated by the Bush administration for months, and my faith that it can be stopped is dwindling.?? Supporters of the peace movement need to focus not only on preventing a war with Iraq but also on the eventuality of war actually occurring. What sort of humanitarian response will we coordinate? How will we show a more dignified face to the world than what it has seen thus far'How will we hold our leaders accountable?
So far the answer is,""There should be no war."" But that is not good enough, because it is very likely there will be a war.??Of course there should be no war--but what will we do when it begins? I don't have an answer for that yet, but I hope we do more than march and chant and chat at parties.
By the turn of the millennium just a few short years ago, it appeared that humanity's tolerance for war had declined enormously. The last century, although it was arguably the most violent in human history, witnessed a remarkable shift in the ethics of war: From the selfishness of colonialism to the selflessness of peacekeeping, Western military operations were and are becoming a matter of either protecting one's own country or helping another.
This is a good thing.
The costs of war, measured in money, suffering and death, have undeniably increased with each passing decade. War, from both an economic and humanist perspective, is expensive. That the First World now relies on its military only for defense or aid makes good sense fiscally and morally overall.
With respect to these issues, the White House has completely failed to make the case for war with Iraq. The real questions are: Will a war with Iraq protect America? Will it benefit Iraq?
I don't see a ""yes"" on the horizon for either of these questions.
It's become more or less common knowledge, in recent months, that Kim Jong Il's North Korea poses a graver threat to the United States than does Iraq. Unlike Iraq, North Korea has a verifiable capability to produce nuclear warheads and the missiles to deliver them. Landing troops in Iraq, on the argument that it is necessary to protect America, would logically entail an invasion of North Korea as well. The White House's lack of interest in a war with North Korea thus invites the consideration of other motives--namely oil and revenge on the Muslim world for Sept. 11th.
On the other hand, will a war with Iraq benefit Iraqis? Given the administration's fiscal policies which grossly favor society's elites, its obvious lack of interest in the future of Afghanistan and its current interest in ending affirmative action, what interest, may we assume, do Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove and George W. Bush have in the people a war would affect most--the common men and women of Iraq?
The answer, not surprisingly, is none.
How many of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq? When a random poll conducted by Knight Ridder asked this question 23 percent said ""some,"" 21 percent said ""most,"" 6 percent said ""one,"" 33 percent said ""I don't know"" and 17 percent said ""none."" By the way, the correct answer was ""none,"" for 83 percent of you out there.
I know it's hard to believe the numbers from that poll, but it's true and it shows that the support left for a war on Iraq is weak and without grounds.
The whole world is lost as to why we want to go to war with Iraq, and now we are even beginning to speak of the possibility of using nuclear weapons. Day after day, the sanity of America is becoming highly questionable.
However, there has been overwhelming support of the anti-war movement within the United States. In fact, most agree that the amount of support is greater than it was before the Vietnam war.
One of the greatest accomplishments has been the U.S. labor unions uniting against Bush's plans for war. Recently, U.S. Labor Against the War was formed with over 100 trade unionists from around the country. They put together a strong resolution laying out the points against a war on Iraq. This kind of mainstream movement building has been remarkable.
People of color and the labor movement have joined forces against a war on Iraq. When, or if, Bush makes the call to begin, there will be hundreds of thousands of Americans united against war.
