COLUMN: Why U.S. is at war
I would suspect anyone supporting the spilling of American blood, the mangling of American bodies and the deaths of American men and women would have very good reasons. I would suspect they have arguments possessing high moral values and principles. Otherwise, how could one stomach the repercussions of war?
Like much of America I was listening to our president at a news conference a few weeks ago. He was asked pointed questions concerning the rush to war, the lack of international support, the effectiveness of the weapons inspectors, etc.
Bush’s response to many of these questions regarded his concern for America and how that issue superseded other considerations.
So, at its essence, the war in Iraq is all about the safety of America and its citizens. I must admit, though, some people on this campus might argue that freedom is the essence of the war.
Unfortunately, the freedom idea quickly gets dismissed once considering we could have “freed” the Iraqi citizens fairly easily during the Gulf War and we haven’t heard a thing about Iraqi freedom for 12 years. If Iraqi freedom has such a high moral value for America, what’s the difference between now and then? Have America’s values changed? Has Saddam Hussein changed? I think the answer to both is a flat-out no.
If people take exception to my dismissal of freedom as being the reason for the war, I would quickly ask if those people think America will be going into Cuba, Tibet, China, or North Korea with its huge, forced-labor prison system any time soon? A poster at the pro-war rally stated, “In Iraq we would be killed for speaking out.”
Well, there are numerous places in this world where that dynamic applies. Are pro-war folks willing to place their high moral value in those places and incur the cost of “liberating” those people? Again, the answer is obvious, and it’s no.
I need to ask if people at pro-war rallies think America is so magnanimous as to incur the huge costs in political clout, American lives, and upwards of $1.9 trillion that threatens to bust the budget for the freedom of Iraqis?
Some people may think the $1.9 trillion is unrealistic, but that was the upper estimate from an economist at Yale University for direct, indirect (peacekeeping, reconstruction, and humanitarian aid), and macro-economic costs over a 10-year period.
When one considers the disruption of supply chains, the boycotting of America’s products and services, plus the lack of investment and hiring in American capital, and the domino effect all that entails over a 10-year period, then $1.9 trillion doesn’t seem like such a big number.
So, an American president spending American lives and anything near $1.9 trillion for Iraqi freedom? Yeah, right. I’ll sell you a bridge.
So, that leaves the high moral principle to American safety. After hearing about the idea of starting a war with Iraq I wonder how many Americans asked the logical question, “Why?” I asked that question and then posed a second, “What is Saddam doing today that he hasn’t been doing the past 12-plus years?” Nobody possessed a differentiating answer.
So, I ask you today “What has Iraq done to America?” Since the answer to that is nothing, then maybe an easier question is, “In what way has Iraq threatened America?” Mr. Bush is the main guy with this idea, and he doesn’t have any evidence. Anyone seen any evidence? If yes, I would appreciate you sending me an e-letter. Almost all Americans would be supporting the war if Iraq had actually done something to America or imminently threatened America.
During the second presidential debate, Mr. Bush stated, “If we are an arrogant nation they will resent us, if we are a humble nation they will welcome us.”
I think that true. Well, what do you call it when America violates international law, the U.N. charter, human rights, and instigates a war with a country submitting to international weapon inspectors, arrogant or humble? What do you call Bush’s ultimatum, “You are either with us or you are with the terrorists?”
Some will no doubt attempt to justify America’s violation of human rights by claiming we are preventing much worse violations of human rights, e.g., the use of weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, that argument also gets dismissed when one considers the fact that Donald Rumsfeld is shaking hands with Saddam Hussein AFTER the U.S. State Department declared the Iraqi leader had used weapons of mass destruction. In fact, America supplied helicopters, satellite data and other military assistance to Saddam AFTER his use of WMD. I suspect Rumsfeld didn’t think it any big deal to gas human beings back then.
Don’t think that’s true? Are you angry about that fact, because it would make America both arrogant and a hypocrite? A simple investigation via any number of reputable publications like CNN, would get you wonderful articles and nice pictures.
The bottom-line excuse for this war is that it will make America and Americans safer. Unfortunately, the war will have the exact opposite effect. The war will serve as a strong catalyst for hatred against America and Americans. Worldwide opinion of America has plummeted from sympathy from 9/11 to arrogance and hypocrisy. The war America has instigated is playing into the terrorist hands by pushing people with great force toward them.
Some people might counter that there exists a self-proclaimed “coalition of the willing.”
Well, there is not a single country on this planet, except Israel, whose population supports America’s war against Iraq. The “coalition of the willing” is approximately 45 governments, 43 of which are on the U.S. payroll. In regard to the war, it seems America is required to buy foreign government support.
So, I ask how does America increase its safety by alienating itself through the flaunting of international law that it was fundamental to establishing? How does America become a safer place by creating hundreds of Osama bin Ladins? Simply, the hatred this war will generate toward America will make Americans all over the world a greater target for retribution and, therefore, less safe.
No, there are other reasons for the war, and they’re not pretty. Keep your eye on the U.S. multinational companies that get the multimillion dollar contracts to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure.
I’m sure they are all buddies with Bush and the boys. In fact, take the lifeblood of any modern economy out of this war equation and there isn’t a war. What is that? It’s a three-letter dirty word: oil.
Vito Russo is a graduate student in civil engineering. Comments can be sent to vmrusso@cc.usu.edu.