George W. Bush’s administration has provided a series of muddled justifications for the current war with Iraq. One rationale for war is the threat of weapons of mass destruction coming into use by terrorists against Americans.
Certainly, placing one’s faith in Saddam Hussein would be insane and I personally believe that the dictator has been pursuing terrible weapons. However, just the threat of these weapons with some evidence, incidents of “material breach” to United Nations resolutions, is sufficient in the collective mind of the Bush Whitehouse to wage this war.
This is the Bush Doctrine, advanced in the National Security Strategy of September 2002. The calculation that the strategy makes is this: A rogue state with weapons of mass destruction could potentially cause catastrophic harm, so to remove the risk and to preserve stability and prosperity; the United States ought to preemptively declare war to remove the regime of that rogue state.
The sheer threat of grave catastrophe – terrorism and then certain war – justifies a smaller catastrophe – war.
The first potential phase of that strategy is now taking place at Basra and Baghdad. We have overwhelming force brought to bear on a small nation, and in all likelihood this war will have a positive end for the Iraqi people. Their brutal dictator who has sought to develop terrible weapons in the past will be no more.
Perhaps you are for this war. If so, your support of the troops is admirable and nationalism is a pretty popular sentiment to have in times of heightened tensions.
Perhaps you are against this war. If so, I commend you for speaking out and hope that the democratic process and the thrill of peaceful dissent with thousands of others compels you to a life of political interest.
But, these two camps boil this war into an oversimplified formula. A brutal dictator with weapons of mass destruction versus a desire for multilateralism, a strong UN and peace. There is nothing inherently wrong with these camps and their positions; however there is a much larger issue lurking on the horizon that has me worried.
The history books will call this George W. Bush’s war, for good or for ill. But, as you watch the live, frontline action on the major news networks, you will see our contemporaries – 19 to 23-year-olds – are the “grunts” bearing the brunt of this war. In a very real way, this is our war and we need to do everything we can to take ownership of it.
This war is the potential test run for a far sweeping policy shift for America. The occupation or “rebuilding,” depending on your personal view of the conflict, of Iraq could just be phase two.
Phase three might be North Korea, which the CIA estimates has nuclear weapons and the nation has a troubling history of occasional belligerence. The people of North Korea, much like the people of Iraq, are suffering under a dictator.
Phase four might be Iran, which has recently started a well-funded program to enrich uranium – the precursor to a nuclear weapons program. Iran has sponsored terrorism in the past.
Phase five and so on might turn on our current allies. After all, we were allies with Saddam in his fight against Iran a long time ago. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is ruled by a dictator. Saudi Arabia has a nasty degree of fundamentalism and the vast majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.
We should all support our troops.. There is nothing wrong with nationalism, as we have many reasons to be proud of our country. Yet, we cannot ignore the most troubling justification for this current conflict. Are we going to risk unilateral battles with every dangerous dictator?Wouldn’t it be better to use the United Nation to create a more peaceful world?
Leave a Reply