(
Cross posted at The Right Lies)
There's a lot of talk right now about the left pulling publicity stunts to draw attention to their criticisms of the Iraq War. Cindy Sheehan has become the poster-child for this. But what annoys me is when the
Ann Coulters and
Rush Limbaughs mock Cindy Sheehan, and then pretend they've countered the entire left's argument against the Iraq war: as if some of us weren't calmly addressing these issues well before the war. Below is something I posted to the internet before the Invasion of Iraq even began, typos and all:
I am not opposed to the use of force to prevent a danger. The use of force has many other consequences though, all of which need to be considered before endorsing it.
Why is Saddam dangerous?
Saddam is a brutal dictator who came to power by force, and who has used chemical weapons both on Iranian enemies and civilians within his borders. He led an invasion of a small, relatively defenseless country, Kuwait. He has resisted UN inspectors, and used what rations allowed through sanctions to solidify political power (i.e. support me and I'll give you food which you can't obtain anywhere else because of the sanctions). And there are many indications that he has been developing WMD and hiding them from UN inspectors.
There has been little indication that Saddam is deeply connected with anti-US terrorists, or at least relative to many other Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. There is reason to believe that if Saddam could harm the United States (for example give terrorists WMD) and get away with it, he would.
Saddam's history raises three questions: how dangerous is he? Can he be deterred? And will invasion reduce the danger?
As indicated, by all factors there are more dangerous governments to the US in existence. But perhaps precisely because he is less dangerous, he can and should be dealt with (that is if we deal with North Korea we may get nuked).
Has Saddam been deterred in the past? Saddam's use of chemical weapons on Iranians and Kurdish citizens was known to America when Reagan sold him arms, Bush Sr. made Iraq a favored trading partner, and when some pushed for sanctions it was vehemently opposed by the US business sector and never happened.
When Iraq asked the US ambassador for her opinion on the Iraq/Kuwait border dispute, her response was essentially "We have no opinion. We leave it up to you." Not "if you invade the entire country we will force you out." Not "you should deal with it through the UN." Not "we will open peaceful negations." There is reason to believe Saddam invaded Kuwait thinking he had more or less US approval.
Of course his interpretation of Bush's vague policy was wrong, and thus we have an enemy today that has been compared to Hitler.
However, since then our policy has been less vague and Saddam has more or less complied. He hasn't invaded or used WMD on Iraqi citizens or others, nor has he proven to assist anti-US terrorists on any grand scheme. In fact about the only menacing he's done is a) rhetoric, b) supported anti-Israeli terrorists (hardly unique in the Arab world), and c) prepared to defend his country by not cooperating with weapons inspectors (which the US has admitted to using for spies) and perhaps created weapons 1/1000th the power his enemies have.
My belief is that he has been deterred. Apparently it's a crime to have the same weapons your enemies do, even if you haven't used them (unless Bush is talking about the 2nd amendment of course). Yeah, Saddam will probably use them if Iraq's sovereignty is threatened, just as the US would.
Will invasion reduce the danger? While Saddam's danger to the US has been contained, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be eliminated if possible, especially when the price of containment has been 1 million Iraqis.
It's estimated 100,000 Iraqis died in the Gulf War, and believed regime change/invasion will kill two to three times this. There are of course other devastating consequences of war that I assume I don't have to go into. There have been several indications that the US allies in the Gulf War did not go to the great lengths to avoid civilian casualties that the government promised. The government carefully manufactures all the images and information US and European citizens receive during war. How many Iraqi casualties do you remember seeing during the Gulf? That's right, you didn't. In fact the only war that wasn't manufactured was Vietnam, the only US war widely regarded as a `mistake.'
If Saddam does have these weapons the UN can find no proof of, then it is quite likely he will use them if the US invades. He hasn't used them yet, because it would be suicide. The effect they will have on soldiers and Iraqi citizens cannot be predicted (other than horrible). Invasion will increase anti-US sentiment throughout the world, and help cradle the ideologies necessary to fly a plane into a skyscraper.
No one denies that invasion increases the short-term risk to the United States and Iraqis a hundred fold, but there are those who'd love to tell you in the long run more lives will be saved. Maybe someday when I can see the future too, I will be able to decide the imminent deaths of 300 hundred thousand to save the lives of 300 hundred thousand plus 1. Until then, I think making such claims as `future attacks will be with grenades and bullets instead of chemicals and nukes' is useless. Unless of course there is some proof, which there isn't really much. Yep, Saddam is dangerous, about 10 times less dangerous than former Soviet countries, or North Korea, or Iran, or Saudi. Oh wait! I forgot that Saddam is like Hitler, and if we "appease" him now he will lead to the most catastrophic war in history.
It seems that those who support the war do so because a) they trust their government's good will and b) something needs to be done to reduce the threat of terrorism and the effect of Saddam on his own people.
Trusting our government and media/corporate elites' good will seems laughable to me. Their claim that they support democracy or the development for the majority of Iraqis is ludicrous. It's ludicrous because there is not a shred of historical evidence for it. Personally I don't think Bush is any worse than other presidents in this regard. Maybe the political/corporate elite behind this war are different, maybe their powers will be checked by the vigilance of the mainstream media, and maybe Santa Clause is real.
On a side note, it baffles me as to why the Libertarian Right supports this war. For some reason it's supporting the political/corporate/media power they supposedly want to deconstruct in its attempt to kill hundreds of thousands. Supporting the ability to defend one's self and one's interests is different than supporting the ability to oppress that the current neoliberal system entails (by both Democrats and Republicans).
The second reason some support the war seems to be a general frustration with the suffering of so many Muslims inflicted largely by their and our leaders. Some see, this invasion as a chance to establish a more or less democratic state in the Middle East. That'd be great! But is there any reason to believe that invasion will make this more likely? I suppose it's probably more likely than silently exterminating their people through sanctions and letting Saddam remain in power. Enforced democracies are though enough to establish, especially when the forces behind this invasion have shown little dedication to this goal. Some people compare this invasion to post WWII West Germany or Japan...but really you can't. The social, cultural, political, and economic foundations needed for democracy are unknown to the Iraqi people (unlike Germany and Japan). They take a long time to develop, and can't be forced on people.
I sympathize with anyone who wants to see some change in Iraqi policy, there needs to be. Sanctions have proven ineffective in removing Saddam and have devastated its people. I'm not exactly sure what this change should be, but invasion seems to be just problematic. I'm especially cautious considering with the elite pushing for this war so hard. Yes one can look at poorly written polls and say "the majority of American's aren't opposed to invasion." But there is an unprecedented amount of opposition to this war. Esteem in our leaders is at an all time low...no one really knows what to do or who to believe.
Rather than pausing after Sept. 11 to reflect as to what has gotten us to this point, our leaders have rushed into doing the same old thing on a larger scale"it's frightening and frustrating. The American propaganda machine is simply falling apart because of its own absurdity. They can't spin away 3500 civilians dying because the rest of the world is "evil' more Americans working more and more for less.
I think its finally starting to bust, and the American people are tired of it. That's why there's so many protestors, even if they don't really know what they're protesting against, they're sick of the bullsht. You can continue to marginalize us against the war as ignorant `know it alls' but the neither us nor the terrorists are going away until something changes. It seems to me like a lot of people want change, they're sick of this bullsht propaganda, but instead of uniting and fighting for change it seems the right is caught up in supporting something that superficially might seem like change (i.e. invasion), but really isn't. The ends don't justify the means, especially when the means are what cause the problem in the first place. Has Bush once addressed the issues I and millions of others have continued to raise? No, they remind us we live in a democracy and are free to express our opinions...gee thanks for not killing me like Saddam.
To summarize, it's not necessarily war I oppose, but supporting the current oligarchy of power. They've never done what's right unless carefully checked by its citizens (i.e. Vietnam). When you support this war you are not just supporting the toppling of Saddam, but a system of power that relies on deceit and oppression.
Disclaimer: I royally goofed at the time on the third to last paragraph...I think I was trying to mock those that blindly peddle America's greatness while their overtime pay is being cut.
But anyways, I'm still waiting for a response from my
President. And sure you can dismiss this as the rambling of a twenty-something-know-it-all: FINE. But there have been millions of Americans asking the same questions for years...and we want answers.