Iraq, who’s right?
After three years of war in Iraq, America stands on the brink of yet another serious military confrontation with yet another Arab country, this time the nation of Iran. With the threats of terrorism and nuclear weapons the cause of the conflict, is it any wonder Americans are feeling anxious about our nation’s role in world affairs?
Interventionists want us to take more of a role in the world. Isolationists want us to decrease our presence and influence. Both believe their way leads to peace and tranquility. But which side is right?
In the current conflict in Iraq, anti-war folks want us to pull out and refocus our war on terrorism. Bush supporters want us to stay the course until the war is clearly won and an Iraqi government and police force is working well. Both sides think they are in the right and rare is the person who can calm his passions and realize that both sides have merit.
Both sides do have merit. You staunch supporters of the war need to realize that, as well as you anti-war folks. Neither one of you should self-righteously cast stones at the other. That’s a true comfort to the enemy. Both sides have merit. It just depends on what you want to emphasize.
War supporters emphasize that we needed to remove the threat of Saddam Hussein. He was a threat to his own people as well as Israel and the world in general. Intelligence pointed to his having chemical and biological weapons. Who knows if the weapons were scurried out of the country in the months leading up to the war? With the chemical atrocities of the Iran/Iraq war fresh in our memories, it’s not a leap for war supporters to think Saddam still had these weapons circa 2003.
Pro-war folks also believe it’s admirable to set up a democracy, which, with the help of freedom-loving human nature, could help to topple the oppressive regimes that enslave their women and young people with the harsh hand of Islamic fundamentalism.
Anti-war folks, on the other hand, have merit in their arguments. They believe lives are being lost for no good reason. They want to support the troops by removing them from harm. Their hearts break for the Iraqi population, and they work tirelessly to remind the American people that many Iraqis are losing their lives.
They also believe the war is being waged over oil, and that President Bush embodies all that is evil concerning Big Oil. War protesters don’t trust their leaders. They feel lied to. Anti-war folks look at Bush as a misleading tyrant who deftly manipulates Congress. While Bill Clinton may have focused on his own legacy, Bush-bashers believe the current president is solely focused on ensuring his family’s legacy. The job in Iraq started by his father must be completed – and whatever sacrifice must be made in the pursuit of that legacy is worth it, no matter the carnage.
Those opposed to the war also balk at the terms nation-building, pre-emptive wars, and threat-removal. Those who favor the war support offshore democratization efforts to ensure terrorism stays far from home. Fight the war elsewhere, they say, and if we have to start a war ourselves, so be it; we’re only responding to Sept. 11.
So who’s right? You have to judge that for yourselves.
But, unfortunately, this isn’t philosophy class where thoughts take the place of action. It’s easy to sit in our armchairs and, with chin resting between our thumb and forefinger, debate what America’s most effective way to fight terrorism was, is, or will be. In the real world, people and nations have to make decisions and act. They can’t ponder forever. And that’s what America did in April 2003. For good or ill, we busted through the Kuwait/Iraq border and pounded our way toward Baghdad with blitzkrieg pace. For good or ill, we acted. And the debate concerning our country’s initial intentions will continue forever.
-John Balentine, editor
Send questions/comments to the editors.
