 |
|
|
|
|
March 25, 2003
CONFLICTED ABOUT WAR, AT BEST
So, I get this e-mail message today from my niece, Jordan (my sisterís daughter), and among other things she writes, ìÖ and how do you feel about the war?î What kind of question is thatÖ doesnít she know that Iím avoiding serious commentary on this war thing at all costs, and that I have a hard time justifying my feelings and supporting my arguments on issues such as these? Apparently not. I sent her the following reply (slightly edited for public consumption):
So, you want to know how I feel about the war. Well, I'm conflicted by it. While I'm not too crazy about it, I do understand why we're doing it. Saddam Hussein and his regime represent a threat ñ to what degree exactly, Iím not so sure -- so I suppose it's best to deal with him before he becomes so powerful that he cause real harm to humans all over the world (including US citizens). That having been said, I'm not happy with intentionally putting our troops in harms way, and I'm also not happy with the lack of true diplomatic efforts aimed directly at Saddam Husseinís regime on the part of the current US administration.
If there's anything though that bothers me more than anything else about the whole premise which this war appears to be based on, it's the notion that Weapons of Mass Destruction are okay for the USA and other countries to have in their possession, but its not alright for some other countries to have them in theirs. You know what I mean... like, why is it okay for the USA to have this huge arsenal of nuclear weapons, but it's not okay for Iraq to have them? There within lies the difficulty for me. It just doesn't seem like a fair situation.
I'm also concerned about the net effect this war may have on you and me and our fellow US citizens living here and abroad. I fear that we will be retaliated against by factions who are opposed to how we handle our foreign relations. I think what happened on September 11th is now going to happen again and again and again. As a friend of mine recently said, we (Americans) do not need a tax break from our government; what we really need is a 'fear break'. We need to feel safe again, and I do not see this war as being a positive step in that direction..
As you can see, Jordan, I'm conflicted by all of this. On the one hand, I understand (and in a very tiny way support) why we're doing this, but I don't like what it stands for, and I truly fear the retaliatory impact.
Other thoughts about the war that weigh heavily on my mind (that I did not share with Jordan, for lack of clarity at the time) include:
How on earth can we win a ground war in a city jam-packed with millions of people? Can you say "Black Hawk Down"?
How can our government justify the death of even one innocent Iraqi life in the process of seeking out Saddam Hussein, his sons, and the regime that surrounds them?
How can anyone justify spending close to $100 billion on a war against other human beings; a war that isn't even being spent to protect our own soil?
What would the world look like in five years if we did not pursue this action here and now?
What about North Korea... are they next?
Fire Away... that's what the 'comment' link below is intended for.
Posted by Mikal at March 25, 2003 10:01 PM
| TrackBack
Oh, Oh, Mr. Kotta, Mr. Kotta, Oh, Oh...
Mikal Belicove Wrote: "If there's anything though that bothers me more than anything else about the whole premise which this war appears to be based on, it's the notion that Weapons of Mass Destruction are okay for the USA and other countries to have in their possession, but its not alright for some other countries to have them in theirs. You know what I mean... like, why is it okay for the USA to have this huge arsenal of nuclear weapons, but it's not okay for Iraq to have them?
Dave Meek Says: After Iraq attacked Kuwait in 1991, the conditions of surrender were complete disclosure and catalog of all weapons of mass destruction. Since the U.N. has not enforced any pervious resolutions they finally passed U.N. 1441 resolution on November 8, 2002, more than 11 years after Desert Storm, which is "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" or "it will face serious consequences" if it continues to violate its obligations as spelled out in the resolution. (quotes from the US State Department).
The second amendment of our U.S. Constitution allows us the right to keep and bear arms. However, if a person commits murder with a felony with or without a firearm, that person loses their ability to keep and bear those same arms they once could before they committed such a crime. Saddam attacked Kuwait and killed many of its people, then set their oil wells on fire in their retreat taking years to extinguish. Therefore, it is not valid to compare the U.S.'s possession of WMD's with Iraq's.
Mikal Belicove Wrote: "I'm also concerned about the net effect this war may have on you and me and our fellow US citizens living here and abroad. I fear that we will be retaliated against by factions who are opposed to how we handle our foreign relations. I think what happened on September 11th is now going to happen again and again and again. As a friend of mine recently said, we (Americans) do not need a tax break from our government; what we really need is a 'fear break'. We need to feel safe again, and I do not see this war as being a positive step in that direction.
Dave Meek Says: One thing I've noticed is that among all of these protestors worldwide, none of them are Iraqi. Mainly because Iraqis would be killed if they spoke out against Saddam's regime. We as a people in the U.S. don't know what real fear is since we enjoy so much freedom of speech, freedom to travel, freedom of religion, etc. relative to the rest of the world. There will always be mad men out to scare us but we always seem to get through it. Recently, Washington DC was in fear of the "snipers" but it didn't shut down the city and has been largely forgotten. Unfortunately, even 9/11 has been largely forgotten outside of NY, NY yet it resulted in capturing or killing the perpetrators. (Does anyone actually believe Osama Bin Laden is still alive?) The Taliban regime is gone and the people of Afghanistan are free. If trigger-happy nuts get upset at the U.S. for doing the right thing, too bad.
Mikal Wrote: "How on earth can we win a ground war in a city jam-packed with millions of people? Can you say "Black Hawk Down"?
Dave Says: The real difficulty is that Saddam is cowardly using his people not his army as pawns. He is relying more on our sensitivity towards his people expecting us not to kill innocent Iraqis since CNN is salivating waiting for the U.S. to kill a few or a few hundred Iraqi citizens. Saddam will attempt to wipe out a large portion of his own people and worldwide media will blame the U.S. for being there in the first place. The media doesn't seem to consider Saddam a criminal. When this all shakes out, Saddam's regime will prove just how big a monster it really is. There will be war crime trials afterward and the media will be on the wrong side of it. Iraq will begin to thrive and the true story of the torture of Saddam's regime will beginto bubble to the surface much to the chagrin of the media and those that still oppose the war. It's one thing to oppose going to war, yet another to oppose it once it is declared.
Mikal Wrote: "How can our government justify the death of even one innocent Iraqi life in the process of seeking out Saddam Hussein, his sons, and the regime that surrounds them?
Dave Says: Looking at the greater good, Saddam Hussein kills infinitely more "innocent Iraqi's" than the U.S. would. Hussein is using his own people as human shields cowardly hiding his military arsenal in churches, daycares, and schools.
Mikal Wrote: "How can anyone justify spending close to $100 billion on a war against other human beings; a war that isn't even being spent to protect our own soil?
Dave Says: Our armed forces do exist specifically to protect U.S. soil rather our INTERESTS. For example, if another country attacked Mexico, do you believe we should just ignore it. If someone attacked your next door neighbor who was a good friend of yours, wouldn't you help? The bulk of the $100 billion is for the logistics of moving such a large force into the region for a prolonged and safe occupancy. Moving mobile hospitals, planes, ships, and people costs big bucks but saves lives. The more resources an army has at its disposal, the more safe the operation and therefore fewer casualties. With all of the wasteful spending in Washington during peacetime, it is disingenuous to be concerned about spending during war. Imagine your house burning down with your family locked inside and the fireman outside with a small garden hose and some buckets due to "budget cuts" in the fire department.
Mikal Wrote: "What would the world look like in five years if we did not pursue this action here and now?
Dave Says: A similar question would be, what would the world have looked like if Winston Churchill had been successful at convincing his countrymen to build up their army to battle Hitler. 6,000,000 Jews and their respective descendants would be alive today.
Mikal Asked: "What about North Korea... are they next?
Dave Says: This whole mess with Iraq proves the U.N. is the "Barney Fife" of world law enforcement. It can't enforce it's own rules then opposes the U.S. for doing it for them. Doesn't make sense. North Korea basically thumbed their collective noses at the U.N. and called the U.S.'s bluff on attacking Iraq. After Baghdad falls and Saddam is gone, I bet North Korea will realize there is a new Sheriff in town. And this one doesn't carry his bullet in his pocket. :-)
Dave
Matt Holzmann Says: For more information on the North Korean countdown, check http://www.GlobalSecurity.org. They have us going to war with the NK in 97 days and just under 19 hrs, as of this post. While they don't have oil in NK, they do have those pesky Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Apparently, Bush will turn the guns against the homeland when he's done cleaning everyone else's house...who knows.
I completely support the fact that someone is deposing the Saddam regime. I whole heartedly cannot support the way in which the US has created the Second Gulf War.
Oops...did I call it a war...I'm sorry, I'm sorry...CONFLICT. Although this time around will cost more in lives (we've hit that milestone already) and money, this one is only a CONFLICT. At least the first one had the ability to call itself a WAR. This time around, our Congress has not even voted for our soldiers to go to war. According to Article 1, Section 8, the US Congress is supposed to have its hand in the decision to declare war. But as Belicovivitch so asutely pointed out, we're not even trying to "protect our own soil" with this particular war. The administration in power would like you to believe that this is a segment of our 'War on Terror'. They are simply ignoring that "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water" that our Congress must agree and that we must be using our forces to capture the land or water.
I'm really not sure where this is going. I'm just as confused. I'm just as torn. I'm just as upset that we're the bully on the global block and we are attempting, poorly, to make it seem like we are being fair. I have a feeling that 300 Tomahawk Cruise Missles raining down in the desert city of Baghdad could collectively be considered WMD's, as they did destruct targets en masse.
I firmly believe that President Junior could have involved the United Nations to a much greater degree. Unfortunately, he's from the Lone Star State and they tend to have cowboy-cavalier savoir faire about them.
This is rambling and I'm not even sure of what I'm writing...and I think we all somehow fit in the same boat.
I just previewed my post and realized that none of my links came through...for a 'reprint' of this story, feel free to visit my blog, http://www.mattholzmann.net/weblog/insideworld.html.
D. Lee Grooms Comments: Of course, a million well-trodden directions one could go, few of which any of us have the necessary information to navigate. Let me just take on one. You asked:
Mikal Wrote: "How can our government justify the death of even one innocent Iraqi life in the process of seeking out Saddam Hussein, his sons, and the regime that surrounds them?"
D. Lee Grooms Comments: There are plenty of reasons to take issue with this war, but oddly, loss of Iraqi life doesn't appear a valid one. A recent op-ed piece from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13019-2003Mar11.html ) suggests, using UNICEF's data, that containment will kill at least as many annually as the last Gulf Warñ but nearly all of these deaths will be civilians, and 2/3 will be children under 5.
D. Lee Grooms Comments: On the whole, I have to admit that it's too big for me, and honestly, lots of the "debate" seems centered on our own predispositions, attached to selected bits of concerned trivia regarding Iraq. I wrote more about that in my own journal (http://www.pathetic.org/journal.php?i_memberid=4982 ); just another point of view for consideration.
Death can be justified by many people in many ways. The classic questions facing policy-makers & other decision-makers (freely elected or self-appointed) are: under what circumstances? and for what benefit? Altruistic motives are ideal, but pragmatic & political concerns often motivate people, policies, and nations. The Bush administration(which I did not support & actively campaigned against) believes (note this word) and asseses the threat & benefits of this conflict in a certain way, according to a predetermined set of lenses. Others view it through other sets of lenses. For example, is welfare really about ensuring responsibilty/accountability (read: no laziness or free-loading) or is it really direct aid for transition times to prevent hunger, homelessness, poverty, and emotional hurt (read: helping the weaker link in the group/community)? Once you can accept that nearly all political positions and actions stem from beliefs or interpretations, you can free yourself of the cumbersome taks of thinking you can change people's minds. Those whose minds are not made up usually haven't given any measured consideration to an issue and therefore aren't the ones advocating a certain action or inaction. In other words, they usually aren't the policy-makers or decision-makers.
So, I think death can be justified. The American Revolution. US & Allied deaths in pursuit of global liberty in WWII. Liberation forces in Americas. Self-defense. The American Civil War. Americans tend to be self-preserving isolationists as an integrated community - the "Not-In-My-Back-Yard" syndrome. Thus, we *generally* didn't care about Europe during WWII until we were attacked. The American leadership (political & business) tend to be much more global minded - (dominant, colonial, etc). Hence, the disconnect between the American public and the American administration. Of course, now that we ARE at war, everyone supports the troops and the President. We are engaged, so we must win - that is our mentality now.
Does this help?
Mikal, I think you are the little voice inside my own mind. I can sum up my entire feelings of this invasion of Iraq on the basis of a Herman Goering quote (found on my website) "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers
for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials.
Post a Comment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
