|
ROBERT STEINBACK `Why war?` needs answer Let`s make clear what the impending war in Iraq is not. It is not a war to liberate the Iraqi people. More than a few hawks are putting forth this fiction to soothe the sting of what war really would be: History`s first instance of America choosing to invade and occupy a sovereign nation that poses little discernible threat to this country or our allies. The liberation hawks were inspired by President Bush, who, in his State of the Union message, referred to an America willing to make a ``sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.`` This is breathtaking sophistry. We`re going to liberate a population by killing them? How many Iraqi deaths have we decided are worth sacrificing for Iraq`s freedom -- 500? 50,000? More? It reminds me of the wicked line from the animated movie Shrek in which Lord Farquad tells the knights competing for the chance to rescue Princess Fiona from the fire-breathing dragon, ``Some of you may die, but it`s a price I`m willing to pay.`` The liberation claim is part of the convoluted stew of rationalizations that the Bush administration has cooked up to obscure what is nothing less than the abdication of the very principles of peace, justice and law upon which America was founded. We`ve been told we`re going to war to eliminate weapons of mass destruction we haven`t located yet; to retaliate for links to al Qaeda that are historically tenuous; to eliminate a man for actions he might take some day; to liberate an oppressed people we didn`t care about before Sept. 11. Which is it? It doesn`t matter to the Bush administration, as long as you accept any of the above. It`s the absence of a clear rationale for war that inspired millions of demonstrators around the world to voice their opposition over the weekend. It should be noted that nothing of the sort was seen prior to the Gulf War, because the reasons for war were evident to all, and because the world acted in concert to reverse Iraqi aggression. It`s a fair assertion that the Iraqis would be better off without Saddam Hussein in power, even before considering if any alternatives might be worse. But it isn`t up to the United States to decide when a people must be freed. A people`s liberation -- especially from an oppressor spawned from within, like Hussein -- isn`t something for outsiders to choose or impose. The agitation for liberation must first come from the oppressed people themselves. When a population has decided on its own to make such a sacrifice, the door then opens for outside support. Yet even as American ``liberators`` gather on Iraq`s doorstep, one hears little enthusiasm from the Iraqis for the coming conflagration. Pre-Dubya America placed its faith in peacefully exporting the ideals of democracy, liberty, capitalism and self-determination, concepts that inspired lovers of freedom the world over to accept the risks of challenging oppressors. Now, no matter what guise we adopt, the United States in Iraq will be an invading army bent on reshaping a foreign land to suit our own purposes. Hawkish syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer cut through the lame liberation rationalizations to make exactly this case for war. In his column in the Feb. 17 edition of Time, Krauthammer argues that post-Sept. 11 America should use its military power to reshape troublesome parts of the world: ``A de-Saddamized Iraq . . . would provide friendly basing not just for the outward projection of American power but also for the outward projection of democratic and modernizing ideas,`` he wrote. In an Internet piece, he was more direct: ``It`s about reforming the Arab world . . . We haven`t attempted it so far. The attempt will begin with Iraq.`` This is the same reasoning used by such notables as Adolf Hitler and General Tojo, who used military invasion to reform Europe and the Pacific to suit their own purposes. As distasteful as these parallels may seem, the question must be asked: What makes our rationale for invasion any different? Haven`t we abandoned American ideals the moment we attempt to impose them by force? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © 2003 The Miami Herald and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved. |
|
| aus der Diskussion: | Guten Morgen Mr. Bush |
| Autor (Datum des Eintrages): | Joerver (20.02.03 14:36:39) |
| Beitrag: | 47 von 35,423 (ID:8669791) |
| Alle Angaben ohne Gewähr © wallstreetONLINE | |