Editorial 5.2, March 2003, by Deirdre Helfferich Who Would Jesus Bomb? So the bumper sticker read, making me laugh out loud and then quickly sober, for this impending war is no joke. I had written another editorial, but decided that it was now or quite possibly never that I would be able to freely express my opinion about the upcoming conflict. (This potential restriction of free speech during wartime chafes, particularly because Congress has not and doesn’t appear to intend to declare war. Let ol’ Georgie take the heat.) In the March 16 Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, two columns appeared on the question of war in Iraq, one from Jimmy Carter (finally!) and one from John McCain, Republican senator from Arizona. McCain’s column made several assertions and comparisons that were utterly ludicrous, in particular this one: "These critics also object because our weapons do not discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Did the much less discriminating bombs dropped on Berlin and Tokyo in World War II make that conflict unjust?" To compare World War II and Iraq like this is idiocy. First, for those who haven’t noticed, IRAQ IS NOT AT WAR. The last time Iraq attacked another country was in 1991, over ten years ago. US and United Nations containment policies (including our continual bombing of the no-fly zone) have actually worked in that regard. And don’t tell me that Iraq is responsible for the World Trade Center’s destruction--every bit of evidence produced by the US and Great Britain has proved to be a) forgeries, b) misinterpreted or lied about, or c) showing connections to Saudi Arabia and other, non-Iraqi countries and groups. Remember the Taliban? Bush doesn’t, apparently. Second, the worldwide conflagration that was World War II had been raging for three years before we got into the action. We spent a lot of time and thought before committing ourselves--not necessarily a good thing, because a lot of countries fell and many people died because we didn’t get off our butts and help our allies. Poland was only the first country betrayed in Europe. But neither did we start the war, as Bush proposes to do. Third, the use of the most horrific weapon in the history of warfare on civilian cities has been criticized heavily as having been unnecessary and immoral. The world still suffers from these bombings, and will for a long time to come. Even the use of the first bomb on Hiroshima, rather than in a battlefield, is doubtful, and certainly the use of the second on Nagasaki. What was the point of that? So it might have taken a half a day longer for the emperor of Japan to believe that it was possible for such a weapon to exist and even worse, for human beings to bring themselves to use it? No, the purpose was in part to simply test the effects of the bomb on cities. Tests in the desert with mockups don’t equal the real thing. Fourth, the bombing of Berlin was aimed at the insane leadership of the Nazi party, and yes, civilians were shredded into a million tiny painful pieces. McCain points out that the weapons to be used in this war are far more precise than those used in World War II, which is true, but he also claims that civilian casualties will be far fewer than in "past wars. Far fewer will perish than are killed every year by an Iraqi regime that keeps power through the constant use of lethal violence." Which past wars? The world wars? The Veterans for Common Sense seem to think that the UN’s estimates of high casualties are reasonable. The Los Angeles Times reported in a Feb. 14, 2003 article that immediate casualties could reach 100,000 and deaths afterward could be over a million, particularly among children vulnerable to malnutrition. Does Saddam really kill this many people every year? The major difference between this war and what George Bush is trying to do is that the United States is quite clearly the aggressor, and that we are instigating this war against the better judgement of just about everybody. In World War II, the lines were very clearly drawn. Now, they are muddied and contradictory. In one of the anti-war protests on the corner of Geist and University, a pro-war protester told me that we ‘needed to get it over with.’ After ten years of farting around under UN sanctions, Saddam still has not abdicated, still has not thoroughly cleaned up his weapons program, and still says incredibly stupid, inflammatory things on international television. He isn’t contrite, he isn’t seeking atonement, he isn’t even pretending to be intelligent. He’s a cranky, cruel, dangerous despot who orders death and torture. The purpose of the UN sanctions has not been to oust Saddam from office. It has been to prevent war. Capture of terrorists has been effected through police and intelligence work, not warfare. Invading Iraq may indeed get rid of Saddam, at the cost of thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of lives, probably within a week or two, but it won’t stop terrorism. Warfare just isn’t very effective as a means of solving crime, and that’s what terrorism is. So what are we hurrying along? Iraq would be our protectorate for ten years or so. In the meantime, it is guaranteed that terrorism throughout the world would increase. It is also quite possible that the entire Middle East would be destabilized, other countries on the "Axis of Evil" hit list would become restive and decide that preemptive strikes are the way to deal with an aggressive enemy, and that we could thus provoke World War III. (This is an uncomfortable but real possibility. Let’s hope I’m just being unrealistically worried.) So why? Why do this when there are other options, such as flooding Iraq with inspectors, that may be even more effective? Can’t we wait a little while longer in order to save lives? Well, according to Geoffrey Heard, among other sources, it may very well have to do with retaining the economic dominance of the dollar over the euro--if oil becomes valued in euros rather than in dollars, the US would suffer an economic hit. So perhaps Bush sees the European Union as our enemy, and Iraq is merely the playing field in a struggle with our allies. Then again, perhaps the reasoning isn’t actually rational. Suppose it is a matter of faith, that Bush believes that we must fight evil, evil as defined by his religion. He’s said many things that have indicated his deeply held belief in the rightness of his cause, in the justness in a religious sense of his actions and intentions. Remember the crusade comment? And if the Apocalypse comes, and Bush is fighting against the enemies of God, then he is one of the saved, and that is appropriate and just, isn’t it? Isn’t it? | ||
 | | |
