• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Thursday, February 26, 1998

Military action downright hypocritical

WAR: U.S. cannot justify adequately bombing Iraq, killing innocent civilians

I can only hope that at the time this is published this wondrous country that I was born in is still not dropping bombs on a population halfway around the world for reasons that are utterly despicable. I don't know exactly what will happen, but I hope for peace. Unfortunately it doesn't seem very likely, now that Bill Clinton's got his macho hat on and feels like he needs to save the world.

Before I go on I should say that I think killing people, especially civilians, is very rarely justified, and that the use of the military (an institution whose very purpose has always been to kill) to invade other countries is even more rarely justified. I also believe that hypocrisy is a bad thing. So this article is going to be biased in that direction.

The administration has put forth five main reasons for why the United States should bomb Iraq. They are: (1) the strategic value of the Persian Gulf, (2) proliferation of non-conventional arms, (3) containment of aggression, (4) superpower responsibility and (5) U.N. credibility. Let's examine each of these reasons in detail.

First, the strategic value of the Persian Gulf: the administration seems to be trying to convince us that the availability of large reserves of oil in the region means that we should invade and keep people friendly to the United States in power. Sure, oil is very important to the economy, but is it worth the lives it will cost? Certainly some Americans and huge numbers of Iraqis will die, both in the military and in civilian populations, will perish. Oil isn't a valid justification for mass killing, especially considering the Middle East is not our only source of oil. The United States has its own oil reserves, not to mention the surpluses it has built up since the oil crisis of the '70s. Many other countries we are on good terms with, such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, also have large amounts of oil. Oddly enough, these countries are far from being democratic, yet we aren't yelling and screaming about their governments. Makes you wonder if something else is at work here rather than a love of democracy.

Countries from other areas of the world, such as Mexico and other Latin American countries, also have large reserves of oil. So why the big deal with capturing oil in Iraq?

Second, proliferation of non-conventional arms: this is just a joke. The United States has more nuclear weapons than any other nation on the planet. We have more destructive capability than any other country and we are going to bomb a country for attempting to arm themselves (this is what I meant by hypocrisy). Let's not forget that the United States is one of the only countries that has refused to sign the international landmine ban treaty for which the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded last year. It doesn't seem like we're really all that interested in stopping the spread of weapons, conventional or not. Even if you argue that we need to stop the proliferation of weapons to non-democratic countries, many non-democratic countries have weapons of mass destruction and we don't seem to be worrying about them too much.

Third, containment of aggression: again, the history of U.S. foreign policy contradicts this statement. If we are really concerned about aggression, why have we done nothing about Indonesia's brutal occupation of East Timor except support it? Why is it that we are so friendly towards China despite their brutal, borderline genocidal treatment of the people of Tibet? Why do we support Israel in its occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and the repression of the Palestinian people? Of course there's the fact that the United States itself has never shied away from aggression and invasion when it suits us. In 1989 under Bush (the same man who was to later denounce Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait) the United States invaded Panama; in the '80s we invaded Grenada; and there was also the Vietnam War. This is quite a track record of aggression.

Fourthly, superpower responsibility: this argument seems to rest on the fact that since the United States defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War, it has a responsibility to protect the world, to be the world's peacekeeper. The United States acts like it is the morally superior country that it constantly makes itself out to be, just because the Soviet Union crumbled while the United States prospered. It's also interesting that the way this "peacekeeper" claims its superiority is by killing lots of people (it's kind of reflective of how we name missiles peacekeepers, even though an explosive device is never going to keep the peace).

Finally, United Nations credibility: while Iraq has violated a few of the rules established by the United Nations after the Persian Gulf War, it is truly inane to insist Iraq complies with all the U.N. provisions when we do not force other countries to do the same. Similarly, Indonesia's occupation of East Timor has been denounced by the U.N. several times, and yet we do nothing. Israel's occupation of its conquered lands has been denounced more than once as well; again, we do nothing. The United Nations has always been dominated by the United States and other western countries, but when it doesn't function exactly as the United States would like, it simply ignores anything the United Nations says. The way the United Nations has been treated shows that it is merely cited when it is in line with American objectives and it is otherwise not listened to.

In spite of my argument against war, in no way do I think that Saddam Hussein is a good guy, nor am I defending him. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright accused some of the questioners in last week's town hall meeting in Columbus, Ohio of defending Hussein. But the question isn't about Hussein, the question is about the United States and whether or not we are proceeding in a way conducive to the values of the people and in accordance with human rights. Hussein is a horrible person in my opinion, but so is Clinton; Clinton just happens to have bigger guns.

Besides, the United States helped to put Hussein where he is by giving Iraq immense amounts of aid during the war between Iran and Iraq in the '80s despite knowing that he used chemical weapons in that war. Looking back, one former Reagan official said, "Hussein is a bastard. But at the time, he was our bastard." Typical of the United States - it doesn't matter how detestable you are. As long as you do what we want, you're our friend. But as soon as you stray from the straight and narrow path we have dictated to you, you are suddenly "the next Hitler."

Any military action the United States takes is very unlikely to affect Hussein. I'm sure he has protection that would keep him from being injured or killed. This is not the case for the Iraqi people. When bombs start dropping, civilians are going to die. These numerous deaths will include a disproportionate amount of civilians.

So, if there are any peace lovers out there, I say we take a cue from the folks in Columbus and yell and scream until we force them to allow us to be heard, because I guarantee you that Clinton and his cronies will do anything they can to silence anyone who expresses viewpoints different from their own.

Comments

Post a comment