* War in Iraq *

afternoon, francis. i've been thinking quite a bit ever since i learned of your deep feeling on war. i, myself, am against war fully - if it is avoidable. but in the cases that our country, and the world, are experiencing right now, what do you suggest we do? i understand fully the cost of war for foreign countries, and the price that they have to pay for our doing, and it is a terrible one, but this must be done. i have many friends who have family in the baghdad area, and they worry about what their relatives are going through now, but even they want this war. it is for the good of the world. i'm sure we all know that some of the problems that caused this war were initally caused by the u.s., such as iraq's knowledge of 'bio-terror'. we gave the facts to them during the cold war. mistakes are made, but iraq is not the only country who has to face the price alone. america will suffer from this war. many american lives will be lost battling for the freedom of iraq, and the protection of the free world. hussein is a mad-ass bastard. i'm not to fond of the idea of sending in james bond-esque agent to snipe the dude. i do not think that is how the world works. we can go to war, or we can sit around and debate with the un some more, and wait to be torn apart by the iraqi dictatorship and other groups. that's another thing: the un. the un will not last. it has done no good for world peace - the reason it was created. i know that they have supported some groups in helping the starving and poor of third-world countries, but when war-time arrives, they form a debate-club. the ambassadors sit around and argue while people are suffering genocide. back when clinton was president, he disregarded the un altogether and went straight into bosnia to save the oppressed. we don't need the un. the world is better without the un. i believe that the u.s. is going to back out of the un with! in the next year. which means that, if the un will still go on, they'll have to get out of america. maybe they can build an hq in camaroon. yes, camaroon, that dinky little shite of a country who somehow got on the security council. they must have an impressive army, a whole 500 troops.
this is strictly my opinion, francis. i know you will honor it just as you honor all others. i commend you for your idea of 'freedom of thought', and i hope, together, we and the world can straighten out the problems we face today, and in the future. thanks.

-tommy k [author of America, the Beautiful]

Tom,
Thanks for taking the time to write in and express your viewpoints. The war on Iraq is certainly a very multi-faceted issue, and many interesting points have been brought up in favor of the war as I have continued to discuss it online in some very conservative political forums. As I am sure you are fully expecting, I must respectfully disagree with you. I will begin my response by answering your question: what do I suggest we do?
In the interest of both the American and the Iraqi people, I suggest we keep up multilateral diplomatic pressure on Iraq and allow the U.N. inspectors to do their jobs. While I agree that Saddam Hussein is a horrible despot, I do not believe that regime change is necessary in a country that provides free public schooling and health care to its citizens, a country whose human rights violation record pales in comparison to those of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, and other U.S.-supported countries. While Iraq is being demonized by many conservative media analysts, few people seem to realize that they represent one of the freest nations in the Middle East, a nation that was extremely prosperous prior to suffering a decade of harsh UN sanctions. I say that we offer to drop all sanctions against the Iraqi people if Saddam Hussein cooperates, and if he does not, we arrest him and try him for war crimes, just as we have with Milosovic and other war criminals. The Iraqi people do not deserve to be punished for the independence of their dictator.
Does it not strike you as a bit odd that a country, such as the U.S., who touts itself as a defender of freedom and democracy, is choosing to invade one of the freest nations in the entire Middle East while it supports some of the worst criminal dictators in the region? Does this fact not lead you to question our motives for invading Iraq, especially in light of the fact that they pose no reasonable threat to us?
I have much too much confidence in you to assume that you buy into the accusations of Al Qaeda association with Iraq. Looking at the broader history of the region, these accusations are ludicrous. Osama Bin Laden has spoken out for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein many times throughout recent history. They have been hated enemies for years- bin Laden does not consider Hussein to be a "true Muslim", and in reality, he isn't. Saddam runs his country more like a democracy than almost any other country in the Middle East, including U.S.-supported Israel, touted as a free country, but continuing to oppress the Palestinian people in countless ways. For this, fundamentalists like bin Laden hate him, and have been at near-war with him for ages. If you are concerned about terrorism, my friend, than you should be against this war. I ask you: why do many Middle Eastern people hate America? This one of the largest reasons: the US is proving once again that it has the arrogance to take unilateral action against the Middle East, decimating large parts of the region, and continuing to contribute to the oppression of vast numbers of people who despise us for it. Look at the human right's records of our client states, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, and its no surprise their people hate us. By waging another war in that region, Bush is endangering the American people to a far greater extent than if he left the Middle East alone. You cannot fight fire with fire.
You say that you have friends with family in the Baghdad area who want this war. Well, Tom, I just returned from a massive anti-war rally with a friend and his father, both of whom fled Iraq in 1991 to avoid the Gulf War. These people are not friends of Saddam, but they see as well as we do that another war will do more to harm the Iraqi people than it will to harm their dictator. They see that war has been ineffectual in the past and will remain ineffectual in the future. You mention bio-terror as one of your reasons to invade Iraq. So far, not a single functioning chemical or biological weapon has been found in Iraq, and according to Colin Powell, Iraq's effective delivery range, even if they were to have bio weapons, is only 725 miles. The few empty warheads that we have found were no newer than 1988. Have you not forgotten that Britain was the first country to use chemical weapons in the Middle East? Have you not forgotten that the US fully supported Saddam when he gassed the Kurds in 1989? Is it not ironic that while pro-war activists speak of freeing the people of Iraq, the very people who wish to overthrow Saddam want the US to have nothing to do with it? Democracy was not forced on us, and it cannot be forced on anyone.
You cite Saddam's mass-genocide as a world-endangering reason to go to war. We supported that genocide, and we continue to support an even more destructive genocide in the form of UN sanctions against Iraq: sanctions which have destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure, causing infant mortality to skyrocket, and millions of Iraqi citizens with treatable illnesses to die because they lack the medicine to be cured. The first Gulf War exacted 150,000 immediate civilian casualties on the Iraqi people, a staggering number. But the UN sanctions following the war, sanctions which were intended to hurt Saddam, have caused 5,000,000 more to die- more than half of them infants. Look at the pentagon's self-proclaimed "Shock-and-Awe" campaign, designed to decimate the Iraqi infrastructure with over 3,000 cruise missiles in a mere 48 hours. That is not war, that is not demoralization- the Pentagon is already calling it 'the next Hiroshima and Nagasaki'- my friend, that is genocide, and it is completely unnecessary against a near-defenseless country. No more Iraqi citizens need to die to hurt Saddam.
I agree: the UN has done little for world peace and more for the interests of the Western countries which it is composed of. But, now, even the UN is not behind us. Even if they are a simple triviality, they are the international diplomatic community and to defy that community outright sets a powerful precedent, one that could endanger our standing with the rest of the world in countless ways. You mention the good of the world and protecting countries within Saddam's reach, but should American soldiers fight and die for Israel and Saudi Arabia? These countries can defend themselves: Israel is already armed to the teeth w/ U.S.-supplied weapons; they even have nuclear capabilities. Should US troops be sent to a country which we have already laid waste to with devastating sanctions and constant bombing raids, simply in order to set up a US protectorate in the country with the second largest oil reserves in the Persian Gulf? Should American citizens die in terror attacks brought on by the anti-America hatred sure to ensue after this war? Does anyone else need to give their life for imperialist-minded chickenhawks in Washington who wish only to control the power and resources of the Middle East? My answer is no, and I will continue to do everything I can to get those troops out of Iraq and out of the Middle East.
--Francis

Here is Tom's response:

greetings, again, francois. i just have a quick note, i don't have much time. i don't understand how you can say that iraq is a 'free' country. they are ruled by a dictator who forces you to support he and his way of life. if you don't vote for him in their 'democratic govt.' he will kill you. it has happened. he is a ruthless tyrant who doesn't care about his people. he uses the iraqi people as a ploy. i agree with you on the seperation of al qaeda and iraq, though. but then again, neither of us can prove that this is true. and there are dangerous weapons that saddam obtains lying on the borders of iraq. the american propaghanda does take certain things out of proportion, so the american people will get more into things, but most of the things that are said by those who we entrust power to are all true. just today, two iraqi students from north farmington high skool brought guns into skool. i couldn't tell you an! y more than that they were 'machine guns'. my sister told me she had seen the story on the news while i was gone. i've got to jet. thanks for listening. -tommy k.

Tom,
I can understand why you might be confused by my statement. First of all, perhaps "freest" was not the correct word to use. The point I was trying to make was that sadly, there are many countries out there that are overall much worse than Iraq. Worse terror states, with worse standards of living, substantial and very-much proven connections with terrorism, which are even less democratic (not by much, of course). Take, for example, Saudi Arabia, "the principal financial backer of Afghanistan' s odious Taliban movement since at least 1996," who has contributed regularly to Hamas and many anti-western indoctrination organizations. The Saudi Royal Family is also very near to the top of the list of human right's offenders in the region, but ever since the eighties, and even moreso after the Gulf War, we have cooperated with them and relied on them for support. The list goes on: Jordan, Israel, Pakistan- worse states with better weaponry and substantiated terrorist ties. Will our cruise missiles liberate them, too?
Yes, American media propaganda takes many things out of proportion, but what is worse is what is left out. You say that "most of the things that are said by those who we entrust power to are all true." Allow me to alter your statement slightly. Perhaps the 25% of the voting-age population who voted for Bush chose to "entrust power" to him, but does that mean that the rest of the country should sit by and remain silent while a man they did not elect wages a war that they may feel is unjust? Secondly, I am confused as to where you get your assertion "most of the things that are said... are all true." From what I have experienced, including both of Bush's addresses and a good deal of mass media coverage of the issue, it seems to me that those in power have made few statements which could even be proven "true" or "false". Rather, they have crafted language in such a way as to cause the public to make inferences and connections based on no evidence but simply on emotion. Take, for example, Bush's address to the nation. He used Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence at least once, made unsubstantiated connections between Saddam Hussein and Hitler, comparing France and Germany's opposition to this war to appeasement during W.W.II, attempting to cause a visceral reaction in the general public by painting Saddam as a horrible dictator. I feel that these things were not "false" (though some of them were simply ludicrous), but distortions of the truth with the clear intention of provoking an unjustified reaction and winning over faltering public support. The intent seemed to be to address the dissidents, and to silence them. As you can no doubt see, these attempts have failed. I feel that your faith in the government is unfounded, as- again- it is what they omit more than what they include, that is being truly dishonest and misleading to the American public. This is precisely why it takes a well-informed person to put this issue into perspective, while the public simply relies on that which is presented in the media at large.
Lastly, you mentioned two Iraqi students who brought machine guns to North Farmington. This is precisely the kind of reaction I have come to expect that this war will provoke. Already, angry protests have broken out in many Middle Eastern countries such as Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey, with hundreds of people burning American flags and Bush effigies, holding signs calling Bush "the great Satan" and chanting anti-Western slogans. This is precisely the reaction that the administration had the full knowledge it was provoking, and yet they claim that this war's intent is to protect us from terrorism. Let us hope that no more innocent people die because of their irreverance toward human life.
One last thing I feel I should mention: this is the first war the United States has ever fought in which we are the aggressors, acting not out of retaliation, but in an effort to pre-empt an unsubstantiated threat. This is the 21st century, and now, more than ever, I feel that war should- and can- be avoided at all costs. I might some day support a war of defensive retaliation, but Tom, I could never support a war of aggression, for the human cost is far too high.
--Francis