posted on August 16, 2002 12:57:48 AM new
America stands on the brink of what's being billed as a war, but nobody in the
US seems worried about what might happen if Iraq defeats America. Nobody's
speculating about the terms Saddam Hussein might dictate for GW Bush's
surrender. There is absolutely no possibility of somber CNN reports as Iraqi
troops march into Washington DC, seizing ultimate control of this nation. We're
not afraid of what life would be like for Americans, under the brutal Hussein
occupation of America. The US military isn't being deployed to defend Boston,
Newark, Philadelphia, and New York from invading Iraqi bombers.
Do you know why?
Because America is in no danger from Iraq.
In fact, absolutely nothing is at stake for Americans in this "war," except the
lives of a few US soldiers who'll be killed in transport accidents and machinery
malfunctions, and the very, very few who'll be killed by Iraqi forces.
When American soldiers are placed in harm's way, Americans ought to know why. When American troops kill and die, the reasons should be sound, easy to understand, and easy to stand behind.
So long as the United States continues to attack only nations which can't really
battle back — Iraq and Afghanistan, not China and Russia — there will be few
American casualties, and thus no reason for American leaders to explain why.
When we're finished slaughtering Iraqis, flags will fly in America and fireworks
will soar. And after the parades, America's leaders will settle into the work of
planning the next war that can't conceivably be lost.
A war which cannot conceivably be lost is reprehensible. Such a "war" carries
only monetary cost for the nation's leadership. With few casualties, there's no
need to hesitate — before, after, or between such wars.
So the nonsense wars will continue.
To America's leaders, dead American soldiers mean a somber-faced photo-op
before playing a round of golf. Nothing raises a president's poll standings faster,
after all, than the deaths of a few American soldiers in any action anywhere.
In a nonsense war like one against Iraq or Afghanistan, the first few American
casualties just bring out the yellow ribbons and American flags. The first few
dozen American dead get great coverage on the evening news. Even the first few
hundred American deaths just rally the public behind the president.
One way to interrupt such an insane scenario would be with another insane
scenario — "unreasonable" numbers of American dead. Horrifically, it might be
better for the world, better for America in the long run, if Iraq got lucky in this
war and killed a few thousand American soldiers.
If, say, an Iraqi missile somehow eluded American defenses and exploded
smack-dab in the middle of an American military base, killing thousands of
Americans, perhaps that many deaths wouldn't seem "reasonable" to Americans.
And at last, Americans might ask what their leaders are up to.
There aren't many things more tragic to this American than even one American soldier dying for our country.
There aren't many things more tragic, but there
are a few:
An American soldier dying for no good reason? That's more tragic.
Thousands of American soldiers dying for no good reason? That's more tragic.
American leaders with so little respect for America's troops, they're willing to
send them to war for no good reason? That's more tragic.
But if something went horribly wrong during this or the next American
nonsense war, and thousands of Americans were killed, at least those soldiers
would have died for the only worthy cause such nonsense wars offer:
A few thousand dead Americans might save the lives of many thousand more,
just by making people stop and think. The loved ones of the dead might finally
be angry enough to ask why, and America's leaders, having no answer, might
have to hesitate.
Instead of going to war against bozo third-world dictatorships which pose no
threat to America, instead of fighting, killing, and dying for GW Bush's father's
honor, America could "support the troops" by risking their lives only when it
serves American interests in some clear, well-defined, and morally
unambiguous manner.
What a complete about-face this would be from the present American policy of
sacrificing US soldiers like so many penny-ante poker chips.
Of course, there's almost no chance for such a complete change of perspective.
American lives almost certainly won't be lost at anything but a "reasonable"
rate. Americans, by and large, won't ask their leaders any unpleasant questions.
The American dead (very few) will die for a lie, like the Iraqi dead (who will
number tens of thousands, or easily hundreds of thousands). Saddam Hussein
may or may not be deposed. Whatever regime follows may or may not be
more amiable to American interests. And America's next nonsense war — like
this one — will be inevitable, and won't even be debated. The nonsense wars
will continue.
The tragedies will continue.
So long as America's leaders have no reason to fear war, there will be no
peace.
As America unrestrained rules the world, more and more American soldiers will
die, but probably only a few at a time. It will all seem very "reasonable."
More and more tiny third-world countries will look like Afghanistan and Iraq —
by which I don't mean deserts and sand, but death and more death, and future
generations vowing vengeance.
Perhaps, in one of these nonsense wars, thousands of American soldiers instead
of dozens will die for nothing. Maybe then, Americans will ask why, wonder at
the lack of an answer, and realize that none of these American soldiers — not
even one — should be ordered to fight, kill, and die for nothing.
posted on August 16, 2002 06:34:06 AM new
I don't believe so, Gravid.
Based on a ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll last week, most Americans do not see Iraq as a threat. Without Iraq posing a threat, how is this battle justified? I don't understand this writers assumption that "very, very few" casualties will result. But, as she concluded, even one casualty is too many for an unjustified, preemptive strike on Iraq.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 — Leading Republicans from Congress, the State Department and past administrations have begun to break ranks with President Bush over his administration's high-profile planning for war with Iraq, saying the administration has neither adequately prepared for military action nor made the case that it is needed.
These senior Republicans include former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft, the first President Bush's national security adviser. All say they favor the eventual removal of Saddam Hussein, but some say they are concerned that Mr. Bush is proceeding in a way that risks alienating allies, creating greater instability in the Middle East, and harming long-term American interests. They add that the administration has not shown that Iraq poses an urgent threat to the United States
..........................
In an opinion article published today in The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Scowcroft, who helped build the broad international coalition against Iraq in the Persian Gulf war, warned that "an attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counter-terrorist campaign we have undertaken." An attack might provoke Iraq to use chemical or biological weapons in an effort to trigger war between Israel and the Arab world, he said.
His criticism has particular meaning for Mr. Bush because Mr. Scowcroft was virtually a member of the Bush family during the first President Bush's term and has maintained close relations with the former president.
