4/17/03
THE IRAQ WAR
6 PAGES

The war in Iraq has been going on for almost a month now, but obviously the discussions and the talk of it has been going on for a lot longer. These are my thoughts on as much of everything that has gone on up until this point.

First of all, I want to say that I have pretty much been in favor of this war from the get go. In fact, why dick around with "pretty much." Even though there have been moments of conscience checking, I have never really had any moment where I thought we should NOT have been doing what we did. I'll get into those conscience things later.

I've heard the arguments from both sides. And I've gotten into several debates, some of them very heated over what was right and wrong. Basically after listening to propoganda from both sides of the argument, I've decided that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man who cannot be trusted with weapons of mass destruction. He is a ruler of a country, but he has no cares for his people. Live or die, he doesn't care. He only cares for himself and his close followers. If he got ahold of nuclear or chemical or biological weapons, I don't think he would have a problem using them because he could just hide out in his bunkers and let his own people get obliterated in the counter attack. I firmly believed that the fight with Iraq wasn't acutally with Iraq. Not with a country. It was with Saddam, an evil man, and his followers.

I have heard the argument that we should have given the weapons inspectors more time. From what I understand of the weapons inspections is that there is a HUGE misunderstanding of what they were actually trying to accomplish. Most people think that the inspectors were looking for weapons of mass destruction and that it was just taking them a really long time because Iraq is the size of California. But as I understand it, they weren't actually looking for weapons. There was already intelligence stating that Iraq HAD these weapons. Somehow, the powers that be KNEW that they had certain weapons. And the inspectors' job was to find the EVIDENCE that the weapons had been DESTROYED. The fact that they were there for however many weeks and found no evidence suggests to me that Saddam was NOT cooperating in spite of what people were saying otherwise.

My only mental block in this whole scenario that I don't think was explained well enough to us the public is HOW the United States or the United Nations KNEW that Saddam had these weapons. I believe that they were sure. I just don't know HOW they were sure. They never really explained that to us. So that was my only lingering question. Because I did believe that if Saddam were to be making these WMD, then he should be removed. I was just worried that we were going after him, and he didn't actually have these weapons. That question still hasn't been resolved.

Of course, the next logical thing that the anti-war side will bring up is: "Why does Saddam need to be disarmed? Why is it that we only allow people who are our friends to have weapons? Why can't our enemies be allow to have these weapons?"

I again defer to the fact that we are not dealing with a country of people. We are dealing with a few guys who could lob a nuke and then hide out while we search for them, not caring if their whole country gets obliterated in a counterattack. Saddam has proven that he cannot be trusted with large scale weapons. It would be like a child being given his father's gun. He doesn't have the discipline to use it responsibly.

And yes, I know that the United States has no reason to judge since we are the only country in history to have used nuclear weapons as a method of attack. And I used that as an illustration of my point. We were immature. We were like a kid with a new toy. We had no idea of the Pandora's Box we were opening. And I'm sure that if this country had it to do over again, we would have done it a different way. But we can't, so instead, we took steps to make sure that no conflict ever came to that point again.

Saddam is at the same point we were at years ago. The two differences is that he is aware of what nuclear war would bring about and I believe he just doesn't care. And two, by the grace of God, our enemies didn't have nukes of their own to retaliate in WWII. If they had, we wouldn't be here now. If Saddam were to launch nukes, the backlash would be global and everybody would suffer. And he wouldn't care.

I also believe that Saddam has been toying with the UN and everybody else for the past decade and that no amount of resolutions or inspections was going to get him to cooperate. The unfortunate truth in this world is that some people only respond to force. I am the first to liken Saddam to Hitler. Can you imagine if there had been a UN back then. Do you think Hitler would have listened if they'd told him, "Hey, you can't do that." Hell no. War was all he understood. Yes, in an ideal world, war would never be the answer, but not eveyrbody shares that idealism, much less a brutal dictator.

I am a little… not annoyed, but just saying, "Ooooh, you political weasels," to the administration for trying to rope-a-dope the public by suddenly trying to make is seem like this whole war was actually to free the Iraqi people. Believe me, I think that was a great added benefit, and I think it was a necessary response to the people who said that we shouldn't be invading a "sovereign nation." But it's like they are just trying to make everybody forget that our original reason for going in there was really self-interest. Valid self-interest, not wanting to get blown up, but self-interest all the same.

I'm also a little perplexed by the media coverage of this war. I can obviously only speak for what I've been seeing every day in America. I'm sure it's different in other countries. But up to about a week before we actually went to war, the media had a very liberal slant. You really felt by watching the news that the whole country and the whole world was vehemently opposed to this war. Everywhere you looked there were protests and propaganda detailing what the war was unjust.

Then, I don't know if somebody finally took a poll, or if they just took a new poll and things actually changed, because suddenly, about 2 days before we attacked, it turned out that over 75% of the country was actually in FAVOR of the war.

In retrospect, it's interesting to look back on a couple of debates I had with people regarding the issue. Me and my friend Mary Ann actually had a very in depth debate online. We disregarded e-mail ettiquette for a bit as we kept replying all with our well thought out arguments and rebuttals. She was the very left "war never solves anything" voice. And I was (I felt) the ultra-right, "we have to do what needs to be done" voice. I was so nervous every time I checked my email. I kept thinking for sure that I was going to have like 20 emails from people detailing exactly why I was wrong. But I didn't. And actually in the end, there were a couple of people who said, "I had been leaning towards thinking the war was wrong, but you really made some good points." "Hm," I thought. But in retrospect, it really makes sense.

I have a hard time believing that 75% of the country just suddenly got behind the war overnight. I'm more inclined to think that they were always there, but because the media had been making us think that everybody was Susan Sarandon, we were afraid to speak up.

Of course, once the war started, it went from "No war for oil," and "Bush is the real terrorist" to "God Bless America" and "Support our Troops." Suddenly, it was the anti-war people who were afraid to speak. Well, I don't think they were afraid to speak. But people sure did give them a hard time about it. People actually going so far as saying that if people didn't support this war, if they didn't support our president, then they didn't support troops and they were un-American, un-Patriotic.

People have started boycotting famous people who are vocally opposed to the war. They've stopped watching THE WEST WING because of Martin Sheen. The Baseball Hall of Fame cancelled a celebration of the 25th anniversary of BULL DURHAM because Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon were going to attend the ceremony. In Texas I heard that people were burning their DIXIE CHICKS albums because of a comment one of the singers made about president Bush. Oh my God, I was stunned speechless when I heard that. Burning their albums because they didn't like what somebody said. It doesn't take a genius to see the Nazi implication there.

I'm all for writing letters to record companies and giving them your voice, saying, "I just want you to know that Sheryl Crow does NOT represent me." Part of me can even get on board with the whole boycotting of artists. I mean after all, they're famous. They have a platform where they can get their message to millions of people. But millions of individuals don't have that same platform. But the one thing we can do is "vote with our wallets." Hitting them in the pocketbook is a very loud and clear message. But this is really too much. I'm starting to thing it's just becoming a America-Is-The-Best bandwagon. It's like, now, suddenly because the media has told us, "Hey, it's not only OKAY, but it's actually POPULAR to be in favor of the war," suddenly people are going berserk trying to retaliate or something against the people who they felt were trying to keep them silent for so long.

Insofar as the whole celebrity thing goes, I'm not opposed to celebrities voicing their opinions. Their citizens too. They can't be expected to keep their opinions to themselves just because they happen to have a bigger platform than the average American. But I think there is a line between being letting your voice be heard, and saying things in bad taste. For instance, if you're giving an interview to Entertainment Weekly, great, voice your opinion as loud as you want. If you are speaking at an anti-war rally, get right up on that soapbox my man. If Michael Moore wants to make a documentary on how evil America is and how it is just trying to flag plant under the guise of a "fictitious war," great, more power to him. But when he uses his Oscar acceptance speech to spit venom at the president, the country and the war, that is where I draw the line. He crossed the line over into inappropriate. That night was about celebrating the movies. It was supposed to be a positive evening. Not an opportunity for prosetlyzing. Beyond whatever I think of his opinions, his actions also spoke of having absolutely NO CLASS.

But as far as boycotting, I'm not doing any of that. Not that I really buy all that much as it is. But I am not returning (or burning) my Dixie Chicks albums. I'll still watch Tim Robbins' movies, but it's not like I'm halting my Tim Robbins buying. I never bought Tim Robbins' movies on a daily basis. I really wish people would get past this idea of quashing other people's opinions. THAT of all things is what I really think is un-American, telling somebody that their opinion is not important.

This is the first war where we've had cameras EVERYWHERE. Sure, the first Gulf War was really the first TV war. But, I can still remember the first night of that war when we started bombing. It was a static shot of Tom Brokaw in the NBC New York news room with the occasional cutaway to a map of Iraq and a verbal description of what was happening by a reporter on the phone. They didn't actually have cameras in Baghdad or at least they didn't have live transmission from Baghdad. CNN hasn't really gotten its groove on yet.

This war was the real TV war. Cameras are EVERYWHERE, and every single one of them can beam a live picture. That's good and bad. It means we're never out of the loop. The bad thing really isn't the news people's fault. Well yeah, it is. They're just as responsible for it. But basically this is the first war to happen since the Reality TV boom. We have gotten so used to seeing "Real Life" edited down into hour-long programs. It really is easy to forget that life doesn't acutally move at TV pace. So when we sit down to watch MSNBC, we expect things to be happening every other minute.

I know this is what has happened because we were LESS THAN A WEEK into the war and there were already stories in the newspaper with people questionning whether the war was taking TOO LONG. TOO LONG??? Here we are, less than a month after the first shot was fired and we've already conquered every major city and stronghold in the country and people thought the war was taking TOO LONG? It really pissed my off when I read that.

During the first week of the war, I was actually in Jacksonville, FL working for ESPN. I was doing on-site tech support, which meant, I had a LOT of downtime, because nothing actually broke that needed teching. So I spent a lot of time watching the TV monitors tuned to CNN and MSNBC. I read the newspaper front to back every day. I swear, every two days, the tone switched back and forth from "We're kicking ass. The war is going well," to "We're taking heavy losses. Could this turn into another Vietnam?" And then it would go back again. Oh, I was so sick of it. By day 10, I had reached my saturation point. I picked up yet another newspaper, got about a paragraph into the cover story and then just had to stop. I have since opted for listening to the nightly news every few nights to hear the really big developments. Basically I figured anything that they report on two days later must be actual news and not just something they think they heard only to be rebutted two hours later. And it's been much easier to glean what's happening.

I am glad that freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam was one of the side benefits of our initial purpose. However, in light of recent events, I'm actually a little worried. In the news the last couple days, all I've heard about is mass looting by these newly freed people. And not just stealing food, but stealing priceless artifacts from museums. Artifacts that can only be sold on a black market. Certainly not the acts of starving peasants but of cutthroat theives. I have to wonder, are these people capable of being free?

I heard on talk radio a month or so back that when the United States was first formed as a democracy, the men who put the country together were worried that the whole thing would fall apart within ten years. They were worried that given free choice, that people who had only known oppression would choose anarchy. I guess it can be compared to a kid who lives with his parents for 18 years, constantly being told what he can and can't do. Then he goes off to college. A kid with a sensible head on his shoulders studies and gets good grades. Sure he has fun with his newfound freedom, but he understands that freedom comes with responsbility. Then there are the kids who just go nuts, drinking, drugging, whoring, eating. Within a month, they are fat, burnt out and failing all their classes.

I think the reason this country did survive is because the people who set up the government were all rich, educated, learned men of the world. It wasn't the common tradesman who wrote the consitution. These men studied at universities and understood law and government. And for the first couple generations, I believe they decreed that their class, the rich, landowning, educated class be the only class allowed to vote. It was pure self-interest, but it kept order while the country was still getting through its adolescent phase. Of course it wasn't perfect. The Civil War nearly tore the coutnry apart less than 100 years later. It was a gradual process taking us to where we're at today.

So then, why can't the process in Iraq be a slow gradual process? Because America was an experiment. I'm not completely sure, but I think it was the first grand society that was allowed to govern itself. The first society that didn't have a monarchy. Nobody knew how it would work. What's more, nobody knew how it was SUPPOSED to work. Now we know. Now the whole world knows. They know how a democracy SHOULD work. And now that whole world is watching Iraq. And if the United States rebuilds the initial Iraq into anything but a fully functional democracy where every person has the right to speak, they are going to cry foul. They aren't going to understand that too many of these people have never known what its like to have a choice. What are they going to do with those choices? What if what the people choose is even worse than what we removed?

I'm very curious to see what these next few years is going to bring. Already, it seems like a lot of our unfriendly neighbors in this world are starting to kowtow to what they see happening. Syria has started cooperating. North Korea wants to enter talks. It seems like even France and Russia are starting to come around to saying, "Hey this was a good idea." Again though, I wonder how much of it is just media blitzing. How much of what is said today is going to be gone tomorrow.

But I'm curious what is going to happen to the Middle East now that Iraq has been "liberated." Will more countries beg us to liberate them? Will more countries just set up democracies on their own? Will we see a dozen South Africa's in the Middle East? Will the region become destabilized. Will it be unstable because people are angry or because they simply make bad decisions with their newly bestowed freedom of choice. So much seems to have happened so fast, and I know that the REAL tricky part is still to come. The really time consuming part of rebuilding Iraq and giving these people real freedom. And then what? I'm not sure. I wonder what will be going on in a few years when I look back on what I've written here? How many of my fears will be confirmed. How much of this will seem like frivolous meandering? Only time will tell. Of course, how much time will the world give this project before they just up and declare it a failure I wonder.