Twice today I couldn't believe my ears. On NPR of all places, I heard two different guest "experts" casually remark something to the effect of, "...to liberate the Iraqi people, which was why we went to war in the first place." And neither of the hosts even blinked at these amazing assertions. It's stunning how the Bush administration is able to use the Jedi mind trick on journalists and the American public. [Ben Kenobi voice ON]"The war is going according to plan. You have nothing to worry about."[Ben Kenobi voice OFF]
Since when did we go to war "to liberate the Iraqi people'?
This was never the primary reason given. A strong case could be made that a "primary reason" was NEVER clearly given, but if ANY reasons were given they went like this:
1. Al Qaida would like nothing more than to use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons in an attack on Americans or their allies.
2. Al Qaida is unlikely to produce these weapons on their own, but could acquire them from a "rogue" state, like Iraq, who (allegedly) does have them.
3. If Iraq will not satisfy the United States and Britian right away that it has no nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, then a war is necessary (and justified!) to guarantee that Iraq has no such weapons.
Add in a premise about Iraq not satisfying the US and you end up where we are now.
Now, I think this argument is full of holes. Premise 2 is dubious. No link between Iraq and Al Qaida was ever demonstrated. Osama Bin Laden himself called Saddam Hussein an infidel and hates him. Al Qaida could acquire these weapons much more easily from some place like Russia that has countless nuclear warheads laying around under the flimsiest of security. Muslim Chechnyans would be more likely to assist them in such an effort than Saddam. North Korea already has nukes and hates us and was even caught red-handed shipping missles to Yemen! So, singling out Iraq for this treatment is absurd.
Given the problems with premise 2, premise 3 becomes even more problematic. There are countless options to war that could have successfully guaranteed our security from the tiny threat posed by Iraq's alleged weapons. These options were not fully explored. This is why the rest of the world hates us. We don't listen. We do what we want and make up justifications later.
That's what is happening now. All of a sudden, this was a war "to liberate the Iraqi people". Huh? What happened to the weapons of mass destruction? And if George W. Bush cares so much about liberating people, then tell him that liberty starts at home. Not since the McCarthy era has there been a more chilling roll-back of the civil liberties of American citizens. And if we're looking for oppressed people to liberate, Iraq would be stop #3 at best. We should've started liberating people in North Korea, who has the world's worst living dictator running its show. Next stop would be Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from anyway. The crown princes there repress their people like it's going out of style. Only after "liberating" the people of these countries should we bother with Iraq. And a stop at Liberia to end a brutal regime there would have been easier and would have made more sense.
No, this was never a war "to liberate the Iraqi people". It was never sold to the American people that way. It was never sold to the UN that way. Whatever the Bush administration chooses to call it right now doesn't matter, because only time will tell why we really fought this war. And I'm betting the real reason, if we ever learn it, won't be nearly so noble as so many have apparently been lulled into thinking.
Posted by Brian at April 14, 2003 11:40 PM | TrackBack