I briefly considered entitling this "War in Iraq," but it's not a war yet, and I doubt it ever will be. Situations can only be called wars when Congress gets together and votes to formally declare war on a foreign country. The last time this actually happened was when Congress decalred war on Japan in 1941. Every "war" the United States has engaged in since has completely skipped this step. It is much easier for a President to throw troops around on a whim than to stop and ask if anyone agrees with him. That pesky Constitution, always getting in the way.

As far as this situation, seeing the thoughts of my friends has driven me to reveal my own. Unfortunately, putting "I wish for peace" or "I wish for Saddam's head on a pole" in your LiveJournal really does not accomplish anything, except possibly provoking your friends. Rants about how fucked up one side or the other is fall under the same category of uselessness. Thus, I shall explain myself in the trusty discourse format. I am opposed to sending troops over to Iraq to kill things and attempt to oust Saddam Hussein. It would be much easier and shorter to write "I am opposed to this war," but as I stated in the first paragraph, this is not a war. As inconvenient as it may be to write around that term, I refuse to use it to describe this situation.

The United States has a long history of meddling in the affairs of the Middle East. This country loves to get involved in every squabble that could possibly affect its own interests, then get involved again when the consequences of its previous involvement start to emerge. In the middle of the Cold War, America got involved in attempted land-grabs from the Soviet Union. We did not want those UnAmerican Commie Bastards(TM) to have any more land, so the "any enemy of our enemy is our friend" mindset allowed us to arm, train, and support the armies of every country the Soviets attacked. This is where Al Qaeda received most of its assets and training. (You may remember Al Qaeda for such hits as the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I worry that this reminder was necessary, because a lot of CNN-cultured Americans have the memory of a goldfish and a mind only big enough to handle one enemy at a time. Now that Saddam Hussein is the focus, many people have forgotten all about Osama Bin Laden yet again.) We personally gave Saddam Hussein most of the weapons we are now telling him to destroy; they came very much in handy when we helped him fend off Iran with them. We helped a rebel liberation organization overthrow the Taliban, and I am convinced it is only a matter of time before we have to help someone else overthrow them.

I noticed that there are two camps in the debate over attacking Iraq. One side believes Bush is a bloodthirsty cowboy, and the other believes that Saddam Hussein is the physical embodiment of Satan, and that we have a moral obligation to destroy him. My thoughts are as follows: I'm sorry, but Bush is a bloodthirsty cowboy. If he was not, he would go through the Constitutional process of declaring war and follow the wishes of the people, not throw troops at Iraq for his own personal ambitions. Apologies to anyone who disagrees, but simply put, King George II likes blood and oil.

As far as Saddam, my opinion is a little different from either side of the debate. Most people seem to support him, or to call him a tyrant and call for his head. I've heard countless horror stories about what he does to his own people, and I make no challenge to their authenticity. I realize the man is nothing short of a tyrant. However, it does not follow that America should destroy his evil empire. You may dismiss me as a hopeless isolationist, but I do not agree with being the moral police of the world. I know the man is evil, but I do not think that should be America's concern. I do not wish to sound cold, but getting involved every time someone utters the phrase "human rights" is the main reason the rest of the world grumbles about our being the world's police force. America does not and should not have the time to shed a tear and oust the government for every innocent person opressed in other countries. Yes, Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, but I sincerely do not think that this should be our problem. This is the same reason so many people protested the war in Vietnam; Cold War or not, it was wrong for America to get so uptight over whether a third world country is democratic or communist.

I've been asked "Does that mean you disagree with our helping the Jews out in World War II?" At the risk of offending untold numbers of people, yes, that is exactly what I mean. Please note that I am not the least bit racist. (Also note that there were very many targeted by Nazi concentration camps besides Judaism.) It simply means that I do not agree with attacking foreign countries because we disagree with how they treat people. I do condone World War II, for the simple reason that Japan attacked America on December 7, 1941. Congress formally declared war on Japan a few days later. Germany declared war on the United States because of its alliance with Japan, so we ended up fighting them as well. This is the perfect example of the right way to go to war. We waited until we had a valid physical reason (such as being attacked first,) then went through the Constitutional process of declaring war. Contrast this with Bush's dodging Congress and throwing troops at Iraq over what weapons we may or may not suspect he could be thinking of producing. I'm sorry, but preemtpive strikes are just plain wrong.

Thus, America marches on to overthrow this month's Enemy of the Free World(TM), and the cycle of everyone hating our intrusiveness in others' affairs continues. Perhaps one day America will learn to mind its own business. This, rather than peace or blood, is what I want.


Back to the discourses page
Back to the mild page | Back to the spicy page