Military action downright hypocritical

Thursday, February 26, 1998

Military action downright hypocritical

WAR: U.S. cannot justify adequately bombing Iraq, killing
innocent civilians

I can only hope that at the time this is published this wondrous
country that I was born in is still not dropping bombs on a
population halfway around the world for reasons that are utterly
despicable. I don’t know exactly what will happen, but I hope for
peace. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem very likely, now that Bill
Clinton’s got his macho hat on and feels like he needs to save the
world.

Before I go on I should say that I think killing people,
especially civilians, is very rarely justified, and that the use of
the military (an institution whose very purpose has always been to
kill) to invade other countries is even more rarely justified. I
also believe that hypocrisy is a bad thing. So this article is
going to be biased in that direction.

The administration has put forth five main reasons for why the
United States should bomb Iraq. They are: (1) the strategic value
of the Persian Gulf, (2) proliferation of non-conventional arms,
(3) containment of aggression, (4) superpower responsibility and
(5) U.N. credibility. Let’s examine each of these reasons in
detail.

First, the strategic value of the Persian Gulf: the
administration seems to be trying to convince us that the
availability of large reserves of oil in the region means that we
should invade and keep people friendly to the United States in
power. Sure, oil is very important to the economy, but is it worth
the lives it will cost? Certainly some Americans and huge numbers
of Iraqis will die, both in the military and in civilian
populations, will perish. Oil isn’t a valid justification for mass
killing, especially considering the Middle East is not our only
source of oil. The United States has its own oil reserves, not to
mention the surpluses it has built up since the oil crisis of the
’70s. Many other countries we are on good terms with, such as Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait, also have large amounts of oil. Oddly enough,
these countries are far from being democratic, yet we aren’t
yelling and screaming about their governments. Makes you wonder if
something else is at work here rather than a love of democracy.

Countries from other areas of the world, such as Mexico and
other Latin American countries, also have large reserves of oil. So
why the big deal with capturing oil in Iraq?

Second, proliferation of non-conventional arms: this is just a
joke. The United States has more nuclear weapons than any other
nation on the planet. We have more destructive capability than any
other country and we are going to bomb a country for attempting to
arm themselves (this is what I meant by hypocrisy). Let’s not
forget that the United States is one of the only countries that has
refused to sign the international landmine ban treaty for which the
Nobel Peace Prize was awarded last year. It doesn’t seem like we’re
really all that interested in stopping the spread of weapons,
conventional or not. Even if you argue that we need to stop the
proliferation of weapons to non-democratic countries, many
non-democratic countries have weapons of mass destruction and we
don’t seem to be worrying about them too much.

Third, containment of aggression: again, the history of U.S.
foreign policy contradicts this statement. If we are really
concerned about aggression, why have we done nothing about
Indonesia’s brutal occupation of East Timor except support it? Why
is it that we are so friendly towards China despite their brutal,
borderline genocidal treatment of the people of Tibet? Why do we
support Israel in its occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip,
the Golan Heights and the repression of the Palestinian people? Of
course there’s the fact that the United States itself has never
shied away from aggression and invasion when it suits us. In 1989
under Bush (the same man who was to later denounce Saddam Hussein’s
invasion of Kuwait) the United States invaded Panama; in the ’80s
we invaded Grenada; and there was also the Vietnam War. This is
quite a track record of aggression.

Fourthly, superpower responsibility: this argument seems to rest
on the fact that since the United States defeated the Soviet Union
in the Cold War, it has a responsibility to protect the world, to
be the world’s peacekeeper. The United States acts like it is the
morally superior country that it constantly makes itself out to be,
just because the Soviet Union crumbled while the United States
prospered. It’s also interesting that the way this "peacekeeper"
claims its superiority is by killing lots of people (it’s kind of
reflective of how we name missiles peacekeepers, even though an
explosive device is never going to keep the peace).

Finally, United Nations credibility: while Iraq has violated a
few of the rules established by the United Nations after the
Persian Gulf War, it is truly inane to insist Iraq complies with
all the U.N. provisions when we do not force other countries to do
the same. Similarly, Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor has been
denounced by the U.N. several times, and yet we do nothing.
Israel’s occupation of its conquered lands has been denounced more
than once as well; again, we do nothing. The United Nations has
always been dominated by the United States and other western
countries, but when it doesn’t function exactly as the United
States would like, it simply ignores anything the United Nations
says. The way the United Nations has been treated shows that it is
merely cited when it is in line with American objectives and it is
otherwise not listened to.

In spite of my argument against war, in no way do I think that
Saddam Hussein is a good guy, nor am I defending him. Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright accused some of the questioners in last
week’s town hall meeting in Columbus, Ohio of defending Hussein.
But the question isn’t about Hussein, the question is about the
United States and whether or not we are proceeding in a way
conducive to the values of the people and in accordance with human
rights. Hussein is a horrible person in my opinion, but so is
Clinton; Clinton just happens to have bigger guns.

Besides, the United States helped to put Hussein where he is by
giving Iraq immense amounts of aid during the war between Iran and
Iraq in the ’80s despite knowing that he used chemical weapons in
that war. Looking back, one former Reagan official said, "Hussein
is a bastard. But at the time, he was our bastard." Typical of the
United States – it doesn’t matter how detestable you are. As long
as you do what we want, you’re our friend. But as soon as you stray
from the straight and narrow path we have dictated to you, you are
suddenly "the next Hitler."

Any military action the United States takes is very unlikely to
affect Hussein. I’m sure he has protection that would keep him from
being injured or killed. This is not the case for the Iraqi people.
When bombs start dropping, civilians are going to die. These
numerous deaths will include a disproportionate amount of
civilians.

So, if there are any peace lovers out there, I say we take a cue
from the folks in Columbus and yell and scream until we force them
to allow us to be heard, because I guarantee you that Clinton and
his cronies will do anything they can to silence anyone who
expresses viewpoints different from their own.