To Attack (or not) Iraq.

After studying the issue for several months, reading about it in various newspapers, talking with various friends of mine, listening to TV commentary, I’ve come to the conclusion that America should not attack Iraq. If you are against that opinion and do not wish to read further, than do so, but my opinion is more than a mere slogan or statement. In dealing with the Iraq situation, I will discuss three issues, the history of military operations in third world countries, our current way of life, and also of the moral concerns of it all.

            First, we have the history of military interventions in a foreign country. The United States has tried to impose its will on many nations, and I will specifically talk about Vietnam. Vietnam was a war that was fought to contain a supposed indestructible enemy, Communism. The North Vietnamese were the embodiment of the Soviet “menace.” For a few year, that appeased a majority of the American public. It was not until the war dragged on that people began to realise that the conflict was in vain. For what were we fighting? We were trying to contain an enemy that was an idea. That is not the American way. The American way is to let all ideas flourish, even ones that do not agree with our own. That’s what makes this a great country, but for years every single administration (EVERYONE, not just Republicans) has gone against this ideal with law and wars and such. Nixon sent troops through Cambodia, Ford pardoned Nixon, Carter (well, besides the troops in the desert, something with which I agree, I can’t find anything off the top of my head), Reagan had the Iran-Contra, Bush Sr. with his anti-ACLU stance, Clinton with the Bosnia war, and now Bush, Jr. with Iraq. I’m trailing a bit, but I do have a point. The point is, that we can’t just blame one party. Ok, now back to history. We have NEVER been able to impose our will on a country purely by military means. It is impossible to do that, even the Nazi’s couldn’t control their occupied territories by military power alone, so what makes us think we can do it? Even though we destroyed the Taliban in Afghanistan, there are still problems there, and there will always be problems in that country. Think of all the South American and Central American countries that we tried to prop up regimes in, look at that part of the world now, it’s crap! Mexico is a prime example, look at how much money we pump into that country, and look where it has gotten us. History has taught us that we cannot use our military to impose our will, it just doesn’t work.

            Second, I think we need to look at the moral implications of all this. Granted, war is something that has been going on since the beginning of time, and it’s silly to think that in the year 2003 we can change the course of human history in a flash. We can’t change human nature, but I think that we can at least be aware of the repercussions of our actions. War is not pretty, as evidenced by the body counts of Vietnam and the gas chambers of World War II. Getting shot is not instant death, it is agony and screaming. Having shrapnel in your neck is not a healthy thing. You, I’m sure, can thing of even more horrifying images than I’ve provided, but do think about them, because that’s what it is. Our era of sensationalist journalism knows that if you put a picture of a bloody head in a magazine that people aren’t going to buy it and be turned off by what caused it. Then there’s the lie of “dulce et decorum est,” that Latin saying that it is sweet to die for one’s country. What a load of crap, and people still believe it. Your country is not worth dying for. No entity is worth dying for. A belief may be something for which death may be an adequate defense; however, a piece of land is not. Think about all those soldiers in the Franco-Prussian war that died for a greater Germany? Well, for one, they’re all dead, and two, Willem II and Adolf Hitler ruined any dream for Germany. So, what does that tell us? It tells us that a country is a piece of land with magic marker on the dirt to mark where person X can live. I will die when my life is threatened, and not my way of life, which leads us into my next point.

            We, as Americans, need to change our lifestyle. We need to forget our desire to be cut off from society, something which we see as a product of mass-industrialisation. Well, our current world conflicts are also a product of mass-industrialisation, and no one seems to be trying to escape from those. We, as a nation and myself included, have become too dependant on the personal automobile for transportation. The automobile has polluted our air, clogged our streets, made us slaves to the loan companies, made us even more dependant on oil, and the list goes on and on. We live so far away from each other, that we don’t know each other. We may see 10,000 people a day, but we only know about five of them. Shouldn’t this be distressing anyone? We want to invade Iraq because it will allow us to continue our lives uninterrupted. We could give a shit what kind of government they have in Iraq, they have what we want, and we want it for cheap. Why don’t we attack the Saudi’s? They have the most oil besides Iraq, but the Saudis sell it to us for cheap. We know for a damn fact that the Saudi regime is fake and is just another aristocracy controlling poor masses. That country damn well has the funds to feed its poor. But we look the other way because they’ll give us cheap oil. What about the rest of the Middle East? NONE OF THEM HAVE DEMOCRACIES, yet we choose Iraq as our target. By controlling Iraq, we can continue our lives without interruption. Why don’t we stop the other two people in the Axis of Evil? North Korea is just a red herring, and Iran is a very powerful nation (we could beat them in a war, but we’d be sending barges of our dead soldiers home.) Our desire for material possessions fuels our desire to attack Iraq, and nothing more. Right now, as I write this, we are not affected in any way because of the actions of Iraq. Iraq is not pointing weapons at the United States of America. While they may be supporting terrorism, it has not been proved by any entity in the world that they indeed support international terrorism (the Palestinians being an exception, Saddam provides cheques to the families of suicide bombers.) I’m not saying Saddam is a good person, because it is damn clear that he is a bad person. But, if he’s so bad, why aren’t we bombing Libya? Why don’t we get rid of the Chinese government, they obviously aren’t that great to their citizens. How about Mexico, are they wonderful to their citizens? Clearly, the issue is not about “spreading democracy,” but strategic resource gathering. That is why we should stand firm against a war with Iraq. Yes, Saddam is an asshole, yes he’s crazy, yes he hates his people, yes he’s a madman, but so are a lot of other people. It is not our job to police the world. It never has been, and we’ve made many mistakes about doing it in the past. I will not lie, I voted for our current President Bush. I voted for him because one of his prime campaign issues was that he would reduce our military presence around the world. He was on his way to doing it before 11 Sept. However, as we have seen, after Sept 11 reality ceases to dominate politics. He has enacted laws that restrict freedom of speech, and other constitutional guarantees. He (not unlike any previous presidents) has backed down on his campaign promises, and now we police the world in search of an unknown enemy. Why don’t we ask the British how to fight terrorism? Or France, of Spain? They’ve been fighting a KNOWN enemy for years, and haven’t conquered it, what makes us think that we can go to unknown territories to fight an unknown enemy? We do it because the establishment of this country (Democrats and Republicans) realise that without Iraq’s oil, the status quo changes, and there is no greater threat to power than the changing of values. Bush knows it, Daschle knows it, and everyone knows it. If we lose our oil, we’ll become regionalised, and this global community about which everyone speaks, will cease to exist without oil. Oil is the most versatile substance on earth. Modern society as we know it (plastics, cars, planes, etc.) would cease to function without cheap oil. Shouldn’t we be trying to change the way we live, instead of trying to continue with the status quo? Do you really want to live 30 miles from where you work? Do you want to keep fighting through traffic? Do you want to spend two hours a day in a car? Do you want to go past the endless, boring strip malls and highway construction? I doubt you do. We have to change our life style. We have to conserve. And by conserve, I don’t mean we do things less, I mean we don’t do them at all. Even Europe needs to take part in this one. They are going in the right direction with their populations (in terms of living, and not the gross welfare states that exist.) We all need to reduce what we use. We need to stop demanding grapes year round. You can buy anything, anywhere. We import things, but don’t realise it. This is but a small list of things, but I think you get the point.

            To summarise, the war on Iraq is not a war of ideology, it is a war of resources, just like the Franco-Prussian war and World War I (over Alsace and Lorraine.) We are not battling a great Satan, or even a Lucifer, we are batting to preserve our way of life, a way of consumption and materialism that is tearing us apart just as much as it has brought us together. In my mind, we shouldn’t attack Iraq, but instead be prepared in case they decide to do the unthinkable and launch an attack on US soil. Do we really want vapid advertising and corporate carelessness and crowded intersections and highways? I don’t think we do, and if we go to war with Iraq, it is the only thing that we will gain from their defeat.