In case you can't grasp the sarcasm, the above paragraph isn't meant to be too serious. But it's not that far from the Bush administration's current take on Iraq: it is merely an object of their desire, not a living, breathing force. We don't believe that Iraq represents anything more than an abstract evil: a country that kills its civilians and holds dangerous nuclear capabilities. What we fail to see is a country with innocent civilians; a country with a booming economy (its 15 percent yearly growth is outpacing the U.S. economy by leaps and bounds); a country with relations outside of its own borders; and a country built with impractical borders that are strained by different ethnic groups that do not cooperate.
Iraq is truly a country with many problems; some are complex, and some are simpler, but, in the end, the simplistic approach our government now takes toward Iraq doesn't treat the situation with as much respect as it needs. When you consider the consequences, the inherent difficulties and the potential risks of war, you would hope that we would consider all the factors, all the intricacies, before taking action. Unfortunately, what America proved this past week was that we're not interested in details, we're interested in good versus evil.
It came as little surprise that after Iraq unconditionally accepted weapons inspectors, President George W. Bush decided to push Congress even more strongly for an endorsement of war efforts against Iraq. Despite arguing that Iraq's policy of not allowing weapons inspectors for the past four years was one of the most dangerous attributes about Iraq, President Bush didn't really care about whether or not inspectors are allowed in. The truth is, he doesn't respect Iraqis, won't respect Iraqis and isn't going to seek compromise with the Iraqis, even if the rest of the world doesn't think he's being rational.
Not that the Iraqis should necessarily be trusted. Not that I'd believe that just because they say they will honor the unconditional entry of weapons inspectors into their country they mean it. But rather than playing games (if you do it, we'll back down; oh, you did it, well, it doesn't matter, I'm going to act anyway ... ), the U.S. government needs to be honest. Set down real conditions, let Iraq choose whether or not to accept them, and then act accordingly. And even if Iraq does not accept the terms, there may be other approaches rather than just signing on to a war.
Evidence is one thing that would greatly aid the U.S. in our decision about Iraq. Unfortunately, evidence is not something that this administration holds close to their hearts. Dick Cheney, just weeks ago, announced that Iraq had strong links with terrorism and therefore an attack was necessary. Of course, just days later, The Washington Post came out with a report that the CIA had told them that they had found no links between Iraq and terrorism. Is this surprising from the CEO whose company committed fraud under his leadership? Hardly.
Evidence is particularly important in proving that the motivation behind this war isn't solely greater access to oil. A recent allegation by a German minister compared Bush's tactic of hiding domestic affairs by launching grand foreign attacks to the approach of Hitler. While the comparison was both unnecessary and inappropriate, evidence would show that Bush isn't just fighting Iraq for political reasons. And while many Republicans complain that a president wouldn't use foreign affairs to cover up domestic problems, let me remind them of their criticism of Bill Clinton, not long ago.
But one of my greatest concerns is that an attack on Iraq could harm Israel and Turkey. During the Gulf War, Saddam launched a few scud missiles at Israel, killing two people and wounding more. The attack did little damage, and Israel maturely declined from responding, but it may be a precursor of what would come if the U.S. did attack Iraq. The difference is that this time Iraq has stronger, more powerful weapons and, more importantly, Israel has recently said that it will not sit back and watch this time: it will respond, and not politely.
Senator Joseph Biden, head of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, has said that if Israel gets involved in the war it may turn into an "Arab-Israeli war." Biden added that if Israel were to get involved, key allies such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey could not possibly support the U.S. The result, according to him: "you would find probably every embassy in the Middle East burned to the ground before it went too far."
Obviously, the U.S. cannot let this happen; but can the U.S. really tell Israel to sit patiently while missiles are launched in its direction? Can the U.S. really allow the possibility of innocent Israeli citizens sitting like ducks on a pond? These are the problems that we face in launching a war on Iraq, and they don't appear as simple as good versus evil.
I'm not arguing for Iraq, as much as for the impracticality of an attack. Making an attack appears as difficult in its complexity as building an Iraqi state after an overthrow of the current regime: there are so many different intangibles, so many different groups of people to please, innocents to care after and political negotiations to be conducted.
Unfortunately, it appears like the current administration is getting bored with all this talk of subtlety. Remember, this administration is about moral clarity, about simplicity, about us versus them. "Us" just better be careful what we get "them" into.