Our country has declared war on another nation, and whether it affects our daily lives, we are all living under the specter of a different world order. This war effort is supposed to hedge off a nation that is supposed to attack us at some point in the future and curtail its connections to yet unknown terrorist groups that also one day might take arms against us. All the other goals - freedom for the people, a foothold in the region or contracts for American oil companies - are merely extra incentives. Unfortunately for those who accept war as a final solution, it has never been successful for solving those two major problems.
The last time the United States feared an attack of the proportion it might one day receive from Iraq was in late October of 1962. Nuclear missiles were operational, and although Soviet ships were not trying to advance towards the United States, President John F. Kennedy was considering a massive invasion. The current situation is different for a few reasons, making it much less severe. Cuba, with the backing of the U.S.S.R., actually had the weapons, as well as the desire and the capacity, to cause a serious disaster. As it stands, Iraq has neither the capacity nor desire, and the administration's portrayal of the weapons was much stronger than their actual existence.
When confronted with Cuba, Kennedy was facing what could have been the destruction of mankind. A slight tilt in either direction could have set off a worldwide escalation. He drafted a letter to Nikita Khrushchev stating America would not invade if the Soviets removed the nuclear missiles. Kennedy saw the best way to prevent weapons from being used was not to start a conflict. International law says the only time an attack is justified is when an attack is imminent. That is not the case with Iraq, and when it was the case with Cuba, Kennedy wisely chose not to take that route.
Many of the hypothetical problems of what Saddam Hussein could do are based on him being ignored. Hussein could produce illegal weapons on a massive scale and then march across the Middle East, destroying every ethnic minority in his path, but only if the rest of the world turns a complete blind eye, which is not happening. With the passage of 1441, the world showed it was committed to making sure Hussein did not start rebuilding his weapons or start attacking anyone, but the global deterrence was not enough security for the United States.
As far as predicting the future, the current administration must use something other than history as a basis for its fight against terrorists that might be supported by Iraq. As it stands, three of the most devastating terrorist attacks in the last decade have some relation to the first Gulf War. First and foremost is Sept. 11, 2001, where Osama bin Laden rallied his followers around the hatred towards the United States troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. Timothy McVeigh and John Allen Muhammad are both Gulf War veterans - connected only by their shared combat experience.
The other side of that coin is that militarism doesn't deter terrorists. When the CIA conceded there would be a terrorist backlash in America, the lack of one speaks more of their excellent work than a stop in the brainwashing of terrorists around the world. The other example of the failure of military action towards terrorism is in Israel, where suicide bombers were met with a stronger military that killed more people and enlisted more violent sympathizers. Once the cycle is started, neither side can escape, and both lose credibility.
Now that we are in this war for the long run, I have a lot of fears. Unfortunately, mentioning some of them out loud might only spark an outcry of people who miss the point I am trying to make. With that risk in mind, I am not ashamed of anything. My greatest fear is that this conflict is a small piece in a greater religious conflict of fundamentalist Christianity against fundamentalist Islam. Secondly, I fear the billions of dollars this war and the aftermath will cost will cut the programs that many Americans need to survive. Lastly, I'm worried the backlash against America will not be limited to rogue terrorists, but stable countries with economic clout that will further erode our already struggling economy.
If America wants to win this war, it will not be by capturing Baghdad and playing Judge Dredd with Hussein's regime, and then replacing him with one of the Iraqi ex-convicts they have lined up. If America wants to rid the world of dangerous weapons and abate future terrorists, war should not have been considered as a solution. This is a process that will take time that we aren't prepared to spend and money we don't have. Whether victory on the battlefield comes easy, there will be an uphill battle ahead for many years to come.
Photo: Meredith Forrest Kulwicki
