 |
NEXTopia
Welcome to NEXTopia, a Web diary in which NEXT writers — and readers — share their evolving thoughts on a variety of issues. The opinions you read below are those of the individual writers, not necessarily those representing The Seattle Times.
Respond to NEXTopia
Currently, NEXTopia cannot automatically post readers' comments on the blog. However, writers and editors will regularly post your name and comments unless you note otherwise. |
January 21, 2004
| The war in Iraq |
There seems to be a miscommunication between liberals and conservatives on two key terms around the war in Iraq. They are "justification" and "unilateral."
First, there is a difference between justifying the removal of Saddam from power, and justifying the way in which it happened. Few people would even try to argue that Saddam was anything other than a criminal and a brutal dictator, or that his removal wasn't justified. There are lots of brutal dictators in the world, and they should all be removed. What isn't justified is the means.
Our president lied to us and the world to justify pre-emptive war in defiance of active efforts by the UN. He actively worked to find new ways to justify invasion. There were other options. Even if Bush's primary motivation was a humanitarian effort, evidence to the contrary, there were other ways.
Which brings us to the term unilateral. Conservatives point out that we had a large number of countries supporting us in our war on Iraq, so how could it be unilateral? Never mind these were mostly small countries that got something out of doing so, and that they didn't offer real military or monetary aid.
Here's my memory of the war. The UN pursuing a plan in Iraq, and Bush telling them to get out because we were going to invade whether they approved or not. American and British soldiers dying during the invasion, and many more American soldiers dying afterwards, but no large army "of the willing" sharing the costs. Bush asking Americans, not a coalition, for $82 billion dollars. America being made responsible for leading the occupation and the reconstruction. But hey, we had a coalition, so it's not unilateral. Sure.
Bush said last night that America does not need a "permission slip" to basically do whatever we want, whenever we want. America, the vigilante. We are above international law or opinion. That would make a great action film, but makes for very poor international policy. Still, given Arnie's election as California's governor, I guess Bush knows how to appeal to American voters.
As for Bush's lying about whether there is real proof of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or is Saddam linked to al Qaeda, or is it necessary to launch a pre-emptive war, it all comes down to what the definition of "is" is, right? I guess it's just a good thing for Bush he's never under oath when he speaks.
Written by Randy Henderson,
a regular contributor to NEXT
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Cal Blethen at January 21, 2004 03:18 PM |
|
Back to top