It's been quite a long time since I've added anything to this section. But with the nation poised on the edge of a nearly unilateral attack on Iraq (you don't really think Great Britain qualifies as a different country do you?) a lot of debate has arisen over the prospect.
It's not like congress really has any say on the matter. They voted that away last year, BEFORE the Republicans gained seats in both houses of congress. And some commentators have gleefully pointed out that most of the Democrats who lost to Republican challengers had voted with the president on the Iraq resolution.
Having read what I've said in this forum so far you might expect me to oppose war in Iraq. On the basis of my fundamental pacifism, yes, I do. But this war is not a new war, it's a continuation of an old one. When we attacked Iraq in 1990-'91 we stopped our attack based on a surrender agreement with the country's leader, Saddam Hussein. The usual expectation regarding terms of surrender is that if the surrendering country doesn't live up to its part of the terms, the surrender is off and the war continues.
American troops have had a continuing presence in Iraq since 1991 (policing the "no fly" zones), so it's not like we left and have to come back. Saddam has played games with UN weapons inspectors right from day one. So while it might be argued that he has, in fact, disarmed as required by the agreement, his failure to cooperate with those delegated to verify his disarmament places him in violation of the surrender terms anyway. I'm puzzled as to why George W. isn't trying to sell this war with that argument.
To understand why I would come out in favor of war at this point you have to understand that I was opposed to war the first time around. I thought at the time that it would be important for us to find Moslems in trouble somewhere else in the world and go to their aid so it would be clear we weren't just anti-Islam. We did just that in Bosnia and Kosovo – but then that was under a different president. Republicans tended to oppose our involvement in the Balkans, which makes me doubt their claims of non-bias.
The point is that if we're going to start war, we need to finish it properly. The failure of the world to properly end World War I led to World War II. Our failure to end that war properly led to the Cold War, along with the embarrasing engagements it led us to be involved in. At least two of those, Korea and Vietnam, we also failed to conclude decisively. For every conflict we fail to bring to a clear and complete end we leave an opening for despotism and suffering – a breeding ground for hatred, conflict, and terrorism. Will we keep planting such seeds until the entire world hates us?
Much better, of course, never to have started such wars. But that requires that nobody start wars. If civilized countries refuse to fight back when attacked, soon there'd be no civilized countries. On the other hand, however, if civilized countries all treat armed conflict as a solution somewhere above the bottom of their list, are they really civilized; have we really improved the situation?
Today the United States holds military and economic hegemony virtually unprecedented in world history. If the world's most powerful country can't abstain from starting wars then there's no hope for the world. Our 226-year experiment in hightened civilization will end and the world will enter a new dark age where the darkness will be aided by astoundingly powerful technology.
So why do I say go ahead in Iraq? Because all these unended wars need to be ended so we can disarm and set an example for the world. Why should North Korea give up a nuclear program under pressure from the nation that invented nuclear weapons and refuses even to reduce its stockpile? Let's finish our unfinished business and invite the world to join us (as leaders not followers) in multi-lateral disarmament.
Do I really think this is feasible? Well......
First, to really conclude the war on terrorism and the problems in the middle east we'd have to carry out a form of religious genocide. We'd have to wipe Islam off the face of the planet. Anything less would simply leave someone behind to stir up resentment a generation or so later.
Second, in order to produce a climate in which resentment won't grow "from scratch" we'd have to change our approach to global economics. We say we want to export prosperity to the rest of the world. But we insist they have to do it our way, and we absolutely refuse to consider reducing our own consumption so there'll be enough for everyone. This economic imperialism was a major focus of the terrorists that struck on September 11. Their target makes that blindingly obvious.
The final and probably most unlikely requirement is that we abandon our moral imperialism. Christians tend to take the view that since "there is no other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved," that the world can't be saved unless we cram our moral ideas down their throats. "You may share Christ's lifestyle of poverty while we consume without limit, but we're better than you. You may seek an economic system that avoids the activities condemned in the Bible while we swear by those activities as divinely demanded, but we're better than you. You may practice the fundamental humanity and equality of every man and woman (at least better than we do) while we fight over whether it's right to make resititution for past wrongs, but we're better than you. You may follow your religious leader's teachings about war and violence while we blatantly ignore Christ's example, but we're better than you." Wow! No wonder they hate us!
If we're unwilling to give up our various imperialistic attitudes then I guess the only alternative is to recruit, train, and equip the largest, most technologically advanced military in the world. And then we must not be afraid to use it – and use it decisively.
Which brings me around to the economy. Military mobilization tends to push economic recovery, particularly if the government relies on deficit spending to fund that mobilization. George W.'s plan of tax cuts and increased spending is just what the economic doctor ordered. Why? Because it forces the well-to-do of our nation to part with their wealth – at least temporarily. Where does the government get the money to spend when it doesn't get it from taxes? From those who have the extra cash to invest in government bonds.
When the government wants a new bomber it places an order with a defense contractor. That contractor has to have two things: resources and labor. To aquire labor the company must pay people to work. To get resources it must pay those people who claim ownership of the resources. The resources are provided, and the labor gets done, so there's no deficit of labor or resources. When more people work, more people buy things ... well, you get the picture.
The fact that some rich person has us over a barrell by the balls shouldn't be any great concern. After all, the government is the government, isn't it? If it decides it doesn't owe anybody any money, who can argue? You'd have to do that suddenly and without announcement, of course. But the wealth would then be more evenly distributed, and that's better for everyone, even for those who lose money (though they would never agree!!).
So you can now see that it isn't "the war or the economy" for George Bush. He has a wonderful opportunity to "kill two birds with one stone," if he treads carefully for the next few months. If you find the prospect of a president whose second term is based on popularity built through murder and theft a bit troubling, let's talk. Maybe a president whose unpopularity was engineered (by enemies) from his philandering and lying isn't as bad as we thought.
Articles Index
Home