Iraq Attack

Please forgive me if I tread on your heartfelt beliefs or those of people you support and admire, but I just don't get it. Why are we holding the gun to Saddam Hussein's head? Who put us in charge? Is this an example of strong moral leadership and holding folks accountable for their actions?

If you haven't heard the news the United States is poised to attack Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime for violation of UN resolutions and presenting a clear and present danger to US citizens, US interests and world peace through the creation and potential use of weapons of mass destruction. We have the 7th fleet, ground and air forces ready, we have the support or tacit acceptance of a few neighboring countries, and congress has authorized the President to do whatever it takes. Basically we have declared war on Iraq. The nation is behind the President and has approved his mandate by giving his party a majority in congress during the last mid term elections. Why?

When I'm asked by non-Americans if we really want to wage war on Iraq I tell them that most of the people I know do not support war as a solution. I must be wrong. The pervasive theory outside US borders is that we, the US, want to control the flow and price of oil, that the president wants to finish the war his father started and get back at the man who threatened his father's life, and that the American people are seeking revenge for the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the Arab world the feeling is that we see Islam as a threat to Christianity and the current world order and status quo. Those nations that do support us do not have the support of the majority of their citizens. I don't think we've been successful in spreading the word of our strong moral conviction. But as you know, I've been wrong before.

Here is my theory. Peace cannot be maintained without some form of checks and balances and some form of penalty or enforcement of the rules, so to speak. No matter how much people are alike we just can't make up for the differences that do exist and conflict arises. When you prick the most powerful nation in the world you have to expect a little blood. We have to "do" something. We've got a gun (we've got lots of guns). The best way to stay in power in a democracy on a national level is to address or create an element of fear and then raise the banner of patriotism. Have I answered my own questions?

Probably an attack on Iraq is inevitable. Probably it will not solve anything, but will make some people feel good about themselves for trying to make the world a better place. It will probably not help our economy. It will probably not affect the status quo or resolve any other issues in the Middle East or elsewhere. It will probably not improve the lives of the people of Iraq. It will probably not win us any friends and will most likely breed more conflict and more heartache and frustration and future terrorist attacks. Here in the Persian Gulf we have contingency plans for evacuation if necessary, but current wisdom says the threat to other countries in the area (except for Israel) is miniscule.

George and Saddam have sat down at the poker table. George thinks Saddam has a trump card that he is planning on playing and George's strategy is to buy the pot. Saddam hopes to cultivate support from other players at the table to bring George down, but also knows he has a gun and is willing to use it. At this point in time it looks like it is Saddam's call and he might play it safe. The lead in to an Al-Jazeera (Arab equivalent of CNN) news program has a sound bite montage that includes a George Bush statement (at the time referring to our old enemy Osama Bin Laden) "wanted dead or alive." On an international level, this is how Americans appear to everyone else in the world. I guess we don't want to disappoint them.

(by Marc Adami, )