Mike,
I was a young teenager when the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed in 1964, and lived through the follies and the lies and the deceits of the Vietnam War. You say, "I also believe that they know far better than you or I just what the danger of ignoring Saddam potentially is... Perhaps the danger warrants something more than lobbing a couple cruise missiles in their general direction." I say, Congress should NEVER simply take the word of ANY administration (Democratic or Republican) that "we know better", so allow us to use force as we judge necessary. The very haste with which the Bush admin is urging passage of this sort of resolution should give all citizens with a memory of those years pause. The very fact that this push comes when it does, and the fact that they are urging passage before the election strong suggests--to my mind conclusively--that this is more of an election ploy than it is a truly well-considered policy. They were taking a beating until Bush's UN speech both domestically and internationally. His speech was politically brilliant, I have to admit this. It changed the terms of the debate. But underneath it, there was nothing new, and no real justification for war. Many countries, including the US and allies of the US, have defied UN resolutions before. The UN isn't a "government", a fact for which most Republicans and probably even most Democrats normally breath a sigh of relief. We live in a world way too divided for that. Calling for the use of force under the aegis of the UN must be a carefully considered and rarely used option. We want as best as possible to establish the principle that conflicts between countries can be worked out without the use of massive force. The two World Wars as well as the numerous regional conflicts of the 20th century, not to mention the uncountable wars of previous centuries, are enough.
Iraqi society is not like Korea, Germany or Japan, it isn't cohesive or unified in any sense. There are way too many conflicting variables in that country and that region to suppose that the aftermath of such a war is predictable or will be easy to control. If such a war leads to greater anti-Americanism within the Arab world, if it leads to, say, destabilizing a country like Pakistan which we KNOW has usable nuclear weapons and which already has a sizable population which is anti-American, it could be even more disastrous for this country and for other countries in the region than the status quo.
That's all for now. I have work to do.
Sam |
