Ready for Peace?
By Bob Herbert Bob
Friday, March 21, 2003
nytimes.com
NEW YORK Now that U.S. strikes against Iraq
have begun, Americans should get rid of one
canard immediately, and that's the notion that
criticism of the Bush administration and
opposition to this U.S.-led invasion imply in some
sense a lack of support or concern for the men
and women who are under arms.
The names of too many of my friends are recorded
on the wall of the Vietnam Memorial for me to
tolerate that kind of nonsense. I hope that the war
goes well, that American troops prevail quickly
and that casualties everywhere are kept to a
minimum.
But the fact that a war may be quick does not
mean that it is wise.
Against the wishes of most of the world, we
Americans have plunged not just into war, but
toward a peace that is potentially more
problematic than the war itself.
Are Americans ready to pay the cost in lives and
dollars of a long-term military occupation of Iraq?
To what end?
Will an occupation of Iraq increase or decrease our
security here at home?
Do most Americans understand that even as they
are launching one of the most devastating air
assaults in the history of warfare, private
companies are lining up to reap the riches of
rebuilding the very structures the United States in
the process of destroying?
Companies like Halliburton and Schlumberger
and the Bechtel Group understand this conflict a
heck of a lot better than most of the men and
women who will fight and die in it, or the armchair
patriots who'll be watching on CNN and cheering
them on.
It's not unpatriotic to say that there are billions of
dollars to be made in Iraq and that the gold rush
is already under way. It's simply a matter of fact.
Back in January, an article in The Wall Street
Journal noted: "With oil reserves second only to
Saudi Arabia's, Iraq would offer the oil industry
enormous opportunity should a war topple
Saddam Hussein.
"The early spoils would probably go to companies
needed to keep Iraq's already run-down oil
operations running, especially if oil-services firms
such as Halliburton Co., where Vice President
Dick Cheney formerly served as chief executive,
and Schlumberger Ltd. are seen as favorites for
what could be as much as $1.5 billion in
contracts."
There is tremendous unease at the highest levels
of the Pentagon about this war and its aftermath.
The president and his civilian advisers are making
a big deal about the anticipated rejoicing of the
liberated populace once the war is over.
Iraq, however, is an inherently unstable place, and
while the forces assembled to chase Saddam from
power are superbly trained for combat, the
military is not well prepared for a long-term
occupation in the most volatile region in the
world.
What's driving this war is President George W.
Bush's Manichaean view of the world and
messianic vision of himself, the dangerously
grandiose perception of American power held by
his saber-rattling advisers, and the irresistible
lure of Iraq's enormous oil reserves.
Polls show that the public is terribly confused
about what's going on, so much so that some 40
percent believe Saddam Hussein was personally
involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.
That's really scary.
Rather than correct this misconception, the
administration has gone out of its way to reinforce
it.
I think the men and women moving militarily
against Saddam are among the few truly brave
and even noble individuals left in U.S. society.
They have volunteered for the dangerous duty of
defending the rest of the American people. But I
also believe they are being put unnecessarily in
harm's way.
As a result of the military buildup, there is hardly
a more hobbled leader on Earth at the moment
than Saddam Hussein.
A skillful marshaling of international pressure
could have forced him from power. But then the
Bush administration would not have had its war
and its occupation.
It would not have been able to turn Iraq into an
American protectorate, which is as good a term as
any for a colony.
Is it a good idea to liberate the people of Iraq from
the clutches of a degenerate like Saddam?
Sure. But there were better, less dangerous ways
to go about it.
In the epigraph to his memoir, "Present at the
Creation," Dean Acheson quoted a 13th-century
king of Spain, Alphonso X, the Learned:
"Had I been present at the creation I would have
given some useful hints for the better ordering of
the universe." |
