...I'm
very proud of you both, sticking up for what you believe in.
I'm also very proud of the soldiers, for the same reason. And
I'm not at all proud of right-wing politicians' making
people who are opposed to war seem like they're opposed to
those we order to fight the wars (a very dicey distinction for
all concerned). Like Dad says (After seeing all the amputees in
WWII, he's the most anti-war, pro-UN guy I know), "Who's
more concerned for the soldiers? The ones who try to keep them
out of war or the ones who send them off to war?" (I think
good leaders must be prepared to take either course, but only
for the very best of reasons.)
I try to keep an open mind, as I'm sure you
do. And although I do think the Iraqi people and the world in
general will be better off without Saddam Hussein in power -- and I'm DEFINITELY, 100% supportive of the honorable men and
women in the armed services willing to sacrifice themselves for
us and our ideals -- I have to agree with you on almost every
point you make about this current situation. All in all, I feel
we're damned if we do and damned if we don't; although I
have put my money where your mouth is -- I've donated my
pittance to Howard Dean for President, primarily for healthcare,
and in spite of his NRA stand (regulate guns more at the state
than the national level -- a more electable position), but also
in support of all the efforts he made to help prevent the war...
As for the "justifications"...it is
ludicrous when our oil barons, and their apologists, claim that
we're securing the oil fields simply for the good of the Iraqi
people -- sure, they may get the profits from sales (MAY); but
the massive contracts for development and distribution will go
to big Bush contributors (As I understand it, most of the
diplomatic wrangling behind the scenes amongst the Russians,
French, British, and Americans had more to do with who got the
oil development contracts after the war than anything concerning
peace and freedom...and all that "tommyrot").
The Weapons of Mass Destruction have yet to make
an appearance (Thank God), if indeed they do exist; but that,
according to most analysts, would be consistent with Hussein's
wish to maintain his claim of innocence on that point within the
international community (Even France has said it would back the
war if Iraq were to use WMD). As long as there is apparently
much resistance amongst Iraqis, arguably shoring up Hussein's
claim to legitimacy, then politically, strategically he'd best
keep any WMD off the table. Then again, the weapons may in fact
be long gone, many already dismantled by the past inspections
and the remainder perhaps degraded into unusable form. However,
there should have been records of their destruction -- particularly in a totalitarian state
-- which Hussein should
have produced, which he had every motivation to produce. I think
there is a good chance that WMD are still present in Iraq -- none of us really knows one way or the other
-- however, as
long as there were inspectors in country, the weapons could have
eventually been found and Hussein dared not use them. However,
he could have supplied them to terrorists, although why would he
have done so, particularly at the risk of being found out?
According to most accounts, Hussein has
sponsored some terrorists; although the supposed connection with
Al Qaeda (other than perhaps a lone individual or two receiving
medical aid etc. somewhere within Iraq) is dubious to say the
least. Bin Laden's a religious zealot who's always been at
odds with Hussein, a worldly megalomaniac devoted only to
himself -- then again, in the Middle East, the enemy of my
enemy may well be my friend...at least for the battle at hand. I
thought that terrorists would have used Iraqi-provided WMD in
the Middle East, Europe, or the U.S. by now; although any such
attacks on our civilians would probably be better timed after
massive casualties of Iraqi civilians, as shown on TV -- wait
till the battle in the streets of Baghdad, if it should come to
that (If the Republican Guard collapses too quickly on the
outskirts, the whole house of cards may fall).
And as for the lack of rebellion amongst the
Iraqi civilians, that is indeed the wildcard. Are they simply
being intimidated by Saddam's goons? Are they being patriotic
vs. foreign invaders? Are they more intimidated by the devil
they know or the one they don't? Are they fighting for or
against someone or something? What do they really think (as if
it weren't bigotry or stupidity to think that all Iraqis think
the same)? That's the nightmarish thing about dealing with a
totalitarian society -- reality takes a back seat to perception
(Is Hussein alive? With all the video tapes he's made, does it
really matter??). The Bush Administration's woeful record of
telling lies and half-truths (on a variety of vital interests)
and disregarding international treaties and sensibilities
doesn't provide our positions the clarity or credibility they
require.
I go back to what I wrote to that Democratic
newsletter...An unprovoked war on Iraq (or huge tax cuts
primarily for the rich) would not have been an issue if Al Gore
had become President, even considering the aftermath of 9/11.
But that's perhaps the biggest advantage of capturing the
Presidency: Being able to set the national agenda.
And as long as pugnacious Geo. Dubya's
President, I see no end to the warfare. Kim Jung Il is no fool:
He sees what Bush does to the leaders of the "Axis of Evil",
and he's not going to just sit back and wait for our missiles
to start cruising in. These are exceedingly dangerous times.
Did I mention how proud I was of both of you?
