War on Terror
The Fight in Iraq
Shortly
after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, President Bush declared
a War on Terrorism. Similar to wars throughout history, President Bush
had identified the enemy and made clear the intentions of the United
States of America of eradicating said enemy. That is, however, where
the similarity ends. The War on Terrorism is an entirely new and unique
concept, a bold strategy, for a variety of reasons. All of the criticism
heaped upon the President, and by default on the United States of America,
largely stems from those things that make it such a bold move.
A Uniqe War
War throughout history has been mainly fought over and about land, and
specifically about the governance of that land. There is typically an aggressor
who seeks to obtain more territory, and a nation that is defending against
the aggressor. Nations would form allies with neighbors who shared the
same values in order to aid in these types of conflicts, whether on the
side of the aggressor or the defender. This concept of warfare is evident
during World War II. Germany and the Nazi Regime were the clear-cut aggressors,
along with a few allies. The Defenders included nations directly under
attack, such as Britain and France, but also included indirect allies such
as the United States. In such a war victory is fairly clear. Whoever occupies
the land and destroys their opponents' ability to wage war is the victor.
When Allied Forces marched into Berlin, Hitler was defeated. He could no
longer wage war against the nations of the world. This form of war is very
simple to understand because it is obvious who needs to be attacked and
who needs to be defended. The American public rallied quickly behind the
war effort, especially after the attack on Pearl Harbor. America knew that
imperialist aggressors such as Germany and Japan had to do be stopped in
order to maintain peace throughout the world.
The Enemy Defined
September 11, 2001 had some of the same effects on the minds of Americans
as Pearl Harbor. We were united in a desire to remove the evil forces that
had caused such destruction. However, we had nowhere to turn. The actual
perpetrators killed themselves in the act, and the leaders of the organization
that planned the attack where hiding in caves in the remote nation of Afghanistan.
Why are they in Afghanistan? Well, the government of Afghanistan, at that
time the Taliban, encouraged terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda.
Al-Qaeda was allowed to live, train, and do business throughout the nation.
In a normal war setting we would simply declare war on Afghanistan, march
in and occupy the land and eliminate their ability to wage war. In this
case, however, the criminals we were searching for held no allegiance to
Afghanistan. When attacked, they simply fled. With so many other nations
that permit entry to these terrorist organizations, terrorists always have
a safe place to hide. President Bush saw this dilemma clearly and formed
the appropriate policy, a War on Terrorism.
Axis of Evil
We, the United States of America, in full and unanimous support of
all but one elected representative, spoke with one voice and
declared that we would not cease until we had destroyed the ability
of terrorists to wage war and destruction. There were many that
did not understand the full implications of victory against terrorists.
Terrorism will always be able to wage war and destruction as
long as there are governments that permit, encourage, and praise
the actions of terrorists. The Bush administration understood
this and separated the nations of the world into good and evil.
Good nations are those that pursue terrorists to bring them justice,
and evil nations are those that help them to flee the demands
of justice. There can be no moral equivalence between the nations
who are against, and the Axis of Evil nations who are for terrorists.
It is not a matter of cultural differences. Murder is not a relative
value or ethic. It is not rightly judged evil in one nation and
good in another. Terrorism by its nature seeks only to destroy.
The United States of America seeks to build. Examining the situation,
either superficially or in depth, produces the same conclusion.
Every single nation named as a member of the Axis of Evil is a nation
that holds its citizens as if they were prisoners. They filter
and censor all news and information, freedoms are repressed,
and opposition is put down violently. There is no comparing a
nation such as America that permits and defends empathetically
every God given freedom, and a nation such as Iraq. In America,
if a citizen does not like our government, representatives, taxes,
police, or any aspect of our society, there are no restrictions
on leaving. All are free to either accept the situation or seek out
a better place to live, more suited to their ideals. Citizens
of the nations of Iraq and every other member of the Axis of
Evil have no choice, no freedom. Morally equating the government
of the United States of America and a regime such as Saddam Hussein's
is intellectually dishonest.
Policing the Nations
The question becomes one of whether the United States of America has the
right to liberate the oppressed? If I see my neighbor being attacked in
his home by an armed criminal, do I have the right to help? Rather than
a right to help, I have the moral duty and obligation as a citizen to call
the police immediately. What if there are no police? Or what if the police
are simply a committee of neighbors with no weapons, vehicles, or resources
that simply send letters to the criminal asking him to let my neighbor
go? If a police force behaved in this manner, what city, county, state,
or nation would continue to pay their salaries? Such is the state of the
world we find ourselves in. The United Nations, often touted as the peacekeepers
and police force of the nations, behave the same as the useless police
force from our example. Their performance record shows a series of documents
without any actions. At the same time the United Nations issues declaration
after declaration, the criminals of the world continue to destroy lives
and nations. Where is the force in this world that will help those who
have no defenders? When the aggressors attack them, who will fight on their
behalf? Yes, this implies that decisions must be made as to who is in the
right, and who is in the wrong. Indeed, moral judgments must be made! We
have not only the right, but also the inherent moral duty and obligation
to make that judgement and liberate the oppressed.
Standing on Principle
Throughout all of history there have always
been those who wish to straddle the fence rather than make any moral
judgements. People who avoid taking a stance on any issue, or if they
do take a stance it is to firmly take no stand. These are those who
are opposing war on Iraq. They wish to hide on the sidelines and avoid
conflict at any cost, rather than decide what is right and fight for
it. These moderates will speak out against action of any kind in any
situation, no matter what the stakes. This is evident in the behavior
of the government of France during the weeks leading up to the war on
Iraq. France at first signed the latest resolution from the United Nations,
resolution 1441, indicating that they wished Saddam would disarm. They
were also signatories to the other 16 resolutions over the past 12 years.
When pressed, however, as to when the resolutions would be enforced they
began to back down. "Sure,
we have principles, but you don't really want us to fight for them, do
you?" Every single person who opposes the war, or more specifically
opposes President Bush, has stated that Saddam is a bad man. "Saddam
is certainly a horrible dictator. Yes, it is tragic that the Iraqi people
live in such subjugation." What inevitably follows such statements? "But,
we are not going about it in the right way. We should go through diplomatic
channels." Like the question posed to France, when does diplomacy
expire? France eventually came out to say that diplomacy would never
expire and they would always simply talk about it.
Usefulness of the United Nations
Imagine this situation in our criminal justice system. Let us pretend that
our police department issues resolutions to individual criminals condemning
their actions in the strongest terms. When the victims of the crime plead
for justice, the police department explains that there are in negotiations
with the criminals to stop their criminal behavior. The victim explains
that the criminal has admitted to the wrongdoing, that the police know
where he lives, and that the resolutions state that there will be serious
consequences. The victims ask the police when the negotiations will stop
and justice will begin. The police department then declares that under
no circumstances will they endanger the criminal, his family, or his neighbors
with police action and force. How effective would this police department
be against crime? As effective as the United Nations is for peace.
Only in America
President Bush echoed what was in the hearts
of all Americans when he said we would find and defeat terrorists. Not
just the organization that brought about the September 11th attacks.
We would no longer wait for death and destruction to come when we have
the ability to prevent it from happening. In order to prevent future
attacks, regimes such as those found in Iraq will have to be toppled.
We must remove all of the terrorists' hiding places. The United States
of America has the force necessary to virtually eliminate terrorism,
with or without global support. Our President has told us that he has
the resolve to use that force to make our nation, and the world, a safer
place. Does America have the resolve to continue the good fight? Will
we always remember September 11th like we said we would?
Matthew Sage
3/26/2003