The War and Moore

That Michael Moore has an anti-Bush agenda cannot be questioned. His vitriolic statements at the Academy Awards serve as a prime example. Nearly three years after the controversial 2000 election, Mr. Moore still refuses to recognize George W. Bush as the legitimate President of the United States. Moore extends his views regarding the legitimacy of the election in order to question the legitimacy of everything the President does. This view is not without historical precedent, as nearly every President who assumed office under controversial circumstances has had his legitimacy questioned. John Tyler, throughout his term in office, was referred to as “His Accidency” by his detractors. Many of Andrew Johnson’s opponents referred to him only as “Acting President” Johnson, and brought articles of impeachment against him in Congress. However, in spite of the feelings of their detractors, both Tyler and Johnson were legitimate office holders. The same remains true of President Bush, regardless of how Michael Moore or Terry McAuliffe feel about the matter. Arguments about Bush’s legitimacy have little, if any, bearing on the legitimacy of this war.

Additionally, critics of Bush who base all their arguments against his policies on the idea that he is a moron have little validity to their arguments. I’m sure that on March 17, when Bush more or less declared war on Iraq, there were several people who had this in mind. The President of the most powerful nation on Earth had just declared war on an impoverished third world nation, and some people were more concerned with the fact that he had just said “nucular.”

Any anti-war argument based on either the notion that Bush’s presidency is illegitimate or on the notion that he is somewhat less than intelligent can be seen as coming from somebody who is not really concerned with the issues at hand, and is more concerned with leveling personal attacks at the President, for whatever reason.

Indeed, most of the arguments circulating on both sides regarding the war are rather simplistic in nature, whether it be the somewhat vindictive claim from the left that this war is being waged solely in support of Bush’s “oil buddies” or the equally naïve claim from the right that this war is being waged solely to bring freedom to the downtrodden Iraqis. Naturally, during difficult times, it is preferable to boil everything down to a single cause, but nothing in history has ever been that simple. Can there be listed a single event that led to the fall of Rome? Was there one factor that led to the rise of Hitler? In each case, the answer is clearly no. Indeed, the same applies to this current war.

Prior to the onset of this war, the Bush Administration had been selling it as a mission to disarm Iraq. Since the war began, however, they have added to their propaganda the slightly more noble idea of bringing freedom to the Iraqis. Now, I sincerely believe that the people of Iraq will be better off once Saddam is removed from power. But if we harbor the notion that they will instantly embrace the principles on which our country was founded and suddenly be transformed into this bastion of democracy in the Middle East, we are deluding ourselves. Further, as has often been pointed out, if this war is solely about freeing the oppressed then why, oh why, aren’t we sending troops into every country that is ruled by a tyrannical dictator?

Honestly, I believe that part of the motivation for launching this war is that it will ultimately provide freedom for the people there. But I look at that as more of a result of the war rather than being the driving force behind the war.

Curious to me is why the motives of our government are so readily chalked up to a drive for oil, while the motives of countries such as France and Russia are not remotely questioned. It’s no secret that the French have benefited from large oil contracts with Iraq. It’s no secret that the Russians have benefited from their weapons contracts with Iraq. By leaving Saddam Hussein in power, they would each continue to benefit. One could make the argument that the French are also exchanging “blood for oil” by leaving in power a ruthless dictator who routinely tortures and kills his own people. Additionally, the United States receives only 14% of its oil from the Middle East, and a mere 1.4% specifically from Iraq. Roughly 37% comes from domestic sources and the remainder comes from other sources, such as South America, Africa, and so on. So this is clearly not solely about oil.

Prior to September 11, 2001, the United States was turning inward as a result of President Bush’s foreign policy. Throughout his campaign, Bush had stressed his belief that U.S. Soldiers should not be used in the process of nation building. He was prepared to bring U.S. Troops home from Kosovo and to use force sparingly throughout the world. September 11 changed the direction of that policy. Instead of retreating, as Bin Laden expected us to, we lashed out, looking desperately for someone to hit.

In his speech that evening Bush made the declaration that “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” Since that time, it would seem as if the Administration has been desperately searching for some link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Either such a link does not exist, or the Iraqis and Al-Qaeda are extremely adept at covering their tracks. Personally, I believe the latter.

Northern Iraq is home to Ansar al-Islam, a terrorist organization with links to Al-Qaeda. However, Hussein’s government has very little control over what happens in the northern part of his country. Further, the Bush Administration has rarely mentioned Ansar al-Islam as a direct threat to the United States. They have focused all their energies on proving Saddam Hussein was a threat.

When Colin Powell presented his evidence of this threat to the United Nations, several naysayers proclaimed that evidence insufficient. Personally, I was not too impressed with the evidence he presented. However, I also admit that I am not trained in the analysis of spy satellite photographs. I don’t have Top Secret clearance, and neither does anybody reading this. (If they do, I’m in trouble.) To think that those two fuzzy photographs were the only intelligence the United States has on Iraq’s weapons program is simply naïve. Powell did not present ALL the evidence…only what he was able to present without compromising our intelligence. That I can accept. I can accept that those in power, with security clearance, are privy to more information than the rest of us are.

There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein would attack the United States if he were able. The key words are, of course, if he were able. As I said earlier, Iraq is an impoverished third world nation ruled by a tyrant more concerned with building elaborate palaces than he is with feeding his own citizenry. At this point, I do not believe he is capable of doing harm to the United States, save through the use of sleeper agents in this country. So, essentially, this all boils down to the idea of whether or not I agree with the doctrine of preemptive strikes.

The United States has always been somewhat brash in its foreign policy. From the early days of the Monroe Doctrine, when European powers were told that they had no right to interfere in the affairs of the Americas, to the addition of the Roosevelt Corollary, when it was declared that it was the duty of the United States to serve as the policeman of the world. The Bush Doctrine continues in this brash vein, declaring that we reserve the right to remove from power any foreign government that might someday threaten us. It is this type of brashness that has turned world opinion against us.

Americans often foolishly declare that entities such as Iraq, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda hate us because of our freedom. Or, even more foolish, that they hate us because we are Christians. (Never mind that there are countless numbers of religions that call this country home.) No...these groups hate us for several reasons which have nothing to do with our freedom. They hate us because, were it not for us, they would have been able to conquer Israel long ago. They hate us because we have a longstanding history of interfering in their affairs. We propped Saddam Hussein up against Iran in the early 1980’s. We supported the Taliban against the Soviet Union. This doctrine of preemptive military strikes will do little to change their opinion. (As a side note, I wholly agree with our support of Israel, but also believe that there ought to be a Palestinian homeland as well.)

I find it almost amusing when people portray Saddam Hussein as an innocent victim of United States bullying. He is far from innocent and far from being a victim. He is a ruthless dictator. But he also wasn’t going anywhere. As I have said before, I would have preferred that we continue with our policy of containment. But we decided that we could not wait any longer and we have lashed out. Not for freedom. Not for oil. But, rather, because we are scared. We are scared of having another September 11. We are scared that if we wait for the so-called smoking gun in Iraq, it could already be too late.

Harry Truman dropped the bomb on Japan not only to bring a swift end to the war, but also to demonstrate to the rest of the world what we were capable of. The same principle, however misguided, can be applied here. It’s a New World Order of sorts, but not one based on peace. We have shown the world that, right or wrong, we are willing to lash out at regimes that might someday be a threat to us. Not that we will in every situation. But we will if we think we have to.