< PREVIOUS ] [ 1998 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
This has been heavy work, but as a good citizen, I have toiled to find reasons to support more bombing of Iraq.
At first I was annoyed with former President George
Herbert Walker Bush. He told us that Saddam Hussein was
worse than Hitler.
If he had really believed that,
then American and allied forces would have pressed on to
Baghdad in 1991, and stayed until Hussein was gone.
No one with a shred of decency, in a position to
eliminate a Hitler, let alone a worse than Hitler,
could pass up the opportunity. The inescapable conclusion
is that Bush either lacked that decency, or was lying when
he told us about Saddam Hussein's character.
But he's not the president any more. Alas, the best that can be said of Bill Clinton's statements about Iraq is that he hasn't trotted out that line. The other reasons I find aren't much of an improvement, though.
As I understand matters, Iraq could be building weapons of mass destruction, thereby threatening its neighbors. As part of the UN accords that ended the Gulf War, Iraq is supposed to allow UN-designated inspectors to go where they will, and instead, some areas have been declared off-limits, while certain inspectors have been denied access.
This is reprehensible behavior. But the United States may not be in the best position to preach the sermon:
· The current stand-off results from Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait in order to gain its resources. That's also why the United States invaded Mexico in 1846.
· Iraq's government conducts brutal wars against parts of its own population. Our government doesn't, except for Indians and religious cults, and we don't put people in concentration camps just for their ancestry, except for the Nisei.
· Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction. Who invented thermonuclear fusion and fission bombs?
· Iraq is flouting international mandates. Hell, we don't even pay our dues to the United Nations, and a goodly portion of our population is armed and ready to repel any black UN helicopters who sneak past our air-defense systems.
And about a dozen years ago, when the World Court told us we shouldn't mine Nicaragua's harbors, we thumbed our nose at the ruling.
Add this up, and it appears that other nations might be somewhat more qualified than the United States to offer moral instruction to Iraq.
Qualified or not, the United States does have the ability to bomb Iraq whenever the president gives the order.
But what does bombing accomplish?
The Allies bombed Germany mercilessly during World War II, and afterward, our Strategic Bombing Survey examined the results and concluded that the explosives had little effect on German production or morale.
We dropped even more bombs on Vietnam for a much longer period, for reasons similar to those advanced for bombing Iraq -- to force the opponent to change policies. It didn't work. We lost that war.
The easiest way to determine whether bombing works is to
think about whether it would change your mind. That is, if
we were being bombed by some foreign power, would it make
us think that we should rebel and topple our government
and replace it with one that will negotiate an end to this
bombing
? Or would we be more likely to rally 'round
the flag and hate the bombers even more?
I know my reaction would be the latter, and when I talk to friends, they agree -- there would be nothing more likely to make you support your government, no matter how vile or oppressive, along with its armed forces, than being bombed by some other country. How we can expect the Iraqis to think differently?
If history is any guide, the result of bombing is likely a higher approval rating for Saddam Hussein if there were Iraqi opinion polls.
Note that in certain sections of this country, William Tecumseh Sherman is still reviled as a terrorist, rather than hailed as a liberator -- all because in 1864 he performed the Civil War equivalent of strategic bombing. His army demolished all weapons factories while it terrorized the population.
But far be it from me to oppose this go-round with Iraq.
As Sherman's commander, U.S. Grant, observed:
Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in
which his country is engaged, no matter whether right or
wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history.
Better for him, individually, to advocate 'war, pestilence,
and famine,' than to act as an obstructionist to a war
already begun.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1998 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >