Hindsight is an excellent ability. Looking
back, it is unmistakable that we launched into battle in Iraq
under what are absolutely false claims. It was sort of like
an astronaut agreeing to be shot off to Mars on the promise
that things would be just like they are on Earth. We all took
the ride and now we’re stumbling around in pain and
confusion.
Before the war, President Bush, Colin Powell and others pointed
out spots on maps and in grainy photos, insisting that they
were proof that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now,
it seems, our president, our generals don’t care where
the WMDs are, so long as they can get their war on.
Whether or not the president knowingly lied to America, the
underlying architecture of the war was built on falsehood,
and there has been no reckoning. This is incredibly frustrating.
We have been made to feel like children, led along by an uncaring
parent. The president emphatically told us that Saddam had
WMDs. Major newspapers, the engines of public opinion –
and most noticeably The New York Times – bought the
fiction without bothering to look into it. Soon we were at
war. Today, none of the weapons we were taught to fear have
been found. Why, then, are we still at war?
The president has not backed off his claim or even offered
a compelling reason why we haven’t found any WMDs. Instead,
he shifted the reasons for war, like a used car-salesman urging
you not to look under the hood but, hey, check out the fuzzy
dice hanging from the rear-view mirror.
So it’s no surprise that the biggest under-covered
story of the year – and really, what could top it in
the next 9 months? – is this: In early January the administration
officially ended their search for WMDs. Didn’t hear
about it? Here’s why, writes Matt Taibbi in the New
York Press: “Only two major dailies in the entire country
– the Washington Post and the Dallas Morning News –
even put the official end to the WMD search on the front page.
The rest of the country's news organs buried the story deep
in the bowels of their news sections.” In The Times
the story landed on page A16, in The Boston Globe on page
A9, and in a slight improvement The Los Angeles Times put
it on A6.
Considering that popular support for the war was based on
these front-page claims, on the possibility of a mushroom
cloud in your hometown, it’s only right that the correction
receive more attention. Imagine what would happen when the
people who believed Saddam capable of delivering their worst
fears suddenly discovered that the administration has officially
backed off its basic case for the war. The poll results concerning
the war could make the administration nervous.
Now, instead of WMDs Bush tells us we are fighting for world
security, for the spread of democracy, for liberty –
as if they were things to be unpacked from a box at Baghdad
airport. Why weren’t these reasons given before the
war? Because Americans wouldn’t buy it. If we fight
for democracy and a safer world, there are far more dangerous
and undemocratic (or undemocratic and powerless) nations on
the planet that Bush has no plans to free from the burden
of their own oppression.
The shift from WMDs to notions about freedom, democracy and
security as reasons for going to war is absolutely ridiculous.
By this logic, it is no wonder that our enemies oppose us.
And if other nations use similarly dumb excuses to wage war
– say, China against Taiwan, or North Korea against
everybody – then we should not be surprised. We invented
the Silly Putty guidelines for waging modern wars.
The most insidious trait of hypocrisy is that it is so easily
forgotten, so simply brushed off with a “what are you
gonna do?” and a shrug of the shoulders. American children
learn hypocrisy very early on from their parents and teachers.
They learn the phrase, “Don’t do what I do, do
what I say,” as the adults around them engage in shameful
activities while lip-servicing moral virtues, patriotism,
decency and restraint. The president is now our best example
of this bad behavior.
Some call his abandonment of the WMD issue “moving
on”. Others say that perhaps weapons will be found someday.
Still more suggest that the question of WMDs is not important
at all. “The world is safer without Saddam,” they
say. Or “We’re bringing democracy to Iraq.”
Even worse is one we’ve heard quite often: “We’ve
got to fight the terrorists where they are, not here in America.”
We can’t wait for the excuses that will start the next
war – maybe we’ll invade Iran or North Korea because
of their alleged stores of citrus fruit, only to discover
they have none. The fact that Bush has not even bothered to
account for the humiliating lack of WMDs amounts to him saying,
“Well, what are you gonna do?” while America shrugs
in response, casually forgetting that we went to war for nothing.
It cannot be overstated: the cause that launched us to war
has crumbled. There must be a reckoning for this. Nothing
less is acceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
