Three cheers for the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, who made quick work of Iraq and have brought an end to the regime of Saddam Hussein. As more information creeps out from the front, we find out about the atrocities of Hussein's government: oppression, torture and massacre. In a New York Times guest column, a CNN news director wrote about some of the stories that CNN could not tell over the past decade because reporting the story would have resulted in the swift torture or murder of the source, and likely the source's family.
Looking at the human rights atrocities alone, the war seems justified. Historically, there have been some Americans who have been uniformly opposed to wars that were tied to economic interests or concerns about hegemony, often suggesting that what the United States should be doing is engaging in combat to free people from oppressive dictators. Well, this war against Iraq ended up being just that - in addition to being a war about economic interests (oil) and revenge (Bush I).
Freeing Iraq's 22 million people from the terror of Saddam may have been the human rights accomplishment of the year. Yes, it required $80 billion in war, but the shock and awe has given way to jubilation and excitement (okay, and looting). Some of the intellectual lightweights on the right have suggested that because this war was won quickly and without many casualties, the hawks have proven that it was right to go to war in the first place.
No educated person who opposed the war thought that the Iraqis were going to win. It was a war against a regime that had been crippled economically and was approaching Afghanistan-levels of backwardness as a result of sanctions. The people opposed to the war were not opposed because of the odds; they were opposed because of the reasons. The neoconservatives who have been pushing the war would love to think the debate was about winning, because their reason for war has so far come up empty.
Before the war, we were going after Saddam for his "connection" to Al Qaeda. This is still unproven, but given the veracity of the generals about the validity of this connection, it is possible to assume that our intelligence and defense departments have been given fabricated evidence of a connection from a high-level Iraqi, and, like the CNN sources, it may still be unsafe for this source to come forward or admit that he faked it. That or the CIA is simply lying - it would not be the first time.
The other reason that we were going after Iraq, a tremendous, dangerous arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, is also missing. Having conquered the country, we've found no chemical and biological weapons, although that may prove wrong any day. Iraq did not unleash a single one of those weapons in its defense - a defense against an invading army that made quite clear its singular goal of total destruction of the current regime.
Searching for an answer, the George W. Bush administration has turned to its playbook and found a misdirection and an end-around. In the past week, Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have begun the war with Syria - first it was Syria giving night vision goggles to the Iraqis, then assertions that Syria was protecting Iraqi leaders, and, now, that Syria has chemical weapons. At this rate, Syria will have the Bomb by Friday.
How did the Iraqis move their weapons? Bush and Rumsfeld cannot disclose how. Why did they move the weapons? They cannot say why. Such information, like why we are about to go to war with Syria, is not necessary for the public to know. Syria has to "cooperate" as Bush said. And even if Syria is cooperating in the eyes of the United Nations and rest of the world, our new, dangerous preemption doctrine should make other points irrelevant. How will America conduct foreign policy if no one trusts America?
When we do go to war with Syria, possibly as soon as October, another regime will fall quickly, and the hawks will claim ideological victory. When the next regime falls, something similar will happen. Bravo, as we extinguish the governments that permit terrorists to hide in their borders.
But the reasons for these future wars must be more explicit and evident than the reasons that we toppled Iraq or Syria. Where will the Bush wheel of regime change stop next?
And what will be the consequences? It is not easy to hold an empire - ask France or Great Britain, or consult an American history textbook. The new American imperialism can be a force of righteousness as Saddam and his ilk fall, but it will not be if we continue with our cavalier attitude toward global politics, engaging with the world only when it bests suits us.
What is most troublesome in all of this is the failure of intellectual engagement as we enter this new age. The press has largely given Bush a free-pass and there has been a growing climate of brainless nationalism. Bush's carefully measured rhetoric of challenging the patriotism of those who challenge any policy may well guide him to an overwhelming reelection and may burn this nation for years to come.
And in years to come, it will be our generation that has to clean up the mess. So if the press is going to keep letting us down, we need to be asking the questions. That does not mean mindless protest without context.
It will be this generation's turn to lead sooner than you think - the scope of the problems that we will face depends on the volume with which we question and consider the challenges we face now.
Martin Barna, Trinity '02, is a former editorial page editor of The Chronicle. This column ends his four years as a Chronicle columnist.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.