War in Iraq: Questions about Bush’s reasons for invading still loom

As the Iraq war enters its second summer, and as we head toward a November election, some questions about Bush’s war in Iraq remain.

Of course getting rid of Saddam Hussein and liberating the Iraqi people was a great thing, and no one is denying that. The problem that I have with this war is that, if we were in it to liberate the Iraqi people, why didn’t Bush just say that to begin with? Why didn’t he take this argument to the U.N, asking for international help to liberate Iraq? Is it because there would not have been enough support at home for such a moral cause? Is it because Bush didn’t really care about freeing Iraq? Or did we go to war for political reasons?

The Bush administration made its case to the American people, saying that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, links to al-Qaida and links to 9/11. All of these reasons were paraded on the news far more than the need to liberate Iraq. And because they told us that they knew where the weapons were, and knew that Saddam and Osama bin Laden were connected, we wanted to believe them.

But where are those weapons that Saddam was getting ready to use at any moment? Where is the proof that Saddam had a hand in 9/11? In addition, where is the proof that he had links with al-Qaida? If the main justifications for war fall through, the deaths of 900 soldiers, 10,000 Iraqis, and injuries of 6,000 soldiers seem futile.

Now it seems as though Bush is desperately struggling to justify this war, while in the process death reigns in Iraq. The weapons that he knew were there have not been found. Links to both al-Qaida and 9/11 continue to elude us, bringing to light that all the major causes of this were false. So what else can Bush claim this war was about? The liberation of the Iraqi people.

While it was mentioned in the months leading up to the war, it was a back-burner issue, only recently taking center stage of war justification.

So if we’re in it to liberate Iraq, have we done enough? Sure, schools are being built, and friends are being made, but is this enough? What about electricity, water, jobs, police and security? My brother served for a year in Iraq, and said that nothing is getting better, the war is for oil, and that most of his fellow soldiers feel the same way. They see no progress, and are beginning to hate the Iraqi people.

If we’re planning on just staying until the job is done, why are we building the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad? And why are we building several permanent military bases in Iraq? Are we really planning on only staying a little while?

If the United States is going to launch a war to liberate Iraq, then that should have been the main rationalization. America should have not gone in unilaterally, backed only by a weak coalition that includes Palau, Iceland, Morocco, Afghanistan, Estonia, Latvia, and many other nations that many Americans probably could not find on a map.

If we are going to take on this role as liberators, then we have to do it everywhere; otherwise this liberation crusade looks bogus. What about the civil war in Sudan? What about the violence in Colombia? What about the violence in Israel and Palestine? What about Burma? And North Korea? And Peru? And Sierra Leone? And Chechnya? And what about all the other nations ruled by oppressive regimes? Are we going to liberate them, too?

In a recent speech, President Bush called Iraq “the central front in the war on terror.” However, as we have seen, there were no real links between Saddam and al-Qaida at the start of the war. As our stay in a volatile Iraq lengthens, terrorists are being created faster than we can stop them. Only now, after we have invaded, has Iraq become a haven for terrorism.

It seems that the mentality of this war is to stop terrorism with war and violence. Americans want to “take the gloves off” and hope that our enemy will crack under. But isn’t this the same mentality that the terrorists have? And what is our response? Escalate the violence and kill them first.

A better way to stop terrorism might be to trace its fundamental causes, and pull the weed up by its roots. Bush said that the terrorists hate our values. He might be right, but exactly what American ideals are inciting such hatred?

Perhaps it is the positions the U.S. takes in the current conflict with Israel and Palestine. Maybe, since we are supporting Israel, which is supporting the killing of thousands of Palestinians, and is simultaneously doing everything in its power to stop a Palestinian state, terrorists are not befriending America.

Maybe there is such an anti-American sentiment because we have a long history of supporting oppressive dictators and overthrowing democratically elected governments (the overthrow of the Allende government in Chile; installation of dictators in Guatemala and Indonesia; support of Saudi Arabia, one of the world’s most oppressive regimes; support for the shah of Iran; simultaneously supporting both Iraq and Iran with weapons during the Reagan years, just to name a few). Perhaps, when we sponsor governments that oppress their own people, those who are oppressed do not look to America and
smile.

It might seem a little hypocritical for the United States to seek the elimination of nuclear weapons around the world, when we not only refuse to eliminate our own stockpiles, but also attempt to increase our nuclear capabilities. Moreover, it might look bad when the United States consumes 25 percent of the world’s energy, and (combined with Europe and Japan) uses close to 80 percent of the world’s goods. It also might taint our image that we sit idly by while other nations are ravaged by hunger, poverty and AIDS.

So yes, it is great that the Iraqi people are free, but are we prepared to continue liberating those who are oppressed? Are we really going country to country, spending billions and billions of dollars and stretching our military far beyond its capacity? If we are going to become the world’s police force, we had better have the world, all of the world, behind us.

We need to start being truthful with our own people and the world. War should be reserved as the last possible course of action, when no other is sufficient. We cannot keep launching these wars surrounded in lies and failure. We cannot keep losing billions of dollars and thousands of soldiers. America, and the world, will not stand for it.

- Jamie Scott is a junior at George Washington High School in Charleston