From the Publisher/Arnold G. York
Several people have asked me why I don’t write a column about the coming storm, the possible war with Iraq. It’s clear that momentum is building. The White House is fast running out of patience and options, and appears to be settling into a war posture. The anti-war opposition is just forming, and the body politic seems as split as it was in the last election. There also seems to be a profound generational split between an older generation that can remember past wars and seems more willing to accept that there is evil in this world that has to be dealt with, and a younger generation that feels war is futile and useless, and sees the definition of evil as hopelessly hokey, if not down right silly.
If you are looking for clarity from me, I have to admit I’m as hopelessly muddled and conflicted as anybody else. But just as an academic exercise, let’s run through a few of the arguments.
Look to the lessons of history to help us decide what to do
History tells us that, if we don’t act in the face of aggressive dictators, they will continue to push, and we’re better off coming in early because, ultimately, we’re going to get dragged in anyway. See Hitler at Munich, or North Korea crossing the 38th parallel and invading South Korea. On the other hand, we lost a lot of Americans fighting in Vietnam because if we hadn’t fought, we feared the rest of Southeast Asia would fall like dominos. Any of you heard any dominos falling lately? The truth is, history doesn’t help you much because you can always find something to buttress your position, as can the other guy-so it’s not much help when it comes to making a choice.
Saddam Hussein is a bad guy, and is a clear and present danger to us all
Let’s accept the fact that he’s a bad guy who kills his own people, his own family and wouldn’t hesitate to kill us, given the chance. Assuming all that, does it mean the United States should act now? There are probably a dozen other world leaders equally as dangerous and evil, and we’re not going after them, so what makes him different and so immediate. Why can’t the U.S. seem to get the other nations to agree with us that there is a need for immediate action? I’ve got to assume that our government is sharing intelligence, electronic intercepts and satellite photos with our allies, NATO and the Security Council. Yet few of them seem to feel the sense of urgency that we do. What does the U.S. see that they don’t?
We’re too far along to stop it unless Hussein falls
To put it another way, the United States is too far along in the preparation for war to pick up and back out without the world perceiving it as an American defeat. The world only respects force and proof that the U.S. is willing to use it, otherwise they’ll view it as American weakness, sort of all big talk but no sustained will, especially if our lives are at risk. To back out now would invite future attacks on us. Unfortunately, this might be truer than most of us want to believe. Bush may have literally painted himself into a corner where the only thing he can do is order an attack unless Hussein is overthrown. Kennedy never liked the proposed Cuban invasion but felt, as the new president, he could back out even though his guts said it would work. Woops, sorry, I’m back to historical cases.
Being the leader means doing what you believe is right
I’m not referring to morally right. Right means deciding what’s in your nation’s best interest, and pursuing that course even though your allies might not agree and a substantial part of your electorate might not agree. I guess this is the crux of the problem. Who is the leader of the United States? Is it just the president and his immediate advisors? Aren’t Congress and the courts coequal branches of government, and also the leaders of the country? Don’t they both have a role and an obligation in making this decision? Congress has a duty to investigate, speak out and decide, and the court to oversee. The war power is theirs, not just the president’s. The Constitution places it in its hands, and for good reason. The drafters didn’t want, I suspect, the responsibility in the hands of one person, and wanted some checks and balances. Unfortunately, Congress has failed abysmally in its role probably because it fears it would be bad politics. If we are going to be expected to support a war, we have a right to demand that the reasons be stated clearly and succinctly, and that Congress and the courts do their job so we can decide for ourselves. I’d feel a lot better if I felt it wasn’t just momentum carrying us into this thing, or that the decision to fight was just being made by a small group in the Oval Office. Perhaps history can tell us something after all. Years after the Vietnam War, it came out that there were several in the president’s inner circle who had grave doubts about the wisdom of Vietnam and escalating the conflict. Perhaps if they had spoken out many lives could have been saved. That’s why we need a serious public debate of this issue and this policy.