America is the most powerful nation in the world. With that power comes the potential for greatness. Right now, the Bush administration is squandering that potential and leading the United States and the rest of the world down the wrong path.
With the most power comes the most responsibility. But repeatedly President Bush has ignored the doctrine of good stewardship in favor of his own blind political ideology and dogma. This pattern was evident in his rejection of the Kyoto Protocol and his broken promise to provide a serious alternative, as well as by his decision to contradict the State Department's findings and pull U.S. monetary support from the U.N. Population Fund last summer. This malicious decision, based more on pandering to the religious right than anything else, has caused countless preventable deaths all across Africa and Asia due to a lack of properly trained midwives, effective condom distribution or sensible disease prevention education. All of those things could have been attained with moderate U.S. support. President Bush picked politics over humanity and appeased his pro-life supporters by cutting funding to a program that, among other things, helped rape victims get safe abortions.
So when Bush calls for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, I can't help but think about his callous attitude towards humanity. We could be the greatest nation, but in order to play that role, we must do the greatest things. That is why we must always strive for peace. In the same fashion that we ought to be the global frontrunner in protecting the environment and slowing the spread of AIDS, we should also strive to make war an outdated foreign policy tool.
For those reasons, among others, I got on the bus leaving from Dartmouth on Friday the 17th to join nearly half a million other concerned citizens in Washington, D.C. to let my voice be heard in opposition to Bush's rush towards violence. Back at Dartmouth on Sunday night, I had the opportunity to talk about my experience with a few friends with different political tendencies. One offered this hesitation to my opposition to the pending war: "I'm all about looking out for number one, you know? We need to bomb them before they can sneak some horrible weapon into our country, like in "The Sum of All Fears."
That particular comment struck a chord because it echoed several things that I've read in various newspaper interviews with people who support attacking Iraq. I believe that my desires for America and those of my friend are not that different. Both of us want America to be as safe as it can be. Does invading Iraq make America safer? The one thing that would definitely -- and justifiably -- bring war upon Iraq with multilateral support would be an act of aggression against America or any one of our allies. I don't believe that Saddam wants to martyr himself. He has everything to lose by causing war to be brought against his regime. It is in his personal best interests to maintain the status quo, with him as dictator. That is why I haven't lost sleep over the possibility of an Iraqi nuclear, chemical or biological weapon exploding stateside.
At this point, any act of aggression equals the end of the affair for Saddam. Where is the imminent threat? Killing people because of only the possibility of a threat is dead wrong -- and cowardly. What's more, if we do attack Iraq preemptively, what reason would the Iraqis have to not use the full force of whatever weapons that they may have against us? It seems like it's a bigger security risk to attack than to encourage the inspectors and to stand as one with the international community that we should be so integrally a part of. We all want to live in a safe country, not a belligerent one. There is a big difference.
Suppose for a moment that the inspectors do come across some horrible weapon. Is war justified then? No. There is no substantial reason to focus this much attention on Iraq right now. Saddam is not the only cruel dictator in the world. Iraq is not the only rogue nation. Iraq is not even the only rogue nuclear nation. India and Pakistan came to the brink of war within the past year and their situation remains volatile. Has Al Qaeda been completely vanquished? North Korea admits to having weapons of mass destruction but still Bush's plans are unclear on how to negotiate through that dangerous situation. What is it about Iraq? Is it because Saddam "tried to kill an American president"? Is it an attempt to disrupt OPEC and drive down global oil prices? Or is it because of the current administration's lack of creativity and vision for how to lead the world into the future and make America a truly safer place?
Peace takes courage. Bush's march toward war has followed the drumbeat of paranoia, greed, and an alarming disregard for people all around the world. People in America and abroad who are urging him to seek out a peaceful, prudent way of dealing with Saddam's regime and the people, both civilians and soldiers who will lose their lives in a war that it is not clear we must fight. It's time to separate the fears from the real dangers. Bush's drive toward war, followed by his attempt at justification is backward and dangerous. War must always remain a last resort and never become a political goal.
