Graham Roth '04's editorial, "Peace for Security," (The Dartmouth, Jan. 27), is illogical and quickly digresses into an anti-war rant with little or no factual backing. The entire invective is rife with hypocrisy and very little evidence is given in support of Roth's opinion. He ignores evidence opposing his views because he either wishes to mislead us or, more likely, because he doesn't know what he's talking about.
The main logical inconsistency of his argument is how he views the United States' role in world affairs. Roth claims that President Bush was wrong to cut funding to United Nations programs that delivered aid to Africa for abortions, condom distribution, etc.; he implies the same thing with his comments on the Kyoto Treaty. His argument clearly hinges on the assumption that the United States has a moral obligation to protect members of the world community or, in his words, "America is the most powerful nation in the world. With that power comes the potential for greatness."
But suddenly, when Roth mentions the possibility of invading Iraq, the United States is showing a "callous attitude towards humanity." Furthermore, Roth explains his opposition to war by -- and I have no idea how he extrapolates this -- attempting to follow Saddam Hussein's thought processes. "It is in [Saddam's] 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."
So we avoid war simply because there is little chance of Saddam attacking the U.S .homeland. In Roth's moral universe should we not be at all concerned with the severe human rights violations of Saddam's regime? He doesn't seem to think so, because it doesn't personally affect us (much as some would argue abortion in Africa has no real effect on the U.S. homeland and the Kyoto Treaty is unfairly balanced against U.S. interests).
Saddam is evil and even Roth admits, a "dictator." The scope of his regime's terror, murder and mass human rights violations is unfathomable. To use a counterexample similar to Roth's African rape example, Saddam employs professional rapists or, in Iraq's parlance, "defilers of women's honor." He has murdered thousands -- if not millions -- of Iraqis, gassed ethnic minorities within his own borders, waged illogical wars that led to nothing but death and destruction and continues to torture critics through public beheadings, gang rapes and, if you're lucky, tongue amputation (which has gained popularity of late). I wonder how any of this fits into Roth's assumption that the United States must be a "global frontrunner in protecting the environment and slowing the spread of AIDS," while apparently not giving a damn about human rights. Roth neglects Saddam's transgressions, even when claiming that the Bush Administration shows a "callous attitude toward humanity." This description is better suited for Roth himself.
Roth also asserts that Saddam will not start a war because "[h]e has everything to lose by causing war to be brought against his regime." What then, exactly, was Saddam's 1991 invasion of Kuwait, coming on the heels of his 1980 invasion of Iran during which he used chemical weapons on innocent populations?
If Roth wants to avoid war because Saddam has no connections to terrorist groups and will not attack the US -- a crass assumption to begin with, but one to which Roth subscribes wholeheartedly -- I recommend William Safire's editorial in the New York Times' Monday edition, entitled, "Clear Ties of Terror." Mr. Safire, a New York Times columnist, discusses the clear links that Saddam Hussein has to terror, information he gleaned while in Iraq. The regime has supported a band of 600 Al Qaida fighters in the northern provinces, and this band has been involved in the chemical weapons trade. I presume that Roth is aware that Al Qaida is responsible for the attacks against our country and is presently waging war against us.
I would like to make a final point on Roth's assertion that "[t]here 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." Claiming that the United States does not treat all dictators the same is absurd; each international incident is different. We treat North Korea differently because they have nuclear weapons and an army of over one million soldiers. Iraq, however, can be toppled before it develops nuclear weapons, so of course we treat it differently. I'm sure Roth would argue that if we can help even just one starving African child we should, but he is not willing to extend this same logic to the realm of international affairs, because then we would be treating those poor despotic dictators unfairly.
Roth asserts that "peace takes courage," but his idea of peace is a form of isolation that allows the rest of the world to be dominated by murderous dictators who will stop at no ends to preserve their rule. Real courage is the foresight to see that Saddam's regime is evil and is best eliminated before Saddam has an opportunity to amass more weapons and launch a new war against his neighbors, or against us, even if it's through Al Qaida. Those who are willing to sacrifice long-term stability for short-term peace -- especially if our home is not the one immediately threatened, the reason Roth doesn't "los[e] sleep" -- are bound to become the next Neville Chamberlains of the world.
