Posted on 04/05/2003 12:33:58 AM PST by JohnHuang2
From both the left and the right, critics of the war in Iraq ask: "Who's next, North Korea, Iran, Syria?" The answer: Perhaps. Sept. 11 changed the world; the United States, and much of the civilized world, declared war on terrorism. To the extent that any nation sponsors, facilitates, or supports terrorism, that nation is a potential target.
Americans are just beginning to realize that the war on terrorism is not simply a matter of the current color of the terror alert and extra screening at the airport. The war on terrorism is a war, complete with bombs and bullets.
The United States is confronted with a fundamental, and historic choice: Will the U.S. depend upon the United Nations to defend its citizens, through the U.N.'s policy of collective, comprehensive security, as France, Germany, Russia, and much of the rest of the world demand? Or, will the United States meet its constitutional responsibility to defend its own citizens?
President Bush made that decision as it relates to Iraq, spawning waves of protests from the U.N. and from the professional protesters who have nothing better to do than fill the streets with their anti-American theater.
Iraq is, in fact, just the beginning. If the war against terrorism is to be won, it will not be won by the U.N., where Syria sits on the Security Council and Lybia chairs the Human Rights Commission and Iraq heads the Disarmament Commission. Most of the nations that populate the United Nations want nothing more than to see the United States brought to its knees and controlled by a world government.
If the war on terrorism is to be won, it will be won by a U.S.-led coalition of nations that undertake the awesome task of removing the causes of terrorism. Those people who say that America's foreign policy is responsible for 9-11 and the hatred of America by the Arabs are simply wrong. While the U.S. has made many foreign policy mistakes, the root cause of the hatred of America is ignorance – the absence of truthful information about American values.
The vast majority of the people who raise their fists against America in the streets of Arab nations do so because they are fed a constant diet of state-controlled misinformation. They are taught from birth to hate America because we are "infidels," because we want their oil, because we use 25 percent of the world's resources, because we are greedy capitalists, because we have "stolen" their resources – and a complete menu of similar tripe.
News reports of the war in Iraq by the Arabian press provide only a small taste of the daily stream of lies fed to the people who are not allowed to see or hear the truth. They do not have a free press which can present independent reports of events from which they can choose what to believe. Most of these people are peasants. Iraq is a prime example of why: Saddam squanders the nation's wealth on palaces and weaponry while the people go hungry.
To win the war against terrorism, the people who hate us must have another source of information about us. We must demonstrate that what they have been told is a lie. Coalition forces in Iraq are doing just that. Saddam's soldiers torture and execute Iraqi citizens for waving at an American; coalition forces risk their own lives to treat wounded Iraqi citizens and bring them food and water. Eventually, these acts of kindness and humanity will speak much louder than the hate-filled, state-controlled TV announcers.
The real war begins when Saddam and his henchmen are history. What replaces them will determine whether we move toward victory in the war on terrorism, or simply postpone the horror while a new butcher is bred.
The new government in Iraq must be built on the principles of freedom: representative government, free speech, free markets, human rights, property rights, personal and national responsibility. Critics are quick to say we have no right to impose our values upon any other nation. Perhaps we do.
At the very least, we have the right to defend our nation from the threat of terrorist attacks from the likes of Saddam, even if that means the removal of his entire regime. If, in doing so, we provide the opportunity for Iraqi citizens to explore freedom and build a system of representative government that allows them to exercise their own ability and benefit from their own efforts, then perhaps it is not only our right, but also our duty.
This is not colonialism or empire-building, as critics are quick to charge. This is self-defense in the short term and an investment in a prosperous peace for the long term. If a stable, representative government can be cultivated in Iraq, which can survive after America withdraws, a major battle in the war against terrorism will have been won.
Well this is a tall order. To take a people who have only known tyranny and tell them to wake up and form a representative government may not be so easy. Everyone hated Saddam and once he is gone that doesn't mean they'll love and respect each other.
I'm not trying to be a pessimist, just to point out that this kind of government requires the population to want and cherish such values. It cannot be imposed on people who want to hate each other.
I pray that our military success is followed by a political success. If it is, then we have really won this war. That would be sweet!
One example:
Japan.
Japan.
Yes....like that example a lot!!!
Perhaps there is a difference between Iraq and Japan. Japan wasn't comprised of potentially warring ethnic factions who may desire dominance, each other's death even, revenge!, even more than representative government. The Islamic ethnic factions need to begin cooperating, rather suddenly here, upon the vacancy of what has been a unifying tyrant. Being negatively united in their hate and fear of Saddam needs to convert into positive cooperation.
Will it? I sure hope so. The ethnic groups must begin working together now that "the wicked witch is dead!", upon the elimination of this one negative focal point of past forced unity. Will they set their sights on eliminating each other and gaining the upper hand, Saddam style? Or will they desire representative government and free speech? It requires mutual respect and restraint to the rule of law.
Don't get me wrong, I'm just posing a hurdle that surely is ahead, that may work against our assumption of that Iraq wants to be a freedom loving people.
I think we have a very large social engineering challenge ahead and I do sincerely hope and am praying that it all works out, for the sake of the Iraqi people and all of our happy futures. {It will certainly silence the naysayers!!!]
So, if that happens, [my point was], then our 65+ man sacrifice will have been well worth it. If we fail to inspire and lead them to such a future, then don't you agree, our efforts will appear to have been in vain?
To the contrary, if we don't try then the socialists win and the world loses. At the start of the Japanese pacification process, most of the stateside pundits and mealy-mouthed politicians believed that the feudal aristocracy in Japan would not accept our base values. Thankfully, they were wrong. There are factions in the Moslem world that are trying to effect some reformation of the underlying culture; unfortunately the powers that be both in Washington and the despicable UN are still working with the Islamic extremists like Saudi Arabia. That needs to change.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.