Posted on 03/03/2003 8:02:54 AM PST by Hotdog
Someone once said those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Winston Churchill began warning early and unrelentingly that Adolf Hitler had to be stopped. Those leaders who decried military action insisted that giving Hitler a few more concessions would surely result in a peaceful solution. Nearly everyone called Churchill "a warmonger."
Still, he never wavered because he believed he was right.
A short time ago my daughter graduated from Eastern Mennonite High School. For those of you who may not know, Mennonites are pacifists in the truest sense of the word. They don't believe in justification for war - under any circumstance. In wars past, many quietly protested and went to prison for their nonviolent stance.
Though Christian, our family is not Mennonite. We chose EMHS because of its outstanding reputation for academic excellence. While under the school's affiliation, we were never pressured to ascribe to any of the tenets of the Mennonite faith. Nonetheless, their example of gentleness left a lasting impression.
Thus, in many ways, I find myself quite conflicted about the current situation in Iraq. Yet, in pondering the pacifist point of view, I've come to understand that pacifism can only eliminate the need for military might if all people on Earth follow in its path. Sadly, this is not the case.
The Bible teaches that, if at all possible, we should live at peace with everyone. So the real question for me has been, can there be a peaceful conclusion to this controversy?
On a quest for answers, I've read hundreds of pages of government reports, newspaper and journal articles - both domestic and overseas - online articles and opinion pieces. These have included writings from both sides of the aisle - those for and against the use of military force to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
There is no doubt that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Weapons inspectors learned this in the mid-1990s after five years of cat and mouse research. In 1998, these same inspectors left Iraq because of continuing efforts by Hussein's regime to thwart their plans. Now, five years later, the question of Hussein's military repertoire has again come to a head. We find ourselves trying to answer the questions: Does Iraq still have those weapons and, if not, where did they go? If he has them, does that make him a danger to the United States and his neighbors?
So far, Iraq has refused to tell anyone what happened to these weapons. They say only that they don't possess them. I find this very disconcerting. Where did they go? Into the hands of terrorists? Into hiding in other countries? Onto ships floating in the sea? In underground hiding places? In roving factories on wheels?
Some argue that, even if he does have them, he won't use them as long as the inspectors are there. But how long can we realistically keep inspectors running around looking for items Hussein doesn't want found? Long enough for him to perfect a nuclear program? Then what? Plus, it's important to remember that Hussein didn't let the inspectors back in until the United States began an aggressive military buildup in the area. How long can we afford to keep this many troops, ships and airplanes in the Middle East?
Then there are allegations that this confrontation really isn't about weapons of mass destruction, but is one instigated by President George W. Bush to either a) line his own pockets via his oil connections or b) cover up for the economic recession we are in.
It seems some people have very short memories. During the presidential campaign, Bush remarked repeatedly that our economy was starting to head south and something had to be done to stimulate it. We may not agree with his way of stimulating the economy, but no one can lay blame for our current situation purely on his shoulders. This downturn is a result of things that went sour under the former administration, and because of the events of Sept. 11, 2001. But whatever the root cause, it's now his problem. Nonetheless, he needn't be ashamed of it. Do people really think Bush is willing to risk the 2004 election by sending American sons and daughters off to die just to line his pockets with cash? That argument is nothing more than emotionalism and partisan politics run amok.
Then there are those who argue that this war is really about oil, and this commodity isn't worth dying for. Now, here's an issue worthy of discussion.
The United States obtains 30 percent of its oil imports from the Middle East. That may not seem like a lot, but those of us who were around in the mid-1970s and '80s remember standing in line for hours to get gasoline, being able to fill up only on odd or even days - depending on the last digit of our license plates and the terrible recession that followed. The reason for this unusual set of circumstances was that Middle East oil producers decided to stop selling us crude oil in order to "voice" their opposition to a war in Israel. That embargo nearly brought our economy to a grinding halt.
Now, just suppose Hussein is successful in putting together a nuclear arsenal. We're talking about the Hussein who has ruled under absolute tyranny in order to ensure his political domination. The Hussein who has built, just since the end of the Gulf war, 30 very opulent palaces costing billions of dollars in order to evoke a sense of power, the Hussein who attacked Iran and Kuwait in order to dominate access to the sea (yes, he had oil squabbles with Kuwait, but gaining sea access was the real reason behind his imperialism). Suppose this guy now has nuclear weapons and forces his neighbors to raise the price of crude oil so dramatically it sends our economy into an actual depression?
Ouch.
There are those who scream we shouldn't be so dependent on foreign oil and they're absolutely right. But our current reserves contain only enough crude oil to maintain our existence - as we now know it - for 51 days. If we continue to import the other needed 70 percent, we can last a bit longer, but not long enough to come up with an alternative power source. So, if we can't afford enough oil, how will the trucks and ships that deliver raw materials to the businesses that provide us jobs keep on coming? A protester at one of the recent peace marches held up a sign that read, "I don't need oil, I ride the bus." Is that bus powered by wind?
When Bush says we must protect our national interests in the Mid-East, he is, in a roundabout way, talking about oil. But the national interest that must really concern us all is a stable economy, because, if our economy isn't stabilized, we are much more susceptible to terrorist attacks. Perhaps it isn't too radical to imagine our very existence as a nation going the way of Greece and Rome. Now that, if anything, is worth fighting for.
What about our dependency on oil? We should have smartened up after the 1974 embargo. We didn't. We should have smartened up after the Gulf War. We didn't. During this year's State of the Union Address, Bush proposed money for research and development of hydrogen-powered vehicles. This is the first time, in my memory, any president has proposed money for alternative fuel R&D; maybe we're getting somewhere. If, after this debacle with Iraq, we as a nation don't do something about our dependence on foreign oil, then we deserve to have our economy and freedoms fall apart.
Here's one more thing to chew on: Hussein didn't get the money for his palaces from the oil for food program. So, where did he get it?
Since he had it, why didn't he put his people to work building schools, roads and hospitals instead of palaces for his or his elite guards' pleasure? Or, were the palaces built to hide weapons production?
Another argument against military action is, what if we remove Hussein and wind up bringing nothing more than political chaos to the region? Clearly, there are no easy answers to the problem of finding an adequate government for a nation inhabited by three very different cultures. But it appears our government finds itself caught between a rock and a hard place.
Since the day two jets flew into the World Trade Towers in New York City, the job of protecting America has taken on a whole new meaning. Many were critical of our intelligence community because they failed to see that al-Qaeda was a serious threat to our nation. But each piece of intelligence, in and of itself, was not enough to warrant a color-coded alert system. Yet later, when we were able to put those pieces together, the truth became all too clear.
It is now necessary for our leaders to think several steps ahead. They must try more vigorously to put the pieces of the puzzle together and do all they can to prevent vicious attacks upon our person and upon our economy - before we are made to crumble.
The doctrine of a just war adopted by many religious affiliations does not allow for preemptive military action, but has mankind's horrible progression of weaponry and terrorist forms of battle now rendered such thinking obsolete?
My heart goes out to those who must answer this very difficult question.
The Bible says that individuals in places of authority will, on the day of judgment, be called to a greater level of accountability. I, for one, would not want to be in Bush's shoes; the stakes are just too high - both here on Earth and in the afterlife I believe in.
So, have I made a decision regarding the rightness or wrongness of this war? There is no right or wrong when it comes to war - only a choice between two evils.
For the well-being of our country and the people of Iraq, it seems military action is the lesser evil. But I sure do wish everyone would follow the path of pacifism.
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.