Sean Penn Says War in Iraq Is Avoidable

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - If a U.S.-led war with Iraq smears blood on his hands as an American citizen, Sean Penn wants to know why -- and he has come to Baghdad to find out.

"Absolutely I think war can be avoided, but obviously it's going to take enormous commitment on the part of the Iraqi government as well as the United States," the actor-director told Reuters television in an interview on Sunday.

"I will certainly do what I can to support that commitment to looking for other options," Penn said.

The former Hollywood bad boy and Oscar nominee paid for a $56,000 advertisement in the Washington Post in October accusing President Bush of stifling debate on Iraq.

He declined to renew his criticism of Bush on foreign soil, saying he would reserve political comments for his return home.

Bush has threatened war to topple President Saddam Hussein if he fails to abandon his alleged doomsday arsenal.

Penn said it would "suit us all" if Iraq fully disclosed any banned weapons it still has, but questioned whether U.S. national security concerns about this justified war.

Asked if his three-day trip to Baghdad might expose him to charges of lack of patriotism, Penn said he would be happy to debate anyone who made such accusations.

"I'm here for a simple reason, which is because I'm a patriot and an American who has benefited enormously from being an American, and because I had areas of personal concern and conscience that led me to come to Iraq.

"I believe, however I vote and whatever my perspective, that I do deserve the government I get," he said.

"And if there's going to be blood on my hands, I'm determined that it's not going to be invisible. That blood is not just Iraqi blood, it's the blood of American soldiers."

Penn's visit was organized by the Institute of Public Accuracy, a U.S. group of policy analysts.

He has toured a Baghdad children's hospital, wandered the streets without an Iraqi minder and had meetings with Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz and Health Minister Umeed Madhat Mubarak -- who gave him a hard time for his smoking habit.

Penn said he had been touched by the warmth of ordinary Iraqis despite the tension and suffering of their daily lives.

"I do find it very moving, you know, the strength of a smile in those circumstances, and the smiles that I saw were abundant," he said.

Penn's advertisement in the Washington Post took the form of an open letter in which he urged Bush to stop a cycle where "bombing is answered by bombing, mutilation by mutilation, killing by killing."

"Sacrificing American soldiers or innocent civilians in an unprecedented pre-emptive attack on a separate sovereign nation may well prove itself a most temporary medicine," he said.

More than 100 other American celebrities, including Hollywood stars Kim Basinger, David Duchovny and Mia Farrow, signed an open letter last week which said rigorous United Nations inspections were the best way to disarm Iraq, not war.

Asked to explain his interest in Iraq, Penn said it was the "current headline" for the Bush administration's war on terror.

"Because of the technology and the heightened desperation of the world today, I think it's very possible that we are facing the first century that will complete itself without mankind -- and that's not the future that I want for my children, or for their children," he declared.

Penn said his Iraq odyssey, by helping him to be aware of the times he lived in, could play into his professional life.

"Whatever story you have to tell, you have to be aware of who you are telling it to and what the benefit of it is, whether it's limited to amusement or a political statement, because short of that it's simply what someone does alone in a bathroom," the 42-year-old Californian said.

Did he hope to bridge the gap between American perceptions of Iraq and the reality?

"Ultimately if I can do that in the way you expressed, that would be something I'd be very proud of."

"And if there's going to be blood on my hands, I'm determined that it's not going to be invisible. That blood is not just Iraqi blood, it's the blood of American soldiers."

Actually, Sean is closer to the truth than he might realize.

When committing US troops to action, the President does have their blood upon his hands and therefore, those that put him in power have their individual share as well. The alternative, however, is to have the blood of the American civilian population on one's hands. So SecState Penn, which would you choose?

The power we give the Commander In Chief is indeed awesome and not to ever be used lightly. I am absolutely certain that each drop of blood that is spilled weighs heavily upon the soul of our President. This is his gift to us, that he will accept the responsibility and pay the price so that we may continue to live in freedom, even to the point of one of us talking nonsense at the feet of the most evil person walking the earth today. The President makes this terrible choice because he knows the alternative is unacceptable, unconscionable, and immoral.

In the terrible calculus of "blood on the hand," how far up the arm does the blood for September 11th go on those that had Osama signed, sealed, and almost delivered? What say you, Mr. Penn? What is your share of blood from that? If we accept your premise, Citizen Penn, that we all share in the blood spilt by our leaders, then let's talk about the Iraqis. What is the share of blood that the Iraqi people bear, given them by their unanimously chosen leader?

This is the crux of the matter when we talk of the death of innocents. This is why we first try sanctions, as sanctions are always upon the people themselves and never their leadership. This is why 1.5 million children die (has anyone ever come even close to verifying this media "fact"?) when the humanitarian aid is diverted to build 53 palaces and who knows what kinds of armament horrors. What a gift of blood Saddam gives to his people. Why, they are positively swimming in it. How can you avoid getting any of it on your shoes, Mr. Penn?

[By the way, I don't ever recall hearing one shred of moral outrage from Mr. Penn or his ilk (media included) when CNN and others played video from some of Saddam's palaces].

Ultimately, when a leader or a regime accumulates such a butcher's bill of blood for his people, it is their responsibility to make payment by ending their sanction of their reign. Should those people be unable, incapable, or unwilling to do so, then others must step in or the bill comes due for us all.

So thank you, Mr. Penn, for finally bringing this to our attention and making clear just how immoral are those alternatives to war. [/debate]

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.