|
It is not often that I hope a column will be outdated before it
prints. If one can trust the news – a shaky proposition in the
muddle of war – the conflict with Iraq should be all over but the
shouting within a week, so I just might get my wish.
The shouting, of course, will
go on for years. Demonstrators at home and abroad have done little
else for weeks, a right bought and paid for by the military they
protest; unfortunately, history offers no example of tyrants bent on
power and territory having been dissuaded peaceably. War is not
always stoppable, but it is possible to avoid big wars by fighting
while it can be kept small.
Still there is no denying
that war rages today because we fired first. If we hadn’t it would
have come at Saddam Hussein’s fancy, but as Washington picked the
hour the administration is fair game for protest.
Every government action
involves a value judgment. Whose street should be fixed, and when?
Can we teach our own children at home? Should adults be required to
wear seat belts? What should be illegal, and which punishments are
just? Who should be taxed, and how much? Which of the world’s
never-ending atrocities should we step in to stop? These decisions
reflect us as much as govern us, reason enough for any citizen to
chime in when he or she sees fit.
That doesn’t mean every
argument carries water. There are valid critiques of our actions in
Iraq, but much of it is flakier than a bowl of Post Toasties. As
“Exhibit A” I offer the so-called human shields, most of whom are
now safely home, shaking their heads over a double cappuccino.
Offering their bodies to
protect schools, hospitals, and orphanages, Iraqi officials instead
bussed them to military bases, anti-aircraft batteries, and
munitions plants. Most were either ordered out when they balked or
left under their own steam after concluding that dying for Saddam’s
war machine wouldn’t do much for the cause of peace.
What escaped these nobles is
that Iraqi schools, hospitals, and orphanages already have human
shields, otherwise known as students, patients, and orphans. And
while civilians die in every war, only the duped (which does not
include Saddam himself) believe U.S. forces would target them.
News reports note that
Baghdad’s defense forces have moved to civilian neighborhoods for
that very reason. I’d wager not one of these Iraqi human shields
volunteered for the job.
“No blood for oil” makes a
nice chant, but if we were interested in pilfering oil we’d invade
Canada. It’s our largest source of imported petroleum, a heck of a
lot closer, and defended by the military equivalent of a Brownie
troop. It should also be noted that we held all of Iraq worth
having in 1991 and, for all practical purposes occupy Kuwait now.
If one drop of petrol has been stolen I haven’t heard of it.
Another collection of
absurdities surrounds the reasons Iraq and North Korea are being
treated differently. This one’s simple, folks: North Korea already
has nukes. North Korea is what happens when you ignore men like Kim
Jung Il and Saddam Hussein.
American war protests are not
new. Only about a third of the colonists are said to have supported
the American Revolution. President Lincoln sent the army to quell
violent demonstrations in New York and Baltimore during the Civil
War. Even World Wars I and II drew protests.
What today’s demonstrators
miss, particularly those who have turned violent or disrupted
cities, is that Americans are largely a good and decent people, as
is its government. I suspect the same is true of those protesters
who have refrained from thuggery; the rest deserve the condemnation
of all.
|
