Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anti-war stance is flawed
The Stanford Daily (Stanford U) ^ | 10/11/02 | William Hudson

Posted on 10/12/2002, 4:05:49 PM by NorCoGOP

STANFORD, Calif. -- There has been a lot of press and opinion devoted to the subject of the impending war on Iraq in the past few weeks. What I find missing from many of the activist remarks is a consistent attempt to play the blame game and wholeheartedly ignore that old forgotten standby -- logic.

Many argue that the problem in Iraq was of American construction and that ultimately the United States is to blame for Saddam's dictatorship and gross overextension of power in the region and over the lives of his own people.

Strikingly, and even ridiculously, this is often cited as a primary reason for the United States not to correct past wrongs and attempt to bring about a better solution. There is no bigger fundamental logical flaw than attempting to argue, in all seriousness, that because someone causes a problem in the past they should not be allowed to fix it in the present.

Also, some activist cells like to point out that America isn't very good at nation-building: after all, look at Afghanistan. Pointing to car bombs and attempted assassinations in a newly formed country plagued by decades of internal and external conflict and somehow drawing out larger conclusions of American impotence to enforce positive change is absolutely absurd.

While there are car bombs and internal problems in the present iteration of Afghanistan, one must take into consideration the progression that Afghanistan has gone through in such a short time period.

Before American troops moved in, women had virtually no rights, religious extremism and outright persecution were the name of the game and harboring terrorists was considered to be civic duty.

While there are problems at present in Afghanistan, they are the sorts of problems one could expect in a newly formed nation -- rebellion and discontent were not foreign to the aftermath of our country's revolution, either.

But still this is not enough. Americans cannot be trusted to rebuild nations, anti-war activists say. We export our own norms onto others and bring about economic and political ruin.

If exporting values means giving women some basic human rights and not gassing your own populations, then I would argue that this is a fair trade. When it comes to ineffective political and economic constructions, the more astute observer might look to Japan or Germany and consider America's track record of nation-building.

Others point to the possibility of a larger war with a destabilizing effect on the region. Quite honestly, and as I've said before, this is precisely what the region needs: something that can shake the political foundations for some of the last regimes in the world to support slavery and religious persecution as a matter of state policy.

Perhaps the most unfounded argument against U.S. action in Iraq is that the government hasn't made Saddam's ties to al Qaeda credible enough.

While this line of thinking ignores the veracity of reports not only from American intelligence but also from our principal European opponent to military action, Germany, it is also completely irrelevant.

Whether or not Saddam has ties to al Qaeda would only lengthen his list of crimes against his own people and the security of the world at large; in the simplest sense, there is certainly enough on the books against Saddam to justify any American action in the country.

Most pressingly, his continual search for weapons of mass destruction pose a special danger to human liberty, freedom and political change in the region.

If asked if the United States would be Saddam's target with any newfound weapons of mass destruction, I would venture to guess with reasonable certainty that he would not. Again, the most pressing consideration is not merely our own interests, but the interests of the people of the Middle East.

We have to divorce ourselves from the notion that military action undertaken by the United States in the Middle East only serves the security interests of the United States.

Iran is on the verge of a revolution. Kuwait is no friend of Saddam. Both are targets for any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction; the first case would effectively thwart any revolution and thereby make the first positive step towards basic human rights and democratic rule in the region collapse before it got started.

In the case of Kuwait, there is sufficient political and economic collateral to make the case appealing to a tyrant like Saddam Hussein.

Essentially, then, with weapons of mass destruction Saddam would be able to solidify his own power, deter the United States or United Nations from intervening and be able to deter revolutionary democracy and human rights in the region, especially in Iran.

Democratic rule on his borders would endanger the political vitality of Saddam's reign and ultimately would shift the balance of power in the region in a fairly fundamental way.

By deterring such revolution under the smokescreen of biological or nuclear weapons, Saddam maintains control of his country and solidifies the Middle Eastern resistance to reform and democraticization.

And the people want to be democratic, too. Look at the faces of the Iranians on the news -- they are tired of being oppressed, tired of the tyranny, tired of the religious persecution and moral hypocrisy. They want little more than to be free of these oppressions.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 10/12/2002, 4:05:49 PM by NorCoGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NorCoGOP
Is this really from Stanford? Did the editors slip up, and miss the lone sensible writer on campus?
2 posted on 10/12/2002, 4:42:57 PM by jimtorr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorCoGOP
There is no bigger fundamental logical flaw than attempting to argue, in all seriousness, that because someone causes a problem in the past they should not be allowed to fix it in the present.

Here's an analogy I thought of:

You set your sister up with a guy you think is nice guy. They get together. He ends up being not such a nice guy-- an abuser who threatens the well-being of your sister. So you say to yourself, "Well, I'm the one who got them together, so I have no right to go over and help her and kick this guy's ass and/or call the police."

Of course, even a liberal would think this is stupid. This is what gets me. I see these people expecting our country to react in a totally different way than the way they themselves react in situations "closer to home." Talk about hypocrites!

3 posted on 10/12/2002, 6:29:04 PM by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson