All the wrong answers

By Lady Liberty
web posted June 6, 2005

Memorial Day, 2005 wasn't really been any different than
Memorial Day, 2004. Too many people still consider it a day for
picnics, summer fun, and super sales events; too few people
remember why we set such a day aside in the first place. As
American soldiers continue to fight and die overseas, it's more
appropriate than ever that we all stop for a moment to consider
their sacrifice as well as all that those who have gone before
them have given.

At the same time, our respect for our military men and women is
doubtless mitigated by doubts over the "war" in which they're
currently engaged. Make no mistake: I support our military
troops. I don't necessarily oppose war, and there are
circumstances under which I'd quite enthusiastically support it.
There are some very good reasons that a nation might find itself
at war. There are also some very bad ones.

I understand that when there's a threat, a country must respond
to neutralize that threat. When America was attacked on
September 11, 2001 and a "war on terrorism" was declared
shortly thereafter, I agreed with the declaration. Though
retaliation was doubtless at the front of some minds, the bottom
line was that we knew who had orchestrated that attack and we
thought we knew where to find him. Taking Osama bin Laden
into custody was far less a matter of revenge than it was a way
of decreasing the risk of such attacks in the future.

Osama bin Laden was, Americans were told, holed up
somewhere in Afghanistan. We demanded the Afghans turn him
over; when they didn't, we went into their country to get him
ourselves. In the process, we essentially overthrew a government
that dearly needed overthrowing. Forget that it was earlier CIA
activities that had trained bin Laden and provided for the Taliban
to come to power in the first place. What was important now
was catching and trying the man responsible for the horror that
was 9/11! And if Afghanistan was actively hiding him, well then
Afghanistan was essentially an accessory to the crime.

Somehow, over the intervening months and years, Iraq became a
target of American wrath. The "war on terror" was extended
beyond those we were told were responsible for previous
attacks to those who were responsible for training those who
might prove responsible for future attacks. Our government said
that Iraq was a country that encouraged terrorism. In fact,
officials told us Saddam Hussein had collected various "weapons
of mass destruction" himself, and thus he was a threat, too.

Enter the American military, and exit Saddam Hussein. This is a
good thing, right? Well, yes. But not really.

Saddam Hussein is — let's be frank with each other — not a
nice guy. He's done some very bad things to the Iraqi people,
and even worse things to minority people who happened to have
been unfortunate enough to live in Iraq. But lots of countries have
bad leaders, and we don't invade them! Still, other countries with
bad leaders aren't collecting "weapons of mass destruction," so...

But wait! UN inspectors never found WMDs in Iraq. It is, of
course, entirely probable that the Iraqi government was playing a
very clever shell game with inspectors, and that they inspected
places where the weapons weren't. By the time they transported
themselves to places where the weapons were, they'd been
moved to already inspected venues, and once again inspectors
found nothing. For week after week, the recipe was a simple
one: mix thoroughly and repeat. Yet now that the American
military can look wherever it likes in Iraq, the evidence of
WMDs is still far less then we were originally led to believe.
(Testimony before Congress offered some suggestions as to why
such evidence wasn't readily found; other experts suggest that
the real reason nothing was found was because there wasn't
anything there in the first place.)

Some in the American public tend not to be particularly quiet
when they think they've been lied to. And so the Bush
administration has had to deal with more than a few accusations
and questions thrown at it about the mysterious "we-know-he-
had-them-but-we-can't-prove-a-thing" WMDs in Iraq.
Mumblings about the relocation of WMDs out of the country
aside (which might, in the end, provide some kind of rationale to
invade somewhere else), we've never gotten a truly solid
response to the media's version of "where's the beef?"

Instead, Americans were spoonfed stories of attrocities
committed by Saddam Hussein, his military, and his henchmen.
The word "genocide" was even dusted off and used in somber
tones. The truth is that the previous Iraqi government did engage
in some truly reprehensible behaviors. Kurds were gassed and
otherwise murdered (even recent news reflects the discovery of
still more Kurdish victims, mostly women and children in this
case). Dissidents were shot en masse and buried in group
graves.

If there were ever a reason to go into a foreign country and,
through strength of arms, overthrow a leader, genocide would be
it. Who among us would, after all, suggest that Hitler shouldn't
have been stopped from killing so many Jews, or that Pol Pot
shouldn't have been shot before he was able to summarily
execute so many of his own countrymen? But even such a valid
argument coming from the administration is hollow when Iraq is
attacked, but Rwanda is not. After all, according to a news
report from PBS, "...the Rwandan government launched a
genocidal campaign against Tutsis living in Rwanda. According
to reports, over 800,000 people were slaughtered over a period
of 100 days." Where was the American military then?

We've also been informed that Saddam Hussein supported
terrorism, financially and otherwise. That accusation actually
happens to be demonstrably true. He very publicly, for example,
offered money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers as
well as to those families who suffered a loss in fighting in the
Israeli-Palestinean conflict. But is that kind of thing enough to
send troops to invade a soverign country and depose its leader?
If it were, why haven't we taken out the leader of Libya who has
been quite encouraging of such behaviors in the past? How
about Syria, where terrorists know they'll find safe harbor? And
if financial incentive alone is enough, why not Saudi Arabia
where there seems to be a solid money trail that leads directly to
the villain who started this whole conflict, Osama bin Laden?

In short, the problem with the war in Iraq isn't the war in Iraq.
It's the reasons we're given for the war that are either wrong or,
at best, covers for the real reasons. Many suggest that the real
reason behind this war is oil. They could be right. On the other
hand, the one thing most guaranteed to keep the oil flowing is
stability. And say whatever else you will about Saddam Hussein,
his government was stable! Are there reasons that warrant US
military action in Iraq? Possibly. But if there are, I can't recall
having heard them.

Meanwhile, the rationale that we're most likely going to continue
to hear is that the war in Iraq is part and parcel of the "war on
terror." That's at least in part because so many of us don't much
like terrorism. It's also a "safe" reason because it's almost
impossible to argue against. If you do, that must mean you're for
terrorism, and that's as bad as some of the things Saddam
Hussein himself has said and done! In fact, there have been more
than a few implications that speaking out against the war in Iraq
or the "war on terror" as a whole might be considered criminal
acts in and of themselves.

The "war on terror" also has the added bonus of covering a lot of
ground with one explanation. Not only does it provide an
unassailable (well, not quite, but that doesn't mean it's not treated
that way) reason to take our military into other countries, it offers
a handy cover for the attack on American liberties as well. Don't
want curbs on your First Amendment rights? No one does, but
it's important in the "war on terror." Worried about losing your
Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights? We're sorry, but some
temporary inroads are necessary for the duration of the "war on
terror." Concerned about your rapidly disappearing privacy?
We're all concerned, but it's a small sacrifice to make for
increased safety while we fight the "war on terror."

The questions are many and varied: Why are we fighting in Iraq?
Why must Americans be subjected to a national ID card? Why
is the administration starting to make the occasional rumble about
Iran being "next?" Why is the supposedly temporary PATRIOT
Act extending law enforcement powers being considered not just
for permanency but for expansion? The only answer we're given
time and again is that our sacrifices are for the "war on terror."

It's been suggested that one reason American was attacked was
because our attackers don't like freedom (I personally believe
there's a little more to it than that, but agree that our freedom —
including those aspects fundamentalist Muslims consider to be
sinful — played a role). If that's the case, perhaps the "war on
terror" has made us safer after all. Oh, not because any of the
policies actually work, but rather because those policies are
taking away the very freedom the terrorists were supposedly
aiming at.

It's ironic, isn't it, that our soldiers are fighting in the name of
freedom for Americans and for others, but at home we're losing
the war thanks to those who are ostensibly on our side. While
we honor our fallen soldiers on Memorial Day, perhaps we can
remember the rest of the parties in this "war" on Election Day.
That would be a suitable memorial indeed!

Lady Liberty is a graphic designer and pro-freedom activist
currently residing in the Midwest. More of her writings and other
political and educational information is available on her web site,
Lady Liberty's Constitution Clearing House, at
http://www.ladylibrty.com. E-mail Lady Liberty at
ladylibrty@ladylibrty.com.

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com