Thursday, February 20, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Mercury

Editor's Note: My verdict is in

Okay, I've finally decided: I'm against going to war with Iraq.

I've gone back and forth in recent weeks. My initial reaction was against, because war is hell and President Bush's motives are not pure.

Then I started to buy into the theory that fighting tyranny and spreading democracy are essential goals for the United States, that if military action is the only way to oust a brutal, oppressive dictator, then it must be done in the interests of freedom and progress.

I still have some sympathy for that viewpoint--I can't accept that a majority of the world's people are not free--but I'm not convinced that's how it would turn out in Iraq. New York Times columnist Bob Herbert made this point eloquently this week: "President Bush and his hawkish advisers speak blithely about a U.S.-led invasion leading to a garden of democracy blooming in the desert soil of Iraq. I wouldn't reach for my gardening tools too quickly."

The administration, Herbert notes, has said it believes it could be in and out of Iraq in two years. But most experts think that's ridiculously optimistic. A U.S. occupation of five to 10 years is more likely--and what hawkish American is going to support that with his tax dollars?

Another Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof, says Bush needs to be more realistic about the possible aftermath of a war in Iraq.

"Bush imagines the transformative effect that a democratic, stable and prospering Iraq would have on the entire Arab world. Maybe. But it...seems equally possible that invading Iraq will trigger precisely the scenario we fear--Saddam handing out anthrax or even smallpox to terrorists--and that our invasion will lead thousands of young Arabs to join Al Qaeda. Instead of becoming safer, we could be in a more perilous state than ever."

Secretary of State Colin Powell's recent report to the U.N. Security Council did not amount to a mandate for war. He appeared to reveal evidence that Iraq has some secret weapons, but much of the testimony was vague or went over the head of the average American. And who knows for sure? The United States lied like hell to its own people during the Vietnam War, and Bush's single-mindedness about Iraq suggests he's capable of doing the same.

Then there's the issue of our allies. We're pissed that Germany and France--not to mention Russia and China--won't go along with our plan. They must be a bunch of wimps, right? I'm not so sure. First of all, much more than we Americans, the Germans and French know the horrors of war. (Don't miss Greg Brown's illuminating column on France on Page 17 of this issue.) They also are more attuned to living in a world in which terrorism is part of everyday life. We might be wise to listen closely to what they have to say--to learn from them--rather than arrogantly performing the "Father Knows Best" routine. Columnist Molly Ivins puts it this way: "When all your friends think you're about to do something stupid, it might be wise to listen to them."

But it's a conditioned reaction for Americans to feel comfortable with the idea of going it alone in Iraq. After all, we have a long Hollywood tradition of heroism in which one righteous man ignores the naysayers and takes on dozens of bad guys and comes away with nary a scratch. But the Middle East is not Hollywood, and the world is a lot bigger and more complicated than an action movie. Our allies are vitally important to us, because there is strength in numbers. We may be the world's only superpower, but we aren't really capable of controlling everything. Hell, we're even having trouble controlling lowly Afghanistan.

Look, everybody agrees that Saddam Hussein has to go. Every columnist in the Western world--no matter what his or her view on the war--is desperately searching for fresh adjectives to describe Hussein's savagery. But firing off 800 cruise missiles into Baghdad in a 48-hour period is just wrongheaded. If our intention is to free the good people of Iraq from tyranny, obliterating women and children in their sleep will not help our cause.

Let's keep the inspections going. Iraq is a big country; there's still a lot of ground to cover before the inspectors' job is done. And if we actually find some weapons of mass destruction, let's confiscate them and destroy them.

Meantime, let's intensify the search for Osama bin Laden. He should be our No. 1 priority, because, unlike Saddam Hussein, he poses a direct threat to the well-being of the American people. Maybe we need to put together a larger and more visible effort to root him out.

As you may have noticed, I've written almost an entire anti-war column without mentioning oil. To me, the oil issue is tired. Sure, deposing Saddam would give oil companies access to Iraqi oil. One of the realities of freedom is that it's usually accompanied by capitalism. But I honestly don't believe lust for oil tops Bush's agenda here. There are more important and compelling reasons to oppose this war.

--GEOFF SCHUMACHER