| Subject: Neale's 10 questions miss the mark! |
Author:
Ty Pollak
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 22:23:40 03/11/03 Tue
Somebody has to say it, and so I will: The Libertarian Party is wrong on Iraq. I will not make a case why we should attack Iraq -- I won't even say whether we should or should not. However, I contend that the LP is asking the wrong questions on Iraq. The LP is incorporating the politics of partisanship and avoiding the real issues in this whole debate. In their anti-war fervor, the LP's position more closely resembles that of the spoiled 20-something chanting "down with capitalism" while wearing the latest Tommy Boy jeans. In the process, they are in danger of further distancing themselves from the American voters and being branded as just another hippie opposition group.
Before I continue, let me be clear here. I am not saying that the LP should sacrifice its principles in order to appeal to conservative voters. Far from it. However, the LP should be committed to honestly assessing the real issues in the War on Terror and Iraq, and not just distribute anti-administration dogma appealing to emotion rather than reason. The LP should be encouraging a real debate on how to reconcile a policy of non-intervention with the reality of terrorists working to develop methods to kill millions of Americans. Whether this is the case or not in Iraq may be debatable -- but dismissing the threat completely is irresponsible. We've seen what 19 men with boxcutters can do -- now imagine terrorists with anthrax, smallpox, nerve agents, or nukes. It's not a pretty picture.
In this article, I'll address the 10 questions the LP is challenging Bush to address (as outlined on the LP homepage):
LP: (1) Isn’t it possible that invading Iraq will cause more terrorism than it prevents?
Geoffrey Neale, LP National Chair, asks, "The al-Qaeda network has explicitly threatened to murder innocent Americans in retaliation for a U.S. raid on Iraq, why hasn’t Mr. Bush addressed this possibility?"
This is a ridiculous question because al-Qaeda has already murdered 3,000 innocent Americans -- and before we had any plans to attack Iraq. Is Mr. Neale now suggesting that questions related to our national security should be decided by a terrorist network dedicated to destroying our way of life? I'm not saying we should or shouldn't act, but we should certainly NOT need al-Qaeda's blessing. And I believe the administration has addressed the possibility of increased terrorism, as the nation's defense forces have been on heightened alert for several weeks now.
Certainly, long-term increases in terrorism are a factor we must consider. Historically, however, it is when the U.S. shows weakness, not strength, that terrorists become emboldened to act against us, as was the case in the 1970s and 1990s. Terrorism against Americans decreased markedly after the U.S. strike on Qaddafi's terror facilities in Operation EL DORADO CANYON in April 1986. In the 1990s, attacks against the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the African embassies, and the World Trade Center (not 9/11) were all met with half-hearted responses intended for show not effect. Thus, the result was a growing, not shrinking, terrorist network plotting to attack America.
LP: (2) If Saddam is really a threat to the Middle East, why do his neighbors seem to fear him less than the U.S. government does?
"None of the countries bordering Iraq have been clamoring for the United States to protect them from Saddam," Neale noted. "So how can Bush argue that Saddam poses a threat to a nation halfway around the globe?"
First of all, who doesn't think Saddam is a threat? Did you ask Kuwait? Israel? Qatar? Bahrain? Turkey? The Iraqi Kurd's? The Iraqi people? There are plenty of countries that support U.S. involvement. But even if there were ZERO countries wanting us involved, that's not the issue anyway. America's purpose in disarming Saddam should be to protect America, not regional powers that already hate democracy and the West. So the question is flawed from the outset. As for the second part, again I remind you of 9/11. A small group of men armed with just boxcutters were certainly a threat half-way around the world, would you not agree? Again I'm not saying whether we should or shouldn't attack, but Mr. Neale's question is irrelevant in the debate.
LP: (3) Why do you maintain that Iraq poses a more immediate threat than North Korea?
So you think that N. Korea is the bigger threat? Where were you before N. Korea got nukes -- the ones we helped them build as they lied to the world throughout the 1990s. Is the LP saying that N. Korea is a threat now that we let them lie, we didn't confront them, and they developed nukes under UN inspectors' noses? And their response is to let Saddam continue to lie, avoid confronting him, and continue inspections? Is this a consistent argument? Hardly.
Fact is, the easiest way to disarm a country is before they have nukes, not after. Would the LP rather we wait until Iraq is a bigger threat than N. Korea (meaning they have more nukes, by their rationale), and then address the threat? The N. Korea question is merely politicking by the Democrats and the LP. If Bush said, fine you're right, let's invade N. Korea first, then Iraq, would Mr. Neale be happy? Likely not.
Moreover, this question shows a naivete about the conditions of the two countries. N. Korea is saber-rattling because they are in dire economic straits and are likely seeking American aid in a deal. If N. Korea acts too aggressively, they will hurt their own cause by creating a climate favorable to greater U.S. involvement in northeast Asia and they'll lose the economic aid they need (a good argument why global welfare makes the world less safe, by the way). The Middle East is just the opposite. Saddam isn't saber-rattling. He's hiding his sabers, in fact. It's not a show for handouts, as he's been in a perpetual state of war with one or another of his neighbors or internal population groups for the last 20 years, and terrorists are certainly in a real war with America as well. The idealogical motivations versus economic motivations should be dealt with differently.
As an illustration of the silliness of the N. Korea argument, imagine if you had high cholesterol and one day you broke your foot. The high cholesterol might kill you someday, but your foot hurts now and can be treated now. Would you not see a doctor about your foot because the high cholesterol is the bigger threat anyway? Again, I'm not saying we should or shouldn't act, but the N. Korea argument is an excuse, not an argument.
LP: (4) Why do you believe a U.S.-led “regime change” will do any more good in Iraq than it did in Panama, Haiti, or Bosnia?
“Like previous presidents, the Bush administration promises to topple a tyrant and liberate the nation,” Neale observed. “But if the history of U.S. intervention is any guide, Bush will merely replace one dictator with another.”
Again Mr. Neale misses the point. The real issue is protecting Americans, not nation building. The goal is to remove a dictator who has tried to develop weapons of mass destruction for the past 15 years and has even used them on his own people, and would not mind seeing them used on us. If his successor continues to build WMDs and seriously threatens our security, then we should remove him, too. Again, whether Saddam poses that threat or not may be debatable, but the argument that his successor may be just as bad is no argument. Just a side note, we elect new Presidents every 4 years, and historically, each one is about as bad as the previous one, but we still hold the elections anyway.
LP: (5) You say Saddam has refused to comply with U.N. weapons inspectors. Does that mean that you intend to subject Americans to U.N. mandates in the future?
That's the first reasonable thing the LP has asked so far. We're in danger of creating a monster if we rely on the UN argument to attack Iraq. The only argument to go or not to go is whether America's self-defense requires it or not. UN mandates are ancillary and are only useful in that they may help us build a coalition to get the job done quicker, with less loss of life, and resulting in a more stable regional order.
LP: (6) You point out that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that “could” be turned over to terrorists. But couldn’t the same be said of Pakistan, North Korea, and dozens of other nations? And do you intend to launch pre-emptive strikes against them as well?
Another fair question. Obviously in the case of Pakistan, the U.S. government has been working very hard to develop a relationship to fight terrorists. My response to your question would be that we should do what's necessary for our self-defense, on a case-by-case basis. Foreign affairs is not one size fits all.
LP: (7) Won’t attacking Iraq make Saddam more likely to launch a biological or chemical attack?
Anything is possible in war, that's why it should never be entered into callously. But there are ways to mitigate the risks, such as parallel attacks on chem/bio sites and disruption of Iraqi command and control networks. Pulling your gun on an intruder in your home may increase the risk that somebody might get shot, but doesn't mean your self-defense is immoral. Again, I'm not saying an attack is moral or not, I'm just making the point that risks of war do not negate the justification of war. Even peace has its risks.
LP: (8) Considering that many of the September 11 hijackers were Saudi nationals – not Iraqis – why haven’t you publicly accused the Saudi government of sponsoring terrorism?
The principle "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" may apply here. Confronting the Saudis now would make use of their airspace and airfields more difficult. In addition, the U.S. would be in a much stonger position to deal with the Saudis after our resolve has been demonstrated, and the Iraqi power vacuum has been created, giving the U.S. a big carrot to offer the Saudis in exchange for their increased crackdown on terrorist supporters. I won't defend the Saudi government, but keep in mind that the Oklahoma City bombers were Americans, but it wasn't the U.S. government behind it. The argument that "he's doing it, too" is about as effective as it was in third grade.
LP: (9) Why have you stopped mentioning the name of the one individual who has been most closely linked to the 9/11 attacks: Osama bin Laden?
I suppose once Osama kicks the bucket, the world will be safe? This argument is the ultimate lack of reason. It is like asking why arrest a murderer when the FBI's top ten are still at large. It also shows a lack of understanding of where to put your resources. You use your resources where they can best provide a return. We can use our conventional military to face another conventional military in an environment suited to our advantages in Iraq, or we can use it in the most inefficient manner possible by scouring mountain sides with hundred of thousands of troops to maybe find one person with no weapons, little command and control capabilities, and possibly even near death anyway. Which makes sense?
And besides that, who says we've given up on bin Laden? Nobody said finding him would be easy. But don't think that once he's found, Americans will be any safer than they are today.
LP: (10) Finally, Mr. President, if your Iraq policy is so successful, why are Americans more afraid than ever?
This is no argument. First of all, Americans are not more afraid than ever. Americans were more afraid on September 12, 2001. Americans were more afraid when they had to inspect their mail for deadly anthrax in 2001. Americans were more afraid when they went to war with the world's only superpower in 1775. On the contrary, Americans were very unafraid on September 10, 2001. But obviously that sense of safety on September 10th was no measure of our security's success.
Conclusion
Resorting to worn-out, irrational arguments is not an adequate response for a party that wishes to be taken seriously at the national level (or as seriously as Democrats at least). The LP must help formulate solutions and make recommendations as to how we can improve our national security. I think the LP already has the right ideas to make America a safer place, and at a lesser cost than we are paying today. But these ideas are taking a back seat as the LP regurgitates recycled arguments that should be far beneath the Party of Principle.
If these 10 questions were meant to make the LP's case against an attack in Iraq, they failed miserably. The case seems to be (1) N. Korea is worse, (2) Al-Qaeda will get mad, (3) Iraq's neighbors aren't upset, (4) Saddam's successor might be bad, too, (5) Saudi Arabia is bad, too, (6) bin Laden is bad, too, and (7) people are scared. I'm very disappointed to see that none of the LP's principles were included as part of their arguments.
The Party of Principle? Not on this issue.
http://www.semperpius.com
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 