Recently I have found myself arguing with my parents about the situation in Iraq. They believe that the Bush Administration is being too aggressive, and that France, Germany and Russia are taking the right approach. As a result, I find myself leaning toward supporting war solely out of spite. It angers me to see people becoming Saddam Hussein apologists just to protest the Bush Administration. Supporting action in Iraq is now synonymous with supporting George W. Bush. However, not everyone who could be labeled a “hawk” or a pro-war supporter wants to see the Bush war unfold the way it has been laid out. I can tell you that, because I am one of them.
As for those in the “peace movement,” I have to ask what peace are they trying to maintain? There is no peace within Iraq, and anything resembling peace is only affected at the hands of a ruthless dictator. Are we referring simply to peace as the United States not going to war? Is this a movement to “protect our boys” and to avoid military action? To argue against a war because we may suffer some casualties is a reasonable argument. However, one must realize that this is a selfish argument. It stresses that the lives of our military are more valuable (and, at least in a five- or ten-to-one ratio) than the people of Iraq. Further, the people who make up our armed forces are committed to preserving and protecting democracy. They know the risks involved and unlike most of the people protesting the war, are willing to fight and die to see that our ideals are maintained. If you are willing to admit that your argument is selfish, then I can at least respect it.
Some will claim that any U.S.-led action is a sign of arrogance. The fact that the United States may have to take action on its own, or with the support of only a few countries, is not a sign of arrogance, but a sign of the failure of the United Nations. The Iraqi people should not be punished because some are bitter about the power the United States has obtained. It is sad to see U.N. nations act with indifference towards the Iraqi people as they fight for the moral high ground.
It is time for someone to step up and say that we will not stand by and watch as people are denied basic human rights and basic human dignity. Some will say it is not our role to interfere in the matters of other countries. Tell that to the people who watch generations of poverty-stricken children grow up to become suicide bombers. They may think their enemy is the United States, or “the West,” but the true problem lies within their own leadership. They exploit their own people and paint the West as a scapegoat.
We need to overcome the stereotype. It is time that we finally follow our lofty words with action. The Iraqi people have a right to be wary of the United States We literally left them hanging a decade ago. We owe it to them to show that we are not what their leaders claim we are. If we can do that, we can open the door for peace and freedom.
Just as when our forces drove through the streets of Kuwait, our troops, when they drive through postwar Baghdad, will be greeted by thousands of cheering Iraqis flying American flags. This is not an idealist vision, but one based on the experience of the past. They will like us when we win. The years of hatred instilled by their dictators, reinforced by the millions of deaths from years of bitter and fruitless war, will fade.
I do not want to see a U.S.-run Iraq. I do not want a mission to plunder the resources of a foreign country. I do not want a new wave of American imperialism. Bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq will demonstrate to the rest of the Middle East that peace is possible. That working together for a common goal is possible. That there is an alternative to violence, an alternative to watching generation after generation of martyrs die in vain for a purpose with no future.
Why the United States should take on the role of the world’s policeman? Because no one else will. The United Nations has made it clear it is not fit for the role. It presents the image of peace and order without the ability to enforce or secure it. I do not want war, but I am willing to accept it as a final option.
The stakes are high. Not just in Iraq, but in other regions around the world. It is time that we no longer stand by and say that it’s someone else’s problem, or that it’s their problem and not our problem. It is our problem. It is everyone’s problem. Where has the peace movement been for the decades that Saddam has abused his power? Oppose the George W. Bush war, oppose the broken “war on terror” strategies and oppose the glaringly misguided foreign policy of the administration—but don’t oppose helping people truly in need. Protest Bush’s war, but also protest Saddam’s war against his own people.
Dave Stroup is a first-year in the School of Foreign Service and assistant voices editor of the Georgetown Voice.
