The War On Terror?

President Bush talks about “The War on Terror” quite often. His critics undoubtedly know he is playing politics with the concept of terrorism; and his supporters, I can only guess, eat this up and have their love of country and flag reinforced each time he makes the point we have an enemy that “hates us for our freedoms”. And, this is all fine and dandy in the game of politics. Well, fine and dandy isn’t exactly accurate; but it is at least legal to do this even though it shows a lack of character, honesty and integrity on his part. But, now he is using “The War on Terror” to justify what are most likely illegal activities such as spying on Americans without a warrant, so it is time to set the record straight…

We are not at war with terrorism. We are, however, coincidentally still in a war/occupation of Iraq; and we have some military activity going on in Afghanistan even though that country, where Osama Bin Laden probably is hiding, has fallen so far off of the President’s plate he couldn’t find it on a map, but I digress. Back to the war on terror… It is not a real war, and The President must stop confusing a marketing slogan with the actual definition of war. There is a situation that we need to deal with regarding terrorism, and we should be allocating resources towards this, but it is a war the same way that we have a war on drugs - except for the fact that terror is actually a bad thing that should be fought against.

Or, perhaps a better analogy is The Cold War. We had a struggle against The Soviet Union that lasted almost 50 years, and they were a great concern to us over that entire time, and they required that a lot of our resources be committed towards them. We called it The Cold War, but that was just a phrase to define the struggle - it was not really a war. And, The War on Terror is not really a war. World War II was a war. The Vietnam War was a war, and even The Iraq War (if that is the name that will stick to it) is a war.

The War on Terror is a phrase that helps us easily label this struggle we are faced with. It is a struggle against an unknown number of Muslim people, who are not affiliated with any particular recognized governments, who want to influence the world through random acts of violence that we in our country cannot understand. Acts of terrorism have been going on for decades, but we chose in our own minds to take these acts seriously after Sept 11th, and to make the fight against this ideology a main focus of this country. Hence, the term War on Terror was coined to describe this new state of affairs.

But, as the president himself stated in a Today Show interview over a year ago, "I don't think you can win (the war on terror)". I disagree slightly – we may win it in 50 years or more like we did The Cold War, but I agree with him that it will not be won in two, three, or even eight years the way we could win a regular war. The reason for that is because it is not a real war; it is a concept which explains our struggle against a certain ideology, and it will take generations to defeat or change this ideology.

Therefore, it is completely illogical for anyone to suggest, as the president has, that the rules of war apply towards the war on terror, which could conceivably last for generations or forever. And, when it comes to the rule of law, we cannot bend or break these rules based on the fact that we are supposedly at war with terrorism because that might mean we are suspending these laws and some of our civil liberties forever. Likewise, we have not agreed as a nation – through the courts or the legislature - to grant any president more executive power than those already granted him by the constitution. For a president to circumvent the law and arbitrarily grant himself more executive powers based on the notion that we are at war - when we are not really at war - is tantamount to a dictatorial power grab.

If we give the president the benefit of the doubt then we can assume that it’s not his intention to seize power for himself, but rather that he actually believes he has this authority as he has been claiming in his defense. We are then faced with a case where his incompetence and dishonesty has come back to haunt us once again. He has been playing politics with “The War on Terror” for so long that he has begun to believe his own exaggerated rhetoric. If he can’t see the difference between an actual war and a struggle against an ideology that might last forever then this speaks to his inability to understand the geopolitical nature of the world. Who knows what else he has already done or might do all in the name of “The War on Terror”? So far what he has done, aside from authorizing illegal eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, is create a potential constitutional crisis.

We Were Better Off With Saddam

The Democrats and the main stream media are too cautious to say it as matter-of-factly as this, but here is the truth: The world was safer with Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq. The world was better off. Yes, he killed his own people and he had torture chambers and rape rooms as we've heard about countless times - though nowadays you have to assume that all these charges have been exaggerated like all of our other intelligence and rhetoric about Iraq. But even so, it is still an undeniable fact that Iraq was not a good country to live in for most of its people, and especially not so for anyone who saw the inside of one of these rape rooms or torture chambers. However, with that said, for the rest of the world Iraq was a better place with Saddam Hussein in power.

With Saddam in power there was practically no al Qaeda presence in Iraq. With Saddam in power there was very little chance of a civil war breaking out. With Saddam in power Iraq and Iran were bitter enemies. With Saddam in power Iraqis did not like their leader and therefore were not influenced by his hateful rhetoric towards the United States. Had Saddam stayed in power the world would have never heard of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. With Saddam in power there would be more than 2,100 American soldiers still alive and another 15,000 wounded soldiers that would be whole again and could help fight in the real war on terror. With Saddam in power the Iraqi oil fields would be protected from sabotage and would be producing at maximum output. With Saddam in power America might have better used our resources and have found Osama Bin Laden by now which would have greatly added to the safety and security of the world.

And finally, with Saddam Hussein in power America and our allies would still have had a chance at a transition from a brutal dictatorship in Iraq to something that loosely resembles a democracy, which is the best thing we could hope for today, but which doesn’t look likely at this point. Saddam was and is an old man. He would have died eventually. Worst case scenario is that we could've contained him for however long he had left, be it 10 or 20 years, and then at the time of his death we would have had our chance to achieve a more democratic Iraq. At the least we would have given ourselves a better chance at this goal than we gave ourselves through a confused and bungled invasion.

Saddam ruled with an iron fist; but he was a strong, smart, and practical brutal dictator. Evil though he may be, to remain in power for almost 25 years you have to have some sanity and intelligence. His sons Uday and Qusay, who we feared would succeed him, were brutal to a point of insanity and that is why there had already been attempts on their lives from within the ranks of the Iraqi government. They did not appear strong and capable of holding onto power for any sustained period of time.

This would've been America's chance to try to accomplish what we wanted to do from the beginning with this invasion - help influence a new Iraqi government that would be more stable and friendlier towards the United States. If it was a loosely held together version of democracy then we would have been thrilled with that. If it was a friendlier dictator than Saddam, then we would accept that the same way we accept the Saudi Royal Family, “President” Musharraf in Pakistan, or “President” Mubarak in Egypt.

That is the world that could’ve been had we not invaded Iraq. That is a better future than we are faced with today. It is an alternate universe where America is not as vehemently hated throughout the Arab world and not mistrusted and looked down upon by the rest of the world. The price to pay for this alternate universe is that there would’ve been many more women in Iraq that were raped by government officials, and there would’ve been more innocent Iraqi citizens killed and tortured including those poor Iraqi Olympic athletes we heard about who did nothing wrong except come home without a medal. But, since when do Americans care about paying a small price in other people’s pain and suffering in order for us to achieve our ends?

In the current universe we inhabit there have been estimates of more than 115,000 Iraqi civilians killed since the war began, and there have been innocent men tortured by Americans, all for the greater good of a stable Iraq. Those who support this war do not lose sleep over these incidents. It’s a necessary price to pay for a better future for all of us they would say. But, this price being paid has not and will not give us a better future. We could’ve had a chance at that better future by not invading Iraq. Some other Iraqis would’ve suffered for this instead, but why not let that have been the price to pay for the greater good of maintaining world stability, which we would have done by letting Saddam remain in power - even until his eventual death if need be; or until we found another way to remove him that didn’t include invasion and occupation.

Recently the debate about the Iraq War has more focused on what our next step should be – what is our exit strategy? The focus on whether or not we were better off with Saddam in power does not answer this question because reinstalling Saddam is not a viable option. However, recognizing our mistakes is important in order to come up with a solution. Many Republicans try to trap and intimidate the Democrats with questions and/or statements about how the world is better off with Saddam behind bars. The Democrats can’t seem to find the proper answer to this tactic because Saddam was such an evil person that nobody wants to defend him or the notion that we were better off with his rape rooms and torture chambers open for business. But, they need to arm themselves with the facts and with the solid logic behind the idea that we were better off with him in power. Say it proudly and say it with conviction and support it with the common sense logic which should make any rationale person realize that of course we were better off with Saddam in power.

The reason it is still important to have this debate is because the Democrats need to get over this hurdle that the Republicans keep trying to block them with. The Democrats need to get beyond this and defeat the Republicans in this debate before they can move forward and come up with some realistic strategies for handling the Iraq debacle. As it stands now we can’t move forward and find a solution until we agree on what the starting point of the conversation should be. And, it starts with people understanding that the war was a mistake, that we were better off with Saddam in power; and that any neo con who states the opposite has revealed poor judgment to be an obvious character trait of theirs. Then everybody else can get on the same page, acknowledge and learn from past mistakes, and work together at coming up with realistic solutions. Until that happens, the quagmire will persist.