Right now, in February 2002, the United States of America seem poised to attack their old enemies, using the "War against Terrorism" as an excuse. George W. Bush's speech about the "Axis of Evil" has irritated many, particularly the Europeans, allies of the US.

Since World War II, the US have used war as a tool of exterior politics, to a frightening extent. The US government seems to care little for the suffering this causes. Why?

Recently, a possible answer to this question popped into my head: It is because the US have never lost a war. ¹ Because they have never been bombed, invaded, occupied. They have never experienced being on the losing side, so they do not know the horror of war in one's own country. And that is why they attack other nations with little remorse: they simply do not know what they are causing.

In contrast, all European nations have had such experiences in their past. Take Germany, for example, which has been defeated, bombed, invaded and occupied twice in the last century. And the memory of that does live on, because of literature.

There is a period of post-World War II literature in Germany, called "Trümmerliteratur" (approximate translation: Rubble Literature). Authors like Heinrich Böll and Wolfgang Borchert detail the horror and insanity of the war in these books. There are also such books about World War I, for example "Im Westen nichts Neues", by Erich Maria Remarque.

It can be expected that in Germany, at least one such book is read in by everybody in high school, dispelling any illusions about war being something glorious or justified.

I do not think that there is anything comparable happening in the United States, which is why the US has a different, and in my opinion, wrong, stance on warfare.

---

¹Excepting Vietnam, where the United States can be said to have lost. But the US was never attacked on its own territory, which is the point I am trying to make here.
The fairly obvious exception to this are the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, where the US indeed was attacked on its own territory. I think that the extreme (but understandable) reaction of the American people was precisely because it was taken for granted that the US would not be attacked.

---

A few comments:

• I am serious here. This is not trolling.
• This is not meant as an attack on the American people. Nor do I seek to justify the terrorist attacks on the US.
• This is a theory of mine, not a conviction. I am willing and eager to discuss it on a rational basis.
• I am not a simplistic pacifist, but I think that the United States is going too far.

---

About the softlinking comments to the War of 1812: Granted, but that was a long while ago and a different magnitude of devastation compared to the World Wars.

---

I will eventually change this writeup to re- and deflect the points made in the two new writeups.

The problem that I have seen with the anti-war arguments coming from Europe (and some folks here in the US) over why the US should not go to war suffer from two major problems: 1) They are hypocritical and 2) they lack understanding of modern warfare.

The first point is an easy one to make. Just when, exactly, did the Germans, the French, the Dutch, the British, the Russians, or just about any other major player in Europe gain the right to criticize the United States about its past foreign policies? The argument that "Oh, all that bad stuff we did was a long time ago" is completely irrelevant, because the people who perpetrated all those horrible injustices and all that suffering against innocent and unwilling foreign citizens are just as not in control of our country as Hilter and Stalin are in control of Germany and Russia. And, if you actually research, you'll find that the United States has left as many of its conquered enemies in better economic and social shape than they were before the conflict, not to mention than if the United States hadn't intervened. See Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and the entire continent of Europe. Anyone from Europe who critisizes the U.S. for having a history of imperialism and reckless abandon when it comes to foreign countries and peoples needs to take a very close look at their own country's history before they continue to cast stones.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course, and I agree with anyone who says that the Vietnam War was a horrendous waste of lives, that the U.S. was gravely mistaken in its pre-1990 policies in the middle east regarding Iraq and Iran, or that our fight against communist powers drove us to do some pretty dispicable things in the name of national and international security. The problem is that everybody was doing those things, and focusing critisism solely upon the United States for carrying out policies meant to help keep Europe from coming under the heel of the Soviet Union is dishonest.

The second point is just as obvious. The conflict in Afghanistan saw the biggest use of precision-guided weaponry in history, and that was against a country already decimated by internal strife (which is mostly due to the Russians and their ill-conceived attempt at conquest of that poor country.) The United States has always fought the rich-man's war, and today's rich man's war is very low on collateral damage.

Ask a German, especially an elderly one, what war upon one's homeland means, and he or she will instantly conjure up images of obliterated cities, unimaginable civillian casualties, and untold economic destruction. This was the the height of American and British warfare technology in the 1940's: carpet bombing with HE and incindiary bombs using hundreds of heavy bombers such as B-17's and Lancasters, indiscriminately targeting enemy population centers.

However, we don't do that anymore. Remember? Precision bombing has all but eliminated the need for destroying entire cities just to lower enemy morale. Instead, we drop a single bomb into a ventilation duct on the top of the enemy installation, killing the military personnel inside and leaving the hospital placed conveniently next door almost completely intact, save a few broken windows and a few body parts imbedded into the outside walls. Make no mistake: civillians in any combat zone WILL die, but be wary of those who make claims about hundreds of thousands of civillian casualties, or even tens of thousands. Thanks to precision-guided weaponry, civillian casualties are truly accidents. Anyone who tells you that the United States is interested in killing civillians in large numbers is lying.

This doesn't mean that we are not willing to drop bombs on civillians if they happen to be in or in close proximity to military targets, though. I read about some clowns who are trying to drive to Iraq so that they can sit on top of military targets, because they assume that America won't drop bombs on white people. There's no way in hell they're actually going to be allowed to even enter Iraq, much less actually be allowed access to military installations for their sitting-on-top-of purposes, and they probably know this. But, be assured, if they did, they would not be spared. It's called war, and it is horrible.

The point, however, is that human suffering on a grand scale like we saw in WWII is a thing of the past, as long as we are not forced to counter a WMD strike. At that point the nightmare begins, but the U.S. will not be the ones to start it.

The REAL human suffering is happening right now, in Iraq. Remember, Iraq is a police state. In Iraq, thoughtcrime is REAL. People who are even maybe slightly suspected to be dissidents are made to dissappear. EVERYONE is afraid for their lives; less from American bombs than from Saddam's secret police.

I personally question the motives of anyone who opposes this war. If you are truly a pacifist, that's fine. However, if you think that the forced removal of the Iraqi government will cause more suffering than the alternative, you need to research research research. Find testimony from people who have escaped from Iraq. Find all the Iraqi immigrants who welcome military action against Saddam, even if it IS from the United States. Find a motive for the U.S. besides oil: if we wanted oil, we'd simply get the sanctions lifted. Oil IS a factor in this conflict, but only as a happy side effect. Anyone who tells you that the American government isn't interested in wresting control of vast reserves of natural resources away from a sadistic government that is publicly bent on our destruction is an idiot. But that oil is not ours, and the American people know it. When my government says they will hold the oil in trust for the Iraqi people, I expect them to stick by their word. If, in 10 years, we're still making more money off of it than the Iraqis are, I'm going to be pissed as all hell.

Regarding the claims that the Bush administration is not representative of the American people, I refer you to the 2002 election, in which Bush's party gained control of congress. This means that America likes what the administration is doing. I personally did not vote for Bush; I thought he was a complete moron. However, given our current situation, I think about how Clinton might have handled it, and I shudder. More importantly, I somehow think that Gore would probably have acted in a similar fashion. Bush, on the other hand, is takes the long view. The road to ruining the terrorists is a long, hard, unpopular one, but Bush decided as of 9/11 that it was time to start the journey, and he's shown that no amount of European criticism is going to deter him. I admire that, and I'm happy with the way he is handling our current situation.

Here's a hint about what we're doing: we want to get rid of terrorism. Terrorism is only effective while it is supported by the public, the so-called "Arab Street", which is the boogeyman in which our opponents put so much faith but which, so far has missed many a golden opportunity to rise up and crush us. How can the U.S. deprive the various terrorist organizations of the Middle East of their popular support? It can, for one, show the people of the middle east that a proper, secular government, even if it is formed with U.S. help, can make its people (even its women) happy, educated and successful. No matter how you define those three terms, the Iraqis have none of them now, and neither do much of the populations of other Middle Eastern countries, and neither do the Palestinians.

At the same time, we're going to be on top of terrorists in the region and those who support them like gangbusters. Once we are able to stabilize the oil market should we need to, any destabilization in the Middle Eastern governments which are trying so hard to screw us over will be all to the good.

America is through pulling punches, kids. We have the UN resolution authorizing military action; look, it says right there that if Iraq doesn't cooperate fully, they are in material breach. Some in the international community have interests which make them willing to overlook this, and they have severely damaged their relationship with the United States because of it. Is it worth it? I can't see why it would be, but I don't know all the facts. There's speculation out there that France and Germany have some very dirty secrets that an invasion of Iraq would uncover, which could rip apart not only NATO and the UN, but the EU as well, but that is merely speculation without any corroborative evidence. The point is that when the U.S. is ready, it will declare Iraq to be in material breach of UN Res. 1441 and it will attack with the full diplomatic support of at least 8 countries in Europe, with additional military support from the UK and Australia. Anyone who uses the word "unilateral" against the United States anymore in this situation is ill-informed or dishonest.

That's all I've got. Unfortunately I don't have a good closer, and I'm honest enough to admit it. Huzzah!

Rebutting the rebuttal

Many people opposed to the impending war in Iraq, including myself, are not necessarily pacifists. I believe that there are times when force is justified in solving a conflict -- examples of these include the American Revolution (to establish an independent American state), the American Civil War (to end the tyranny of slavery) and the Second World War (to stop the Germans and Japanese from dividing the world between them). Even the recent conflict in Afghanistan is justified because 1) Al Qaeda was based there, and 2) The Taliban were providing material support to Al Qaeda (and vice-versa).

However, the war in Iraq is a very different ball of wax. Unlike Al Qaeda, Iraq never attacked the United States. While Iraq has links to supporting terrorism, it does not have any documented links to Al Qaeda. Although nearly two thirds of Americans believe there were Iraqis amongst the 9/11 hijackers, this is not true -- the hijackers were Saudis and Egyptians, not Iraqis. Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction should only be a concern if Iraq uses them against another country. It's interesting to note that these weapons weren't a concern to the Reagan administration when they were used on the Kurds or the Iranians -- that they only became of interest 20 years after the fact when talk of invasion began. Of course in the 1980's, Iraq was an ally of the United States -- and the U.S. has a proven track record of looking the other way when its allies violate human rights.

Regarding Iraq's fascist treatment of its citizens -- many other nations in the region, including our "staunch allies" the Saudis, use similar tactics against their people. If it is in our interest to overthrow governments that oppress their people, then why is it that the Bush administration is not interested in dislodging the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan and Egypt? If fighting fascism is our goal here, then why don't we eliminate fascism across the globe? Why single out Iraq? Because fighting fascism isn't the goal, cheap oil is.

Regarding modern warfare -- don't be lulled into thinking that "precision" weapons are a panacea to stopping the horrors of war. Civilians are still killed by precision weapons (well-documented accounts in Afghanistan back this up, as do accounts of Israeli "precision" attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza).

President Bush and members of his cabinet have done their best to obfuscate these truths, making it appear to the American people that Iraq is an imminent threat to the United States. Meanwhile, the real enemy -- namely Al Qaeda cells operating within the continental United States -- continue to issue threats to American citizens both domestically and abroad.

If America were to invade Iraq, the Islamic world -- which is already furious with the United States -- runs the risk of becoming radicalized. Seeing Muslim civilians killed as "collateral damage" could prompt moderate Arabs to sign up with Al Qaeda and other global terror networks, making life even more dangerous for American civilians. An American occupying force in post-war Iraq would be a natural target for terror attacks.

Which brings me the subject of an American occupation of Iraq. It has been established that General Tommy Franks will be the de facto leader of Iraq while an interim government is planned. I believe -- as did the founding fathers of the United States -- that America should not be an imperial power, controlling the destinies of the citizens of other countries. We certainly shouldn't be in charge of the natural resources possessed by another country -- I can only imagine how excited American fuel companies are at the prospect of getting favored access to Iraq's vast oil reserves (note: it's been established that if the Iraqi National Congress gains control of Iraq, they will cancel all previous contracts for Iraqi oil and give preference to American and allied companies).

If Saddam Hussein poses a risk to his neighbors, then I believe he should be disarmed under the auspices of the United Nations. Under international law, America does not have the right to unilaterally invade another country that has not attacked it. Which is not to say that we haven't done that in the past -- Korea and Vietnam being prime examples of America insinuating itself into conflicts that don't involve it.

Again, I am not opposed to war as a rule -- just this one. I think it distracts us from the true war against terrorism and opens us up to greater attacks domestically. I do not trust the Bush administration -- they were not elected to office and did not even get a majority of the popular vote. They do things because it benefits their own interests, not because it benefits the American people or the world. I desperately hope that the next election cycle sees the Bush administration removed from office and replaced with a more moderate administration with a realistic view of foreign policy. I fear that our country is about to fall into a vast abyss -- an abyss that will drown us worse than Vietnam, worse than the Cold War.