 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The President has insisted for months now that invading Iraq was nothing more than an example of justifiable self-defense. Before the American armed forces liberated the Iraqi people from the dictatorial grip of Saddam Hussein, the President told us that Saddam represented a threat to the United States sufficiently dire and immediate that the American government had no choice but to take him out. Not to have engaged in this preemptive defense would have been criminally negligent.
The citizens of this country were assured that the Administration had proof positive that the Iraqis possessed those infamous weapons of mass destruction. Not only did the Iraqis have chemical WMD's such as those they wielded against their own people, they had (or soon would have) at their disposal biological and nuclear weapons. Stories surfaced that massive quantities of these agents resided in Iraq ready to be used not only against any American troops that entered the country but against citizens within our own borders, as well. If we did not act immediately, Iraqi agents or terrorists sympathetic to Saddam would unleash these horrors on American citizens. Tens or hundreds of thousands -- perhaps even millions -- of innocent people would die terrible deaths.
After the President declared that major combat in Iraq was over, his people scoured the cities and arid landscape of Iraq for the WMD's that would be the incontrovertible evidence required to show critics of the war how wrong they were to oppose this example of preemptive retaliation. Unfortunately, every promising lead regarding the location of a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon delivered only heartbreak and disappointment. Though U.S. troops had feared that Saddam would, in his final hours of control, realize he had nothing to lose in launching these fearful agents in an act of revenge and frustration, no such attacks materialized.
This lack of evidence fueled new fears. Where had the WMD's gone? Their disappearance indicated to the President that the weapons had been dispersed to other nations friendly to Saddam or to terrorists who would be far less reluctant than the deposed dictator to strike Americans on their own soil. During this same time, public emphasis for the justification of the war shifted from the imminent danger Saddam represented to the American people to the tortures committed by this fiend against his own citizens. The Iraqi people needed to be freed, and the U.S. dedicated itself to that proposition. We had no choice but to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people at the hands of their leader. We would create a democratic Iraq.
Securing freedom for the Iraqi people was a necessary and sufficient reason for the billions of dollars American taxpayers were spending in this conflict. The trickle of American deaths that has now surpassed the casualty count incurred during major combat operations would not deter us from achieving our goals of giving hope to the Iraqis. Regardless of the costs, we would restore basic services to the Iraqis: water, electricity, roads, oil, schools, police. Sabotage, hit-and-run rocket attacks, car bombs...nothing would -- or will -- cause us to waver in our endeavors. Indeed, the more vicious the assaults, the more we can be confident that the enemies of freedom and democracy are growing increasingly desperate and hopeless. They are merely ratcheting up their activities because they recognize the inevitable and impending collapse of their twisted cause.
With the rise of a free Iraq -- a shining example for its neighbors -- liberty would spread to the other benighted realms of the Middle East. Once the other countries in the region recognized the benefits of this arrangement, they would toss out their own despotic rulers and join the brotherhood of civilized nations. Coupled with the good deeds we rendered to the Iraqis in stopping the barbarities perpetrated by Saddam, this new, stable order would ensure future American security.
For any remaining doubters, the Administration had a sober question: would you rather we have waited to invade Iraq only after an American city lay glowing in the deadly night of a nuclear holocaust?
The only patriotic response was to recognize our duty. Even if no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, the United States acted properly and morally in invading Iraq before we were directly attacked by the madman Hussein. The President made it perfectly clear that such a preemptive action was proper regardless of whether Iraq had actual WMD's or merely programs for creating WMD's or merely plans to develop programs for creating WMD's somewhere down the line. We knew what Hussein would have done had we sat idly by twiddling our collective thumbs. We had to topple him before that very real danger materialized and we were too late to forestall needless megadeaths. Don't forget that adage: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Better to do something than nothing in the face of a threat we are positive was and is substantial and real. No sitting passively while "gathering threats...become certain tragedies," as the Vice-President stated. He was adamant that "weakness and drift and vacillation in the face of danger invite attacks."
Even though I wrote a number of articles criticizing a prospective war against Iraq and, later, what occurred after the United States established its control in Baghdad, perhaps I should accept the reasons and justifications offered by the Administration as a general principle worthy of respect. Indeed, by adopting the Administration's rationale for stopping in its tracks a hazard that is virtually inevitable, we lovers of freedom can resolve a conundrum that has generated considerable heat in the libertarian community.
I have maintained for quite awhile that, fundamentally, we cease to be free when the State places its noose around our necks. Once that occurs, at best we can claim to be enslaved to a greater or less degree. Sometimes the noose merely dangles around our throats to the point where we barely notice its presence. The State may, on occasion, even lengthen the leash attached to that noose so we have more room to roam. But it can -- at its discretion -- yank that noose tight and shorten the leash until we choke from its grip. In contrast, freedom is an either/or proposition. Once the principle is violated -- and the victims docilely accept that violation as proper or acceptable -- freedom vanishes.
Beyond this fact, I have also advanced the case that the United States is now a fascist police state. In keeping with the reality of our vanished freedom, the State believes it can dictate to its citizens regarding any and all aspects of life, even if it has not yet gotten around to doing so.
Various liberty-minded people have chastised me for these views since it is blatantly obvious and true that I can still write such essays as this one without being tossed in the slammer. (I guess such critics must also believe that an oak tree is not an oak tree until it is fully grown or a person does not have cancer until the cancer grows to terminal size...)
Enter the Administration's principle.
No need any longer to argue whether the United States is or when it will become a dictatorship. No need to wrestle with how much is too much abuse. No need to agonize over when working within the system is a viable option and when it is proper and moral to take direct action.
All such doubts and concerns disappear with the Administration's principle to guide us.
Just as the President knew that Hussein's growing threat would turn into a tragedy for us if left unchallenged; just as he knew that weakness and uncertainty on our part would lead to more attacks; just as he knew it was better for us to attack than to do nothing, so, too, can the last defenders of liberty in this country rest easy in the certain knowledge that whatever they do to halt the depredations of a government we know has already demonstrated its willingness to devastate and kill is justified because of what the State might or could do someday. Who could doubt it? After all, the President has told us in no uncertain terms that the best defense is a good offense.
Let's believe him.
