Dear Editor:
It is most unfortunate that columnist Doug Meier has decided to
join the ranks of those vying to create turgidly heart-tugging
prose to describe the Iraqi victims of Saddam Hussein as a
counter-weight to the voices opposing war, whom he almost-cleverly
characterizes as
”
passivists.
”
Dear Editor:
It is most unfortunate that columnist Doug Meier has decided to join the ranks of those vying to create turgidly heart-tugging prose to describe the Iraqi victims of Saddam Hussein as a counter-weight to the voices opposing war, whom he almost-cleverly characterizes as “passivists.” Mr. Meier, have you really thought through the consequences of this ersatz humanitarianism?
Certainly the Iraqi people have suffered under Saddam; in fact, they’ve been suffering under him for three decades. But there was no great public outcry in America; no president – not Saint Ronnie, not Bigbush, not Clinton, and not even Littlebush prior to 9/11(with which there is absolutely no evidence Saddam was in any way connected) made a move to end, or visibly care about, the oppression. At the time of his most notorious atrocity, the gassing of the Kurds in the late 80s, Saddam was nominally our friend, because he was at war with the hated Iranians.
Likewise, if “oppresses it’s own people” is to be the future criterion for initiating war on other countries, what about Kim Jong Il allowing millions of Korean men, women, and children to starve to death while he caters to his army and lives a life of extreme personal luxury – is that any less brutal than Saddam?
And what about Saudi firemen watching girls burn to death in their school, with the approval of our great friends the Saudi government, because saving them would violate a technicality of their fundamentalist brand of Islam – is that any less brutal than Saddam? What about the documented oppression of the citizenry in Sudan, in Ethiopia, in Iran – for that matter, in China? Will we be going to war with all of them, too, to free their people from their governments’ oppression?
There is no “policy” here, no consistency, no high-flown motivation. The ground shifts weekly: Saddam is oppressing his people; he’s threatening his neighbors; he’s threatening us; he’s supplying terrorists. Only the first has been demonstrated, and it’s very old news. If in fact Dubya has suddenly developed a passionate paternalism for the Iraqi people why have we recently replaced “regime change” with “disarmament” as our goal? Under that scenario if Saddam disarms he can stay, and the oppression can go on. The pieces don’t fit.
We’re not about to free the world from brutal regimes; we’re not that noble. This war will be a one-shot deal, for reasons much less profound and more personal than liberating the oppressed. It’s not Operation White Knight; it’s Operation Fix Daddy’s Mistake.
Robert B. Mitchell, Gilroy
Submitted Monday, Feb. 24 to ed****@****ic.com
