Zachary Constantino argued in last Monday's Eagle that theÿreason the United States is in Iraq is because "the extension of democratic capitalism is a critical strategic interest for America and for the civilized world."ÿ How many times is the causus bellum going to change?ÿÿ
The American public was told by President Bush that war was necessary because of Iraq's connections to al Qaeda and the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.ÿOn Nov. 1, 2002, Bush told an election rally in New Hampshire that "we know he's got ties with al Qaeda." Donald Rumsfeld also linked Saddam with al Qaeda, saying there was "bulletproof evidence" of a connection.ÿ
An alleged meeting between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi spy in Prague was continuously cited by the Bush Administration as reason for war despite continuous denials from Czech president Vaclav Havel and Czech intelligence agents.ÿ At one point before the war, a poll by the Council on Foreign Relations found that as much as two-thirds of the American public believed that Iraq was behind the attacks on Sept. 11.ÿ
The only elements of al Qaeda inside pre-war Iraq that have been verified was in the Kurdish enclave that Constantino calls "out of the grasp of the Saddam regime." The Kurds say that this group, Ansar al-Islam, is being supplied by Iran, not Iraq.ÿ ÿ
Saddam certainly did provide support to Hamas.ÿThat cannot be denied. But, as loathsome as their activities are, suicide bombers blowing themselves up in the name of a Palestinian state does not pose an imminent threat to American security.
Another argument was, as Dick Cheney told Meet the Press, because Saddam "has reconstituted nuclear weapons." That proved to be completely erroneous.ÿSo did accusations about Saddam's attempt to procure uranium from Niger.ÿA former U.S. ambassador who was sent to Niger to back up the claims told the CIA in February 2002, long before the war began, that documents on which the argument was inherently based were forged and inaccurate. ÿ
The Washington Post quoted a senior administration official, on the condition of anonymity, as saying "Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the state-of-the-union speech."ÿ
The list of misinformation goes on and on, from aluminum tubes that were supposed to have enriched the phantom uranium to unmanned aerial vehicles that were supposed to have been outfitted to release chemical and biological agents.ÿIn both cases claims were exaggerated and the public was misled.ÿ
The Bush administration also cited human rights as a reason to go to war.ÿAs terrible as Saddam was, there were far greater perpetrators of human rights violations than he was.ÿIt is na?ve and foolish for us to think that by going to war we can transform the entire Middle East into flourishing democracies.ÿ
If human rights in Iraq matter so much, why did the United States veto a U.N. resolution condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war?ÿ Has anyone else seen the picture of then-President Reagan's special presidential envoy to Iraq - a man by the name of Donald Rumsfeld - shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein? ÿ
Nobody denies that Saddam was a tyrannical dictator and that the Iraqi people are much better off without him.ÿBut, Saddam did not pose an imminent threat to America. It is an insult to the valor of our servicemen and women to say that Iraq's Soviet-era military, already crippled by the 1991 Gulf War and a decade of sanctions, posed a challenge.ÿ
Even if Saddam possessed a limited number of biological and chemical weapons - a claim that nearly all-Iraqi prisoners at all levels of rank are now contesting (what reason do they have to lie for Saddam now) - he lacked the ability to use them against American forces in any conventional method.
ÿThe Bush Doctrine advocates the use of preemptive force against emerging military threats. Would not it have made more sense to go after a nuclear-armed North Korea that possesses missiles capable of hitting the West Coast or an Iran that sponsors al Qaeda?ÿ
ÿIt saddens me deeply that, as our brave American troops are being killed on a daily basis, we are still trying to come to grips with why the war was even waged. We need to support our troops, but questioning the administrations motives for war should not be slandered as "un-American." I certainly hope it was not, as Constantino says, for the sake of capitalism. ÿ
