Couldn't agree more
I've always been against the war in Iraq, but not because I lack patriotism, or conviction. Precisely the opposite is true. I've been against it from the outset for a very basic and specific reason. When the UN Security Council found insufficient basis to warrant an invasion in 2003, the US government formed a "coalition of the willing," basically stating that we were going to take our ball and play somewhere else.
How ironic that we chose to set aside the outcome of that democratic process and make an essentially unilateral decision to invade Iraq, under the pretense of fostering democracy there. At that moment I felt ashamed to be an American. Since that time I have watched with disgust as our government has participated (or failed to participate) in a series of events ranging from the childishly stupid to the globally tragic, to say nothing of the insidious erosion of our civil liberties at home.
I realize there is a tendency to overstate current problems and romanticize the past, but I don't remember ever feeling this way under Clinton, or Reagan, or even Bush I. As I read Al Gore's latest book and think about what a different path our country might have taken over these past seven years, I can't help but feel a deep sense of regret.
How ironic that we chose to set aside the outcome of that democratic process and make an essentially unilateral decision to invade Iraq, under the pretense of fostering democracy there. At that moment I felt ashamed to be an American. Since that time I have watched with disgust as our government has participated (or failed to participate) in a series of events ranging from the childishly stupid to the globally tragic, to say nothing of the insidious erosion of our civil liberties at home.
I realize there is a tendency to overstate current problems and romanticize the past, but I don't remember ever feeling this way under Clinton, or Reagan, or even Bush I. As I read Al Gore's latest book and think about what a different path our country might have taken over these past seven years, I can't help but feel a deep sense of regret.
September 11 had a profound impact on all of us. But after initially responding in an entirely appropriate way, the administration began to heighten and distort public fear of terrorism to create a political case for attacking Iraq. Despite the absence of proof, Iraq was said to be working hand in hand with al-Qaeda and to be on the verge of a nuclear weapons capability. Defeating Saddam was conflated with bringing war to the terrorists, even though it really meant diverting attention and resources from those who actually attacked us.
When the president of the United States stood before the people of this nation and invited us to "imagine" a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon, he was referring to terrorists who actually had no connection to Iraq. But because our nation had been subjected to the horrors of 9/11, when our president said "imagine with me this new fear," it was easy enough to bypass the reasoning process that might otherwise have led people to ask, "Wait a minute, Mr. President, where's your evidence?"
Even if you believe Iraq might have posed a threat to us, I hope you will agree that our nation would have benefited from a full and thorough debate about the wisdom of invading that country. Had we weighed the potential benefits of an invasion against the potential risks, perhaps we could have prevented some of the tragic events now unfolding there.
Terrorism relies on the stimulation of fear for political ends. Indeed, its specific goal is to distort the political reality of a nation by creating fear in the general population that is hugely disproportionate to the actual danger that the terrorists are capable of posing. Ironically, President Bush's response to the terrorist attack of September 11 was, in effect, to further distort America's political reality by creating a new fear of Iraq that was hugely disproportionate to the actual danger Iraq was capable of posing. That is one of the reasons it was so troubling to so many when in 2004 the widely respected arms expert David Kay concluded a lengthy, extensive investigation into the administration's claim that Iraq posed an enormous threat because it had weapons of mass destruction with the words We were all wrong.
As we now know, of course, there was absolutely no connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. In spite of that fact, President Bush actually said to the nation at a time of greatly enhanced vulnerability to the fear of attack, "You can't distinguish between them."
History will surely judge America's decision to invade and occupy a fragile and unstable nation that did not attack us and posed no threat to us as a decision that was not only tragic but absurd. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, to be sure, but not one who posed an imminent danger to us. It is a decision that could have been made only at a moment in time when reason was playing a sharply diminished role in our national deliberations.
Thomas Jefferson would have recognized the linkage between absurd tragedy and the absence of reason. As he wrote to James Smith in 1822, "Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind."
- Al Gore, The Assault on Reason
Comments