| WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE PEACE ON EARTH? |
| Written by Maria Elena Salinas |
| Monday, September 30 2002 |
| |
| We are still months away from the holiday season, but last week I was already debating whether to get humorous Christmas cards with a tropical Santa Claus on them, or more traditional ones that say "Peace on Earth." The way things are going, "Peace on Earth" on a Christmas card might end up being much more humorous than a Santa Claus in a swimsuit drinking a piña colada under a palm tree on Miami Beach.
A bellicose attitude is spreading across the country like wildfires unfurled by Santa Ana winds. And all of the diplomats in the world, with hoses in hand, cannot put out this blaze. The United States has good reason to be up in arms. It still has open wounds from the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. It wants justice to be served. It wants revenge, and it wants to prevent radical fanatics from striking again. That's understandable. But the way the United States is going about reaching those goals raises a lot of questions.
First of all, no one doubts that Saddam Hussein is one of the bad guys. We know what he has done in the past and what he is capable of doing in the future. But is this the time to attack him? There is no evidence that Saddam is planning an assault on the United States. The planned attacks are based on fears that he "might" be producing weapons of mass destruction and that he "might" be willing to give them to terrorists who have the means to use them against us.
There is no doubt that this country needs to do everything it can to protect its citizens from aggression. Overthrowing the Taliban and arresting hundreds of al-Qaida members was an important first step. But those thugs have not yet been entirely eliminated. We should finish the job we began and continue working with our allies around the world to weed out potential terrorists before we make more enemies.
We should also consider the backlash that a pre-emptive attack on Iraq would have around the globe. Do we really want to add more fuel to the anti-American sentiment that has been brewing for years in the Muslim world? Can we pressure our allies for support and then treat them like they are irrelevant? Whatever happened to the coalitions we were so ardently trying to build after the attacks last year?
It is now evident that the Bush administration has been drawing up war plans before consulting with the American people. White House counsel Alberto Gonzales told The New York Times that he drafted the resolution to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein during the summer. Tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel are in the region or are ready to be deployed. There was little opposition in Congress to giving Bush the almighty power he needed.
The timing seems to be clearly motivated by politics. Just a few weeks before the midterm elections, voters should be hearing about corporate responsibility, the state of the economy, education and other issues that affect their communities. They should not base their vote on whether their legislator supports getting rid of Saddam Hussein, but rather on his or her commitment to improving the quality of life for his or her constituents. After all, once the next ogre replaces Saddam on our list of enemies, voters will be stuck with the person they elected.
If we want to eliminate the potential threat of Saddam Hussein, let's give U.N. diplomacy another chance. Being the aggressor is not necessarily the best way to show our leadership around the world. We could be sending the message that any country that feels threatened can strike first and act alone. In attacking Iraq, we could surely win the battle, but we'll risk losing the war. |
