The Real Rationale for War

September 29, 2002

by Christopher G. Adamo

Let’s be honest with ourselves about something. It exceeds the limits of absurdity to suggest that the United States would presently be contemplating war with Iraq or, prior to that, would have invaded Afghanistan, had it not been for the terrorist attacks of September 2001. Prior to those events, Iraq had been just as dedicated to its pursuit of weaponry and expansionism as it is at present. Yet, before last September, neither President Bush nor his cabinet truly sought to deal with Iraq on the basis that it posed an imminent danger to the well being of the United States. As for the Taliban, before September of last year, the only deed for which they were widely known was the destruction of two ancient statues of Buddha. And though this matter bears an appalling similarity to the iron-fisted campaigns by domestic organizations, such as the ACLU, to stamp out any public symbols of Christianity, it could hardly have been termed an international crisis.

In reality, the purpose of both military campaigns is more correctly defined as retribution. In terms of international relations, retribution should never be sought as a mere form of vengeance, in which one people relishes the pain and suffering inflicted on another. However, a grim facet of America’s present situation renders such an official course of action as wholly warranted.

The goal of America’s response to 9-11 should be to ensure that no such event ever happens again. Only two conceivable methods exist by which to pursue this goal. First, the United States could seek to eliminate every individual on the face of the earth who might pose such a threat. Clearly, this approach is without merit and unrealistic. Therefore, the only alternative is for the United States to exact such an enormous toll from any and all entities that collaborated in the attacks, that in the future, no rational governing body would ever want to pay such a price. Sadly, many diplomatic words and actions on the part of American officials have severely undermined this goal.

In his renowned speech of September 20, 2001 President Bush actually suggested that war with the Taliban might be averted on condition that they meet certain demands, such as handing Osama bin Laden over to American authorities. Though considered to be smart international relations, the President’s statement suggested the inconceivable notion that the Taliban could somehow divorce themselves from their prior complicity with Al Qaeda. In truth, their last opportunity to avail themselves of this option was September 10, 2001 when a single phone call through official channels might have prevented the attacks.

Even First-Lady Laura Bush eventually got in on the act, trumpeting the liberation of Afghani women subsequent to the ouster of the Taliban. But on that fateful September morning, Americans did not awaken to the realization that women in some far off land needed to be released from their male oppressors. Nor did Americans spontaneously decide on that morning to consider the plight of hapless Afghani refugees in need of aerial food drops. Rather, they were confronted with the horrible realization that their homeland was under attack and that thousands of their fellow countrymen had been wantonly slaughtered.

In regards to Iraq, a similarly dangerous clouding of the issue has occurred. While no hard evidence has been produced in public to show that Saddam Hussein personally planned or directed the attacks, it is completely naive and ignorant to suggest that his regime has been innocent of supplying terrorist organizations and providing crucial support to their activities. Much evidence exists on several fronts that clearly links Iraq with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The significance of this relationship simply cannot be ignored.

Though the possibility that Iraq might quickly acquire weapons of mass destruction (read: nuclear bombs) clearly makes it a primary target for U.S. military planners, the truth is that many other nations have achieved, or are close to achieving the same capability. Even the discussion of this matter in such terms opens the door on distracting issues, such as weapons inspections in lieu of war. What makes Iraq unique is its open hostility towards America. It is America’s resolve to deal with this hostility that must be highlighted by the nation’s leaders. No other course of action is acceptable if they hope to convince other potentially hostile nations that any attack on America will wreak complete devastation upon its perpetrators and all who support them.

_________________________________________

Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer who lives in southeastern Wyoming with his wife and sons. He has been involved in grassroots political activity for many years. Chris was the editor of the Wyoming Christian from 1994 to 1996, and his columns can also been seen at CheyenneNetwork.com.

Send the author an E mail at Adamo@ConservativeTruth.org.

For more of Christopher's articles, visit his archives.