Here it is, Christmas Eve, and the world is so full of love. Thousands of people are stranded in Paris because their flights to the U.S. have been canceled due to perceived terrorist threats. Four U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq. All of America is under a cloud of fear. Gee, if those aren't signs of love...President Bush claims that by cracking down hard on the terrorists and killing as many of them as possible he'll remove the terrorist threat. For anyone who believes that, I have a bridge for sale. The plain and obvious fact is that by exporting violence we're promoting violence. Let's face it, Newton's law of motion, "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction," is also a law of human behavior. Every time we try to kill them, they'll try to kill us.
Additionally, every time we violate the precept of "live and let live," so will they. By meddling in the affairs of others, we have done nothing but louse things up and create enemies. By supporting such lovely people as Syngman Rhee, Ferdinand Marcos, Augusto Pinochet, Shah Reza Pahlevi, Manuel Noriega and, yes, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, we've caused literally millions of deaths. The blood of the innocent citizens of South Korea, the Philippines, Chile, Iran, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq is on American hands.
Not a lovely picture. And killing more people will not solve the problems we created. Unfortunately, George W. Bush's heart seems to lack compassion. It appears to be full of something other than love.
I say "seems to" and "appears to" because I don't know the man, so I can only judge his actions. But he has done nothing but lie to America, the United Nations and the world. He has failed even to attempt to find peaceful solutions -- indeed, he has failed to attempt to find any solution other than wholesale murder.
Let us pause for a moment on this day celebrating love to look for a better way.
Suppose that, after causing the overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, President Bush had not turned his attention to killing Iraqis. Suppose instead that he decided to help the people of Afghanistan rebuild their society. Suppose that he earmarked, say, half of the $166 billion spent in Iraq to rebuilding Afghanistan. Where would we be now?
In Afghanistan:
- The explosion of poppy farming -- a crop used primarily to make heroin and other illegal narcotics -- would not have happened.
- The new "national government" of Afghanistan would be in power outside of Kabul, rather than the bulk of the country being run by local warlords.
- Osama bin Laden might have been captured.
In the U.S.:
- The budget deficit would be considerably smaller.
- The dollar would be much stronger, and incipient inflation fears would not exist.
- The price of oil would be $8-10 a barrel lower.
- State and local governments would not have had to raise taxes nearly as much as they did -- if at all.
- The terrorist threat wouldn't be at Orange, but at a lower level.
- Over 100,000 Americans would be home for Christmas.
Over 460 of those Americans would still be alive.
And Saddam Hussein still would not be a threat to the United States. In fact, by focusing on helping people rather than killing them, President Bush and his diplomatic team would probably have been able to work with other world leaders to fashion a comprehensive world policy toward Iraq. By speaking more softly and creating a real coalition, we could have been able to lift sanctions against Iraq. Oil fields there would be operating. People's lives would be getting better.
For those who think Saddam Hussein would never have agreed to any such deal, think again. Hussein's number one priority was keeping power. By agreeing not to try to remove him from power, we could have gotten him to agree to a lot. Unfortunately, we never tried.
A little history: First, we put Hussein in power and told him to invade Iran. The, when he failed and Iranian forces moved into Iraq, we sold Hussein chemical and biological weapons. Naturally, he used some of them on the Iranians, and we were "shocked, shocked" to discover what he had done. Then, we told the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south to rise up against Hussein, and he used his remaining stockpile on them.
Not being satisfied with screwing things up badly enough, we told Kuwait not to pay Iraq its previously agreed upon $2 billion share of the war with Iran, and gave Hussein permission to invade Kuwait. He "miscalculated", of course, by believing us, and went on in. Then we went in to "liberate" Kuwait. (N.B.: Kuwait is still under the thumb of a dictator, but he's a dictator we like, so we're not taking him out.)
After imposing crushing economic sanctions on Iraq (has anybody looked at the aftermath of World War I recently?), we spent eleven years trying to justify it to the world. Not surprisingly, it was a tough sell. Then, with no evidence to support the claims that Saddam Hussein was a threat, we invaded Iraq.
So what do we do now?
The first thing we have to do is get out of Iraq. By pulling out of Iraq, and admitting frankly that we had no business invading in the first place, we make it possible for the U.N. and other Arab states to go in and help Iraq find its own way. Yes, there will be bumps in that road, but Iraq is dealing with some pretty large bumps now.
We should then take half of the $87 billion a year earmarked for the Iraqi occupation and turn it over to the U.N. for rebuilding Iraq. We should take half of the rest and use it to help rebuild Afghanistan.
The remaining money should be dangled like a carrot in front of Syria and Jordan to get them to build roads, schools and industries in the Palestinian controlled areas. By improving the lot of the mislabeled "Palestinian refugees", and by having this help come from their Arab neighbors, we can make peace with Israel a real possibility.
In short, by spreading the love, instead of hate, we can make things better. Then, it will truly be a happy holiday season for all.
Copyright 2003, Dan Jacoby
For a PDF version of this document, click here.
To contact Dan Jacoby, click here.
Return to the Main Menu