Last week President Bush named three countries that will soon become our testing ground for military missile guidance systems. Bush said the countries Iran, Iraq and North Korea make up an "axis of terror" that poses a serious threat to the safety of our nation.
I never thought that the President naming the countries he did as threats to the United States would upset anyone, but it did. People found a way to point fingers at our Chief Executive for telling it like it is. Some claim Bush is being unfair to North Korea, Iran and Iraq for singling them out.
Could this be true? Are we truly damaging the public image of these countries?
Since they each had such amazing reputations prior to Bush naming them as our next targets to eradicate, we should look at each country individually. In this manner we will be able to see if the President was out of line.
What has North Korea done in the past that might make them a target? I mean, other than invading South Korea in 1950 and causing the U.S. to go to war, not much, right?
Also, dismiss the fact that North Korea is on the list as a country that possesses nuclear arms.
And there is one more thing we need to turn our heads to: North Korea sells their nuclear arms to other rogue nations who harbor considerable ill will for the U.S.
Barring all that, though, North Korea may as well be our diplomatic best friend.
And what about Iran?
There's another innocent country that is an undeserving member of the "axis." Of course, they did make a few minor boo-boos, but we need to forget about those.
We should overlook the fact that Iran held 55 Americans hostage in 1979. Likewise, new missile acquisitions by the Iranians, including ICBMs with the ability to strike the continental U.S. are nothing to worry about.
Iran isn't a threat — after all, I'm sure they only want missiles that can reach North America because of their deep-rooted hatred for those pesky Canadians.
Iraq, the last country in the axis of terror, is certainly off the hook as well.
Saint Saddam? Did Daddy Bush really see him as a threat? Iraq really hasn't done anything in the last decade that would warrant a title of terrorist state.
There was that time when it invaded neighboring Kuwait, but we know it was an accident.
But didn't Saddam kill many of his own people? Oh well, even if he did it's not like he denied U.N. inspectors access to parts of the country when they were making sure he didn't poses weapons of mass destruction.
Nope, no reason for Iraq to be singled out either.
Let's fact it: We are not talking about countries in the running for peacekeeper of the year.
These are nations that would be happy to see September 11 repeated ten times over. The sight of the twin towers falling, a sight that makes us sick makes them happy. That kind of destruction was not satisfying enough for these rogue nations. They seek to create similar death and destruction, only on a much larger scale.
To ignore that, to pretend it isn't true, only perpetuates a worsening condition.
The hatred comes from a lack of understanding and from a lack of communication.
If these were different times such elements might be solved by diplomacy. But time is not with us. We are being hunted.
Once safe atop the global food chain of power, the U.S. is now being preyed upon by an invisible threat. Now is not the time to question our leader. Now is not the time to criticize a war that must be fought.
The United States has the power to do just about anything it wants, and that power is justified. If we decide to bring those countries to their knees until the threat to our freedom is eliminated, then we will and we must.
But the war on terrorism is about more than exacting our power, and President Bush said it best: "…we have a greater objective than eliminating threats and containing resentment. We seek a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror."
Rob Jones is a political science junior. Reach him at robert.d.jones@asu.edu.