Congratulations, President Bush. The war is over. Everyone loves a winner, and you have decisively defeated Saddam Hussein, a villain hated throughout the world.
Pro-war or anti-war, nearly everyone will agree the world is better off without Hussein. Patriotism is riding high, and I'm sure Mr. President is happily looking forward to ride this wave of positive political capital all the way to the next election.
Nevertheless, I'm assuming it's now safe and no longer un-American to ask critical questions again. Everyone is probably getting too busy with the end of the semester to think about Iraq anyway, but here are some thoughts to ponder:
Were the stated motives of the war accomplished? According to Donald Rumsfeld, our No.1 objective was to smash the regime and its military. The second item on his to-do list was "to identify, isolate and eventually eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." (After that came driving out terrorists, securing oil fields and establishing a democratic government.)
The first objective has been achieved; the Iraqi military did not last long. The oil fields also are secured.
Whether or not terrorism is rooted out or democracy is achieved will be a difficult, more long-term goal. But if history offers any enlightenment, we need only recall Afghanistan as a predictor.
The regime of the American puppet Hamid Karzai is still perilously fragile, according to The New York Times. Donald Rumsfeld said Sunday, "We feel a commitment to those countries" (speaking of Iraq and Afghanistan) and that the U.S. intends "to stay there and work with the countries to assist them in transitioning."
Let's hope he seriously means it this time. As far as the weapons of mass destruction, conservatives now are changing their tune and arguing that, whether or not these weapons are found, the war still was justified.
It is ironic that the Bush administration never said that Hussein might have weapons of mass destruction before the war began; instead, it maintained that there was no question about whether or not Iraq possessed a deadly chemical and nuclear weapons program, and that our intelligence had located the factories.
It seems even "intelligence" has become just another propaganda tool for politicians these days.
Having considered these questions about our stated objectives, we move on to a broader question: What does this war mean for American foreign policy?
I am hoping that Iraq was an isolated incident and that this pre-emptive strike policy does not mean more aggressive wars in the future. I'm assuming Iraq was unique because Hussein has been someone the United States has wanted to eliminate for a long time.
Nevertheless, I still have the same fears now as I did before the war began. Namely, the people in power in this country (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, Rumsfeld) are collectively set on American supremacy, and they seriously believe that American imperialism is good foreign policy.
This is a well-documented fact, and modest research of these officials' political backgrounds will yield clear evidence to support this notion.
Last week, a senior administration official was reported saying, "Real men want to go to Tehran," and this is reportedly a popular conservative belief in Washington in regards to a potential war with Iran.
The problem with this imperialistic mindset is it only creates more enemies that we would have to destroy again in the future.
Conservative commentators such as Ann Coulter criticize liberals for wanting to "appease our enemies" or "negotiate with terrorists." Well, call me crazy, but I always thought diplomacy meant compromise and understanding, not waging war whenever we want our own way.
If my wish for America to be perceived around the world as a benevolent leader instead of a bully makes me a "weak liberal," then so be it. It doesn't take a foreign policy expert to realize that to cure a complex problem, in this case terrorism, you must strike at its roots.
Band-aid solutions (habitual regime changes and puppet governments) only mitigate the symptoms in the short run. Let's be glad that Hussein is gone, and let's hope for a wise, not belligerent, foreign policy in the future, instead of Pax Americana.
Or maybe the next time Dubya has to increase his ratings, North Korea and Syria should worry.
What do you think about the United States' approach in Iraq? Post your opinion in the forum below.
Ishtiaque Masud is a pre-business junior. Reach him at ishtiaque.masud@asu.edu.
