The Triangle

Issue date: 10/8/04 Section: Ed-Op

[Click to enlarge]

The United States' military action in Iraq has been going on for well over a year now. This much we do know: A democratic government has been installed, over 1000 American troops have come home in coffins with flags draped over them and we're still acting pretty much unilaterally. Sure, the neocons will jump to point out that Poland and South Korea among other countries are sending troops, but this is an action that the United States has pretty much carried out by herself.

Why is it such a big deal that this is a unilateral action? Campaign rhetoric from the John Kerry camp claims that we need "credibility" in the world front in order to continue this war, which clearly states that his intentions are to continue the war efforts; all you doves supporting John Kerry because you think he'll end the war had better think again. This begs the question though; why do we need credibility with the rest of the world in matters of our own national security?

Now, one could make the argument that the Second Gulf War was not a matter of national security. I would agree to that actually. Saddam Hussein was not going to attack the United States or any of its holdings overseas. There was intelligence that suggested Hussein had links to al-Qaeda, but there was no real evidence of the two entities working together explicitly. Currently, there is no evidence that Hussein had anything to do with the heinous attacks against America Sept. 11, 2001. Besides, Hussein was not the most insidious threat in the Middle East outside of the nebulous workings of the al-Qaeda terror network. Hussein's language was never Islamic fundamentalism. He was just like the politicians here and everywhere democracy reigns at heart; he just wanted to be rich and powerful. After al-Qaeda was taken care of, Hussein could have been bought off again, much like he was in the 1980s, when he was a friend. Besides, he learned his lesson from the First Gulf War. You invade an oil-interest of the United States and you get your ass handed to you on a silver platter.

There are worse offenders though. What about the double-talking Saudi Royal Family? You know, the guys who preach good Arab-US relations to the West, yet do nothing about the terrorists who they harbor in their giant, sand-covered country? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some members of that royal family have terrorist ties. How about the largest state-sponsor of terrorism in the world today, Iran? Leopards can't change their spots so easily. Why wasn't more intelligence spent on the radically Islamic fundamentalist government in Tehran and its dealings?

Continued...

Page 1 of 3 next >

Article Tools