Calls for war, increased militarization are not the answers to global concerns

(8-28-2002)

by Matt Kapko
Opinion editor, The Lumberjack

As Emma Goldman eloquently wrote nearly a century ago; “I believe that militarism — a standing army and navy in any country — is indicative of the decay of liberty and of the destruction of all that is best and finest in our nation. The steadily growing clamor for more battleships and an increased army on the ground that these guarantee us peace is as absurd as the argument that the peaceful man is he who goes well armed.”

Although written in 1908, I fear Goldman’s chilling words ring truer today than ever before.

Figures supplied by the government show the military’s price tag for this year at $437 billion.

With the Cold War over, it seems the United States is only competing with itself to mutually assure world destruction. The Bush Administration and Congress are asking for more, exploiting the events of September 11th for their own fantasies of world domination.

The United States already has troops stationed in at least 80 countries at any time — none of which we are at war with. To argue that the purpose of our military’s vast presence across the globe is to promote peace and basic human rights is preposterous.

Let’s re-cap where our military has taken the war in Afghanistan so far: early in the bombing campaign it bombed a Red Cross building (not once but twice); it killed four Canadians who were conducting exercises in a designated training area; recently it bombed a wedding party in which 50 people were killed, claiming it was receiving enemy fire.

I’m not going to argue the military carried out these acts purposefully, but the very nature of modern warfare proves there can be no notions of “smart bombs,” precision bombing or “friendly fire.” When bombs are dropped from 30,000 feet how can anyone possibly know where it will leave its path of death and destruction?

Putting these mistakes aside, has the U.S. military captured Osama bin Laden or anyone else whom it is after?

Yes, the Taliban — a brutal and oppressive government — has been ousted, but is that what Americans should be proud of?

The U.S. government doesn’t seem to mind supporting and arming Saudi Arabia, a much more oppressive and brutal government. The oppressive forces against women in Saudi Arabia are atrocious and shocking enough (not being independent of their male relatives or even allowed in public without male supervision) to question whether the United States’ first objective and true mission is one of peace.

America’s dependence on oil is — by no way — reason enough for the government’s mysterious relationship with them. With tensions rising the Saudi government did, however, refuse to allow the United States to use their military bases for a strike on Iraq (perhaps avoiding a heightened regional conflict).

The plans for a war against Iraq are reason enough to debate the intentions of U.S. foreign policy. Such an attack would be in violation of international law under the U.N. Charter.

Even ignoring international law — as the United States often does with no countervailing force to object — there is no evidence that Iraq is a clear threat to the United States.

The claims that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction are unfounded and without evidence. Regardless, that alone poses no new threat to the United States and the world as a whole. Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons, both of which have come close to detonation. Israel has nuclear weapons as well.

Based on actions, the United States surely doesn’t deserve the authority to decide who will and who will not possess such weapons.

Nonetheless, the talk of a coming war in Iraq is everywhere — as if expected. Words of encouragement, serving protest to such an attack have come from some very unexpected people.

Henry Kissinger, for instance — secretary of state during the Vietnam War and responsible for numerous other human rights abuses — has opposed such a strike, saying it would violate international law with Iraq not being an actual threat.

At a time when the U.S. government should be using its influence to reach out to the world and better understand each other, it is becoming evermore unilateral in its decision-making and objectives.

The Bush administration’s decision to pull out of the International Criminal Court, whose purpose is to investigate and bring to justice those who commit crimes against humanity and genocide, is but one example of an isolationist and reactionary response to global desires.

Asking for U.S. troops immunity from the court sends an even darker message. Should the conduct of U.S. troops not be held to the same standard and accountable for acts of genocide or massacres?

Even more worrisome is the recent language coming from Vice President Dick Cheney and other top advisors of the administration. It was recently reported that Bush has been informed he doesn’t need congressional approval for a war in Iraq.

Cheney is increasingly calling for an attack on Iraq sooner than later and has clearly stated the United States is willing and ready to help rebuild the country after Saddam Hussein and his government is overthrown.

War and the use of force will not solve true problems of injustice — very often the root of terrorism. We can only expect more hostility and anger towards the United States if we are to continue on as if being led by the hands of God.

Using a modern reaction to the increasing militarization of the United States I refer to the frightening lyrics of Jeff Ott from Fifteen, a punk band from Berkeley, Calif., “America can not afford another Viet Nam War. Another prolonged foreign war will tear the system down from the inside.”

Matt Kapko is the opinion editor and believes if people want peace above anything else they should know full well that missiles will not bring peace, but only death, despair and anger..