Cruelty Beyond Measure, Part II

In the run-up to the United States’ invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration went on a public relations’ blitz to convince the international community that Saddam Hussein had a viable weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program. WMD is loosely used to refer to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; however, in the case of Saddam, we were led to believe that his ambitions were to erect a nuclear arsenal. In an October 7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, which became known as “Bush’s Mushroom Cloud as a Smoking Gun Speech,” President Bush was quoted as saying:

“Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat. The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions, its history of aggression and its drive toward an arsenal of terror…Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud [Emphasis mine].”

The speech took on a religious tone as it conjured images of the Armageddon clash of good versus evil. When the leader of a nation with no military peer makes such lofty indictments against an “evil” dictator, it cannot be taken lightly. However, despite assurances from everyone in the administration’s chain of command from the President to the dog catcher, it is now clear that Saddam had no WMD program. Consequently, the talking-points have now been altered to justify American presence in Iraq by declaring that Saddam was a bad person; the world is better off that he has been deposed; and we’ve brought democracy to an exploited people.

It is true that Saddam was a bad person, but is that the standard that should be used when America is about to commit its war machine in a preemptive conflict? If so then who’s the next villain to be attacked? Kim from North Korea? Ahmadinejad in Iraq? The warlords in Sudan? Or a list of a dozen more brutal dictators?

America generally only commits military resources to areas of the globe that are in its national interest, and certainly if Saddam had WMD, it would have been in the national interest of the U.S. to confront him. But before anyone considered Iraq’s nuclear ambition, India and Pakistan were flashing their nuclear chips around the poker table and no one in this country suggested a preemptive strike against either of those nations. And during the Iraq campaign, North Korea was flexing its nuclear muscles for the world to see, with no more than quiet diplomacy from the United States. These scenarios seem to suggest something that I long ago concluded to be true: No country with nuclear weapons has ever been invaded, which seems to make prudent foreign policy. Why risk a nuclear escalation in an effort to rid an enemy of its nuclear weapons?

If Saddam had nuclear weapons, he would have played the “Sampson Option,” or actions of last resort that destroys everyone, before he allowed the “Great Satan,” as the U.S. is commonly referred too in the Middle East, to apprehend him while buried in a rat-hole. I have my opinions regarding the U.S. overthrow of Saddam, but that is not the point of this post. I think it is clear that America went into Iraq for reasons other than those stated in early 2002. (For those who may be interested in pursuing this further, a good place to start would be the Downing Street Memo.) This would not be unprecedented, because the U.S. has intervened in the affairs of other countries in the past, like its military intervention in 1995 in southern Europe, when the Serbs committed genocide against the Bosnians.

America has a history of injecting massive amounts of humanitarian aid in countries that have received devastating blows from natural and manmade disasters, and for that, may God Bless America. But why has it been so slow to act in the Congo and Sudan to prevent genocide; or to help bring affordable AIDS medicine to Africa; or to bring relief to the sub-Saharan region of Africa that is at risk of losing 20 million people to drought and famine? Is it because it is Africa? Possibly, but that’s not the full story. There is no strong, organized lobby that represents the interest of the African nations, similar to those organizations that constantly try to influence American foreign policy on matters relating to Europe, the Middle East and Israel. Most European countries are also members of NATO, and the U.S. has a recognized international treaty that obligates it to act when there is a need; of course, oil will keep the cavalry coming in the Middle East; and America comes to the quick aid of Israel on mostly moral grounds.

Is there a motivation that is worthy of America’s intervention in some of the most oppressed areas on the African continent? I would begin with the same motivation that is used to justify assistance for Israel – our moral foundation. If that’s not enough motivation, how about using the same justification that keeps us in the Middle East – natural resources, but the greatest natural resource is not oil; it is a human life. And if that’s not motivation enough, how about for the same reason we bring aid to European nations that are in need – the Contract, but not the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; it is as Thomas Hobbs called it, the social contract, which affixes on us all the obligation to participate in creating and preserving a civilized society.

If the aforementioned is unworthy of political and if necessary military attention to the problems of Africa, perhaps God's word can motivate us: Cain unknowingly laid the foundation for a civilized social order when he answered God’s query about the whereabouts of Abel by saying, “I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper (Genesis 4:9b)?” Not only are we our brother’s keeper, God proved that fact to Cain by setting a mark on him forbidding anyone from slaying him (see Genesis 4:14-15); essentially making all men Cain’s keeper. What a difficult lesson for Cain to learn after murdering his own brother.

The question I ask - “Will we allow one billion men, women and children, who are made in the image of God…to perish before we learn that we are our brother’s keeper also?”

To be continued…