Antiwar Movement Largely Partisan
March 12, 2003
by Pete Pagano
See More Pete Pagano Here
Dear Commentary:
It mystifies me that the "humanists" and "pacifists" would
prefer to keep the people of Iraq enslaved in Saddam's police state rather than
see them liberated as a result of a war for regime change and disarmament. In
the twenty plus years Saddam has been in power he has brought perpetual war
to his country resulting in the death and permanent injury of millions of his
citizens. His police state routinely employs rape, torture, and murder against
any Iraqis who oppose him. Since Saddam's 1991 invasion of Kuwait was turned
back by the U.S., with a little help from its friends, he has defied and obstructed
17 United Nations' resolutions to disarm. Yet, the people of the antiwar movement
(who I suspect are largely the same people
who so violently protest world trade conferences across the globe) are passionately
opposing a war to unseat this tyrant and free his people. How could they condemn
the Iraqi people to this fate?
I think I know the partial answer. I don't recall much outrage, protest or moral condemnation when Bill Clinton launched his non-UN sanctioned war in Kosovo. Where was Martin Sheen, Susan Sarandon or Barbra (someone needs to tell her highness the correct spelling of her first name) Streisand expressing their 1st amendment right to protest that war? It is obvious to me that this antiwar movement is largely a politically partisan event directed not at the morality of this war or any war but rather it is an opportunity for all those who thought they got robbed in the 2000 election to express their sore loser outrage. They have seized on this impending war as a cause celebre' to validate their "see I told you so" claim that George Bush is unfit to be president. If Bill Clinton or Al Gore launched a war to liberate the Iraqi people, many of the same antiwar protestors would probably be leading pro-U.S. rallies of support.
To be sure, there are some truly sincere people in the antiwar movement and I acknowledge that fact. But by and large,the antiwar efforts to date have been a partisan effort. And while I have fingers on the keyboard, let me comment on another aspect of the current antiwar movement. The specious claim of this being a war about oil. That pithy though illogical slogan (its illogic is evident if the reader has any grasp of basic market economics) was trotted out for the first Gulf War. It is probably even less applicable today vis-a-vis the U.S. than it was back then. It also conveniently overlooks that the countries that are placing profit over principle in this conflict are not the United States and Great Britain but rather France, Germany and Russia. These three countries are Saddam's biggest trading partners. Together they have sold him weapons, chemicals, constructed underground bunkers and developed his oil fields. They have contracts pending worth billions of dollars for more of these goods and services. Paris, Berlin and Moscow are fighting so hard against a use of force because they have a vested economic interest in keeping Saddam in power. Jimmy Carter's pontificating aside, this is a just war to unseat a tyrant and liberate an industrious people who can provide a beacon of hope for the rest of the Arab world on what can be accomplished when unshackled from an oppressive government.
Pete Pagano
Norfolk, VA