Bush's Iraq theory: The war to prevent all wars

Frontiersman Editorial Board

The language of war can be a curious thing. The logic of war, as Alice might tell us, is even curiouser. In recent weeks, protests in this country and around the world have been cited as evidence of the largest anti-war movement in history. Polls have shown that the people of many countries, including Canada, believe the United States is the greatest threat to world peace. Why is that? Maybe it's the language and logic we're applying to the situation in Iraq.

After the protests heated up last week, the Bush administration responded. The president said that some people apparently didn't think Saddam Hussein was a threat to peace, and that he respectfully disagreed. The interesting thing is that the president's solution to people who threaten peace is to wage war on them. The argument seems to be, "Saddam Hussein might start a war or attack someone. Americans are peace-loving people. Therefore, the United States should start a war to prevent Saddam's war from happening." If that makes sense to you, there may be a position open for you on the front lines. The pending action is being called a pre-emptive war. Pre-emptive to what?

The administration holds that Iraq has links to Al Qaeda, so an attack on Iraq would simply be an extension of the war against terrorism. The fear is that Saddam likely still has weapons of mass destruction -- certain chemical weapons and possibly biological ones. The war will be an effort to prevent Iraq from using those weapons. Of course, when would Hussein be most likely to use those weapons? Would he likely use them while his country was under containment, or would he be more likely to use them when his country was under attack and his back was against the wall?

The problem here is that we seem to be anxious to send our young soldiers into a war that may well subject them to chemical and biological attacks, and we're calling it a pre-emptive war. For the first time in our history, we're willing to send our troops into battle without direct provocation. The administration tells us that waging war now might prevent something even worse later. What that worse thing is, we do not specifically know. We do know that we've been waging war against terrorism for more than one year, and we find ourselves once again at a level orange terror stage. War doesn't always make us safer. When American soldiers begin to die, it won't even make us feel better anymore.