Millions of protesters gathered in major cities around the world
this weekend to oppose a U.S.-led war against Iraq. But President
Bush is standing firm in his pro-war stance and wants the United
Nations to approve a resolution to forcibly disarm Iraq in the next
couple of weeks. Instead of continuing the march toward war,
though, Bush should heed protesters’ message and place human
interests before his war agenda.
Bush has made war against Iraq too personal by making his
reelection hopes contingent on a successful war. He pressed hard
for unreasonable demands, like proof of active disarmament by Iraq
for weapons that might not exist. And he made it difficult for
himself to back away from war by making Iraqi defeat a necessary
aspect to the post-Sept. 11, 2001 war on terrorism. If the United
States does not attack Iraq, Bush will go against his own State of
the Union address and seem soft on terrorism and dictatorship.
Whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction is no longer at issue:
Bush has portrayed Hussein as liar. So long as the weapons
inspectors find nothing, Bush can still justify attacking Iraq by
accusing Hussein of deceiving the world.
Domestically, the effects of war on the United States’
already ailing economy could be devastating. Gasoline prices have
skyrocketed to over $2.00 per gallon in some areas of California
and continue to rise with escalating conflict. In a time when heavy
investment is necessary to jump start the slumping economy,
investors are weary of doing business because of economic
uncertainty and volatility. The cost of the war itself will send
the federal government further into deficit, negating the balanced
budget and surplus earned during the Clinton administration.
On the world stage, war against Iraq will earn the United States
animosity from almost every country besides Britain and Israel. The
United States will be viewed as a rogue imperialist instead of a
purveyor of peace. And the United Nations will once again be
undermined as a meaningful authority for maintaining world order.
The 2 million protesters in Spain, 500,000 in Berlin and at least 1
million in our “ally” Britain, along with the bevy of
protesters in major U.S. cities, should cause Bush to think twice
about how large protests will be if the war actually starts.
If millions among our own allies are strongly protesting against
Bush, what must Al-Qaeda be planning in retaliation?
If Bush needs a path to follow for reversing hard-line policies
in favor of better ones, he should look no further than his recent
decision to loosen restrictions on giving $15 billion to agencies
in Africa and the Caribbean for AIDS relief. After his State of the
Union address, many critics feared Bush would place
abortion-related restrictions for agencies potentially receiving
aid because he is personally against abortion.
Such a policy would echo Ronald Reagan’s famous
“Mexico City Policy” under which non-governmental
organizations had to agree to not promote abortion as a method of
family planning if they wished to receive federal funds. But Bush
put humanitarian interests before his personal ideology, allowing
organizations to receive aid even if they promote family planning
and provide abortions. While his concession may seem small, Bush
went against his personal interests for the good of humanity after
he realized the suffering that would come about by having a
hard-line stance ““ which is what he should do once more to
avoid a costly, bloody war against Iraq.