Duh!
I am trying to type this with numb fingers, as I have just come back from the anti-war protest in the chilly streets of New York City. Let me just say that I don’t know how many were there, or really what was going on most of the time, but I had fun for most of the time I was there.
As to why I’ve labeled this “Duh!”, many of the decision makers in our country don’t plan long-term, and this was plainly evident today, but even before today’s event things didn’t add up. First, this whole opinion about war being the only way to deal with Iraq and terrorism doesn’t make sense. Didn’t Bush realize that if we push our way into an Arab country, it gives terrorists more cause to want to retaliate? Even law-abiding citizens of Arab countries hate us and wouldn’t mind if something happened to our capitalist asses. While there are rumors that the step-up to orange alert was based on bad information, it shows that we are not the only people in the world. So the more that Bush presses on the Security Council and Congress to go to war, the more reports of terrorist attacks there will be. Duh!
We wouldn’t be in this position in the first place if we had done something 20 years ago. More short-term planning, I guess. According to a December 29, 2002 Washington Post article, the US helped Iraq fight Iran and even though we knew that Saddam had chemical weapons, it was low on our priority list to get rid of them. So when it’s convenient, we let dictators have weapons they can then use against us. I’m so tired of the US playing by US rules, not by the world’s rules. The same thing happened to the Taliban. We stormed into Afghanistan, said, “We don’t like what you’re doing, we’re going to change it,” helped install the Taliban, then 20 years later stormed into Afghanistan, said, “We don’t like what you’re doing, we’re going to change it,” and deposed the Taliban without admitting that we were wrong. I thought they had committees and models to help foresee what might happen. I guess it got lost in the red tape. Duh!
So what are we going to do if we get rid of Saddam? The US has to make sure that Iraq doesn’t completely disintegrate in internal fighting and chaos, which is what happens when you bomb a country, get rid of it’s leader, and leave. So the Bush Administration has this great idea to help Iraq out after the *war*. How long will it take us to fulfill this magnanimous gesture? The jury’s out on exactly how long, but this article from The Iraq Foundation in Washington, DC, says 18 months, this article from Tucson Citizen in Arizona says “at least 2 years”, and this article from St. Petersburg Times in Florida says that we shouldn’t even be there. No matter what, two years seems like an awfully short time to build up a country that, apparently, has been oppressed for years and years. And who’s to say that Iraqis want the US to help them anyway? 2 years? Duh!
If you look at that last article, you’ll find some of the monetary figures for our war with and occupation in Iraq. Again, nobody knows exactly how much all of this will cost in the long run, but the numbers all run in the billions. Didn’t we have to tighten our belts and help out with the war effort in World War II? This time around, we get tax cuts. Do you know what happened when President Roosevelt gave subsidies and tried to help the US? Inflation skyrocketed and we were subject to rations to keep prices lower. Now with inflation at low levels, does Bush want to do the same thing? Of course, I’m not saying that I want to pay for a war with my taxes, but how does Bush expect to find the money to pay for all this when he’s trying to give money to the upper class as fast as he can get a hold of it? Isn’t he the person who changed a huge budget surplus into a huge deficit? Okay, Alan Greenspan advised him to give tax cuts instead of paying off the federal debt, but even he’s now said he changed his mind and that tax cuts at this time are not the way to go. Duh!
Which brings me to the present day, the time when people all over the world standing up for what they believe in and are protesting going to war in Iraq. At first I wasn’t planning on going, but after hearing nothing but the above information on the news, I felt I had to act. If I didn’t, I don’t think I could forgive myself for not doing something if the US goes to war. So my boyfriend and I bundled up, packed a few snacks, and took the subway to 53rd St, where we would walk to the UN Plaza at 49th and 1st Ave (little tangent, the United Nations was established on October 24, 1945 in response to World War II. The Bush Administration is trying to undermine the UN’s authority by threatening to wage war on Iraq with or without consent from the Security Council. Does this mean that an even better association with arise from this war?) At 53rd St and 3rd Ave, we come across an enormous group of people essentially marching, although it’s on the sidewalk. We join them, and after a block realize that we’re going the wrong way. I found out that the only place to get to the UN is at 59th St. So we’re blocking traffic just by sheer numbers on our way to 59th St. We don’t go over until 60th St, and then we get stopped at the 59th St Bridge on 2nd Ave. After chanting “Let us through!” for 10 or 15 minutes, we’re able to walk down 2nd Ave. We get to 54th St and get to a standstill. Police officers on horses try to push us onto the sidewalks so that the vehicular traffic could go through (God forbid the taxies can’t get through the East Side!) Things got a little violent, but most of the protesters really didn’t want to fight. All of us were asking the police where were we supposed to go if you’re pushing us onto the sidewalks? Now, why is this a section in my “Duh” rant? Mayor Michael Bloomberg refused to give the organizers a march permit, citing security reasons. So the city had enough police to push us aside down two avenues, but not enough police to line the streets for a march. If the city had granted permission, one avenue would have been closed, there probably wouldn’t have been 50 arrests, 8 police officers might not have been injured, and it would have been a more organized event. As it was, over 100,000 people (some reports go as high as 200,000, but even the lower number is impressive) were spread over three avenues, 40 streets were closed at certain times, and the footage from the news helicopters showed little mobs all over the place. Apparently, when it was obvious that there were going to be more people than the city planned for (they were expecting only 50,000 people,) the police were instructed to cut the protest in half, so people who showed up at noon, when the rally was scheduled to start, never made it to the UN Plaza, myself included. I didn’t care so much that I wasn’t in the Plaza, I was just happy enough to be part of a world-wide effort. Two hours later, the city got what it wanted; around 2:15 or so, most people who were in the streets decided that being trampled by horses wasn’t a good way to spend the rest of the rally, and we went home. We would have had a peaceful march, but of course, Mayor Bloomberg decided not to think of what would happen without a march, and we ended up marching anyway! Duh!
The big problem that our generation and future generations have to try to fix? Our foreign policy bites! From the beginning, the 13 colonies, and then the United States of America, have forced our ideas onto other people. We didn’t like what was going on in England, so a bunch of us left to try our fortune in the New World, and that stubbornness has stayed with us until this day. Bad habits are hard to break. The only reason we’re a superpower is that we have an excellent military presence and can make any country a parking lot. Our foreign policy is basically, “We will allow you to continue what you’re doing as long as you follow what we believe and/or help us out in some way, and if you don’t, then we’ll bomb you.” Isn’t that the same mentality as the school bully, and where does that get the bully? A little bit more lunch money from some and ignorance from others, which leads to arrogance from the bully, which leads to trouble with authorities, you get the picture. On a global scale, the ramifications are frightening.
The last point I’ll make (over 2 hours after the first point was made) is that the Bush Administration has just softened the language for another resolution for the Security Council to pass. Instead of promising war if Iraq doesn’t disarm, there will be “serious consequences”. Wait a minute, isn’t that what Resolution 1441 said? Why do we need another resolution? Granted, I don’t know everything else that would go into this new document, but it would appear that Bush is grasping at straws; he’s trying so hard to justify this war to everyone, but it seems that he realizes that he’s going to have to change tactics (any acting teacher will tell you - if one tactic doesn’t work, try something else.) So if convincing the world that there are weapons in Iraq isn’t working, he has to try to draft another resolution. Of course, his definition of “serious consequences” is military force, and we all know this. I mean we already have imposed sanctions on Iraq and have fought them before without deposing Saddam, what else could we do? Why not work with people in Iraq to change things. Yes, there could be some sort of presence in the country, but it would be the people in Iraq trying to oust their leader, and we would be there only to give them a little help. We would not push our way into the country. By fighting a war, we would be killing innocent people, no matter how much we try to bomb only their military posts, and the retaliations against us would be enormous. When the rest of the school decides to say no to the bully, the bully will lose.