Gulf War II  

Hardly unique — It is almost universally said and believed that the current war is unique in American history, because America is attacking first, instead of responding to attack.

You may regard this as bad or good, but it's not true.

It wasn't a British attack that initiated the War of 1812; it was a decision of the American leadership, led by the so-called War Hawks. It wasn't a German attack that initiated America's entry into World War I; it was a decision by President Wilson. And it wasn't a Spanish attack that initiated the Spanish-American War. Spain was trying to appease the United States, which insisted on going to war.

Don't be misled. History didn't start today. — Stephen Cox

What's cash got to do with it? — At the brink of war a new theory arose to explain why George W. Bush wanted to invade Iraq: to protect the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Saddam Hussein threatened the hegemony of the dollar, the theory went, by pricing his oil in euros.

There is a certain type of mind that leaps for the "insider" explanation, available only to those in the know. It is the type of mind that thinks it is sophisticated to say, "always follow the money." Not that they follow it, only that they say that. The earlier assertion of that type was that war was about oil. Bush had been an oilman (sort of) and Cheney had run an oil-services company. The invasion must be about "control" of Iraqi oil.

What would that mean? Without a war, America had already limited the amount of oil Iraq could sell. Did an invasion mean taking the oil, selling it and keeping the money? That was not something America was likely to do. It would cost more politically than it would pay and no precedent for this type of action had been set.

But this currency explanation — that was even cooler, because it was less obvious. Not that it stood up to even the first barrage of questioning.

Was Iraq important enough to influence the value of the dollar?

What country had ever strengthened its currency by starting a war? Would an addition of $100 billion or $200 billion to the U.S. national debt, on top of rock-bottom interest rates, strengthen the currency?

Could it be that Bush pretended to care about terrorism and "weapons of mass destruction," but that in private what really got his goat was Saddam's preference for the euro?

I recall the Nixon tapes. These reached right through the fog of public relations and spun to what the chief executive was thinking. And he was not thinking of currencies.

When H. R. Haldeman brought up the plight of the lira, Nixon snapped, "I don't give a shit about the Italian lira." It was the only mention of currencies that I remember from the tapes. Nixon was not interested in currencies. He was thinking about squeezing North Vietnam for political concessions. He was thinking about who was going to win, and who was going to get credit. That is what war is about. Not money. — Bruce Ramsey

Top 10 Reasons to Conquer the World — A number of people who call themselves libertarians are arguing that many benefits will accrue if the United States government attacks Iraq. Prevent future terrorist attacks. Stop the diffusion of weapons of mass destruction. Save the poor Iraqis from a nasty dictator. Make the world safe for democracy. That sort of thing.

I don't know why they stop with just Iraq. Seems to me these people should have the courage of their convictions. The following is a brief list of some of the many benefits that will accrue if the United States government simply takes over the entire world:

1. Stop the threat of Islam easily, by having Congress declare it a cult and ending mosques' tax-exempt status.
2. Eliminates the unpatriotic option of "America: Love It or Leave It."
3. Easier to justify all those American troops around the globe.
4. No more need to suck up to the French.
5. Everyone could benefit from Social Security.
6. How else to pay for prescription drugs for seniors?
7. Current federal budget spread out among all those new taxpayers equals lower taxes!
8. Inspiring words of Emma Lazarus . . . "Give me your poor, your weary, yearning to breath free . . ." achieved automatically.
9. No more foreign wars.
10. Less chance Florida would decide presidential elections.

— Ross Levatter

Bust out the duct tape! — So, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld created trouble for British Prime Minister Tony Blair — inadvertently or not, who can be expected to tell — by commenting that the U.S. could take Iraq all by itself, with or without British troops. Antiwar Brits pounced on the comment and suggested the British troops already there should come home and study war no more.

It's not that it isn't fun sometimes to hear Don Rumsfeld talk — he's often candid and has less concern about whom he might offend with an occasional indiscreet comment than most boring government officials. But sometimes he might do well to put a sock in it. Or perhaps Tom Ridge can finally find a use for some of that famous duct tape. — Alan W. Bock

An oily theory — It's fun to say the war in Iraq (I'll assume it's underway by the time this sees print) is all about oil. While there will almost certainly be beneficiaries of a war with Iraq that puts the U.S. in charge of the oilfields — and most of the beneficiaries will be U.S. and British companies, with the Russians, Chinese, and French frozen out — going to war for oil is hardly an efficient way to get cheap oil. If we really wanted cheap and abundant supplies the best bet would be to declare peace and open trade. War might redistribute the beneficiaries of oil (at the expense of American taxpayers and American military personnel) but it won't make oil cheaper or more abundant. I suspect the war is really about projecting American power, increasing American influence, protecting Israel, and positioning the United States to go after the next target in the War on Terror. And I find that prospect a lot more chilling, frightening, and potentially destabilizing than a crude scramble for crude that seems to some war opponents the essence of evil. — Alan W. Bock

© Copyright 2008, Liberty Foundation

Send editorial comments to letters@libertyunbound.com.
All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.

Send web site comments to webmaster@libertyunbound.com.