"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." -George W. Bush 10/7/2002
Substitute President Bush with President Obama, and substitute Iraq with Syria and look what we have. We have the current issue of Syria possessing chemical weapons. This has been a claim made largely by the international community. But is this an accurate claim? Or is this a claim made as an excuse to go to war? Comparing Iraq and Syria, it is scary to see how they are similar. It is scary to see how history could possibly be repeating itself.
The Iraq War started with the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein. President Bush accused Saddam of possessing WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). Bush made the statement that Saddam was going to use these weapons against his own people and also use the weapons against the greater international community especially its neighbors, such as Iran. When Bush made this claim, people believed him. When Colin Powell went to the UN Security Council with a vial of anthrax, everyone believed him. At that point everyone was going to support an invasion of Iraq. But when the Iraq War "ended", it was revealed that Saddam had no WMDs. This lead to widespread speculation that the issue of WMDs was used as an excuse to invade Iraq. Did we invade Iraq due to WMDs? Did we invade due to a oppressive regime? Or did we invade to benefit ourselves?
Now lets look at Syria. The Syrian regime is controlled by Assad. Assad has been oppressing the people of Syria, and Syria is caught in a civil war. The international community has largely not gotten involved on the ground in Syria. However, this may soon change due to one simple accusation. There have been reports that Syria posses chemical weapons. If Syria were to actual posses these chemicals, it could do severe damage to its people and some countries around it. But the question is does Syria actually posses these weapons? It could be possible that this is just an accusation made so that Syria is invaded. Either war, it provides an eerie comparison.
We are not on the ground in Syria. Neither were we on the ground in Iraq. As a result we do not know the exact conditions. We were not in Iraq experiencing the issues there. We the public did not know if Saddam had the weapons. We were told that he did. It brings up the issue of what the public is told. We the public are outsiders. The people "in" major players in world relations either knew if Iraq had the weapons or they themselves were fooled as well. I am not willing to argue the conspiracy here, but I will acknowledge both sides have plausible cases. The issue that I would like to bring up is that we the public, as outsiders, are never told the full story. This is for obvious security reasons, but it brings up the issue what should or shouldn't we be told? In the case of Syria, I have no idea what is actually going on. I only have news sources to rely on. However, is that better than if I knew the actual truth?
The connection you bring up is actually quite frightening. We don't really realize history could be on the verge of repeating itself until it actually happens. Our history shows that the US has a tendency to take preemptive action, but the question comes down to when it's justified and when it isn't. I'm not saying I'm in support of Bush's actions, but what would've happened if Iraq actually had WMDs? Would we have saved 1000s of lives? Maybe. As you said, we're not on the ground in Syria, so we may not have an accurate gauge on the situation. But if we are to take action, we better do our research.
ReplyDeleteBut the thing is we do to tons of research. We have departments upon departments inside the White House that have the jobs of finding this research. So is the issue maybe the quality of our research rather than the quantity?
DeleteWhile I don't feel that the US had a perfectly just reason for invading Iraq, I still think that the US government would not blatantly lie to its citizens. There must have been some research which convinced Bush and the government of WMDs in Iraq. However, as you mentioned, it poses the question of the quality of research or even more so of how the government might manipulate data to take their side. Much like how people justify some actions with religion and citing their holy book, the government may take information that really does not mean anything and twist it so it does. I like to believe that what comes out of the government is the truth, but realistically I have to be doubtful of absolute truth.
DeleteYou could also think of it this way: the government tells us what it wants as the truth.
Delete