The Iraq War

Why hasn't the American government provided a national healthcare system and a national university program yet? How can we have the ability to spend four billion dollars a month bringing democracy to the sands of Iraq, but the inability to provide free healthcare and higher education for our citizens? If the war in Iraq is being waged for our protection, why aren't we protecting the founding principles of this nation in the first place: free healthcare, life; a successful and lawful war on terror, liberty; and freedom from the worry and apprehension of those aforementioned and obvious standards to pursue the American dream, the pursuit of happiness? And this debate surpasses political alignments. Why is a conservative any less capable than a liberal of providing these unalienable rights to every American citizen? There are those conservatives who have an enlightened view on the purpose of government, which is the protection of its citizens. (Schmitt) And in this country, that means the supplications of the disadvantaged must be heard and acted upon. Government programs should exist to help the poor out of their current economic strata and into the 'middle class'. And, in the near future, that will hopefully result in the erasure of both echelons. This economic plan should not be confused with communism or socialism. It is because of our modified capitalism that we are in the best position to help those in need. You can be as rich as you want, but if the man next to you has to choose between heat for his house or food for his children, then the country you live in is seriously flawed. If that family cannot provide the means to escape their economic desperation, a higher education, then the country is blemished. Because these instances are far from rare, America is no longer of sound governance. Without a redress of these grievances, the morality on which we establish our foreign policy imperative falls baseless and weak. And it is on this currently inadequate imperative that the war in Iraq is being fought. War is not the answer to our global problems. If America is to effectively lead the way to global solutions, we must reevaluate the considerable failure to correctly appropriate American money. America must set the example of moral authority in order to lead by it.

Though the Iraqi war has been on for the past three years, a more recent example of misappropriations is the massive failure to respond to hurricane Katrina. Perhaps when we began to think of them as refugees, we no longer felt compelled to send aid as we would to American citizens. But why would those affected by a hurricane lose their citizenship? What possible reason could justify this kind of treatment for free born Americans? The answer of course, is no reason. And it is perhaps this lack of a higher reasoning that led to the catastrophe after the natural disaster. Also, this focus on the Middle East has taken the preciously short American attention span off of larger domestic issues. Problems with race relations are still going largely unnoticed in society. As many have put it before, racism is, "that elephant sitting in the room that no one wants to talk about." And there he will remain until a greater focus is attained. The fact that the majority of those affected by the failure in the south are black gives me an even greater sense of apprehension towards our government.

Truth be told, however, we do live in a world where there are dangerous people who wish harm upon us with every fiber of their being. And somebody has to pick up a weapon to defend the populace against such aggressions. But even looking at the cold, hard facts, the undisputed numbers, we see a massively disproportionate response. If we are in Iraq as part of the greater war on terror that was incited by the events of September 11^th, then we have more than made our point in terms of those indifferent statistics. 2,792 Americans were murdered on that day (Kean, et al). As of a few months ago, the conservative estimate on the Iraqi death toll topped 30,000. And as for American soldiers, so far 2,600 have died for their country in the desert 6,193 miles from home (Eden). No matter which perspective you look at the current conflict with, it is hard to make an argument that 32,600 people would be dead if we had not invaded Iraq, 2,600 of them Americans. How many more bodies are needed to sufficiently prove the righteousness of our intentions? Will 2,792 soldiers have to die to placate our thirst for blood? How can a nation founded on the principles of the enlightenment still resort to such barbaric tactics?

Globalization is a viable solution to the terrorist problem. If we must fight, then why not fight together? But that concurrence cannot emerge if America will not stop eating away at the global society by inciting and prolonging a conflict in the Middle East that's only purpose now is to galvanize and expand a serious threat. Terrorism is borderless, and so must be the response. And if America wishes to lead the global cause, we must first resolve our own domestic issues.

Works Cited

United States. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
Commission Report 21 Aug. 2004
http://www.9-11commission.gov>

Hirschkorn, Phil. "New York Reduces 9/11 Death Toll by 40." Cnn.com 29 Oct 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/10/29/wtc.deaths/>

Eden, L. "Great Circle Distances." Texas A&M University 1997
http://www.wcrl.ars.usda.gov/cec/java/capitals.htm>

Schmitt, Tracy. "Social Security's 70^th Birthday." Republican National Committee 11
Aug. 2005 < http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=5720>