The Fall of Baghdad

By Keith Boykin, in politics
Friday, April 11 2003, 9:31AM

They were right. The image of jubilant Iraqis cheering for U.S. troops shows that Bush was right all along. Americans should feel much better about the war knowing that we liberated the people of Baghdad from the yoke of dictatorial oppression. There's only one problem: that wasn't why we went to war.

Critics of the war might be tempted to hang their heads in shame for speaking out. Bush's approval ratings have soared as the Iraqi regime has crumbled. The once reluctant American public now fully supports the war.

But there's no reason for shame in fighting for peace. Bush's own father held equally high approval ratings during the 1991 Gulf War and went on to lose the election to Bill Clinton the following year. When the media images disappear, the public starts focusing on domestic issues, and historians finally analyze how this war happened, the opponents of war will soon have their day. It may take awhile, but there is one story that will eventually emerge -- this war never had to happen.

The Purpose of The War

For the past year, the Bush Administration has told us that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous threat to the U.S. His fiercely loyal Republican Guard troops would fight to the death to defend Baghdad in the bloodiest battle of the war. He would destroy all of his oil fields and massacre his people to prolong the war. They said he was developing weapons of mass destruction to use against us. They warned that he would use chemical and biological weapons against our troops. And they said he was directly or indirectly linked to the September 11 attacks. So far, none of it has turned out to be true.

Remember back two months ago when Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the U.N. to argue for a second resolution. He made three points then. (1) Iraq is not cooperating with the U.N. (2) Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. (3) Iraq has ties to terrorists. Those were the reasons we supposedly went to war.

When Bush decided to launch the war in March, the purpose shifted from disarmament to "regime change." And when American troops began the invasion of Iraq, the purpose changed again to "liberating the Iraqi people."

Why did it change? It had to. With no evidence connecting Iraq to 9/11, no proof of any advanced chemical or biological weapons program, and a hallow Iraqi military that collapsed in less than a month, it's clearer now than ever that Saddam Hussein never posed a significant threat to the U.S.

Ridding the World of Dictators

Damn the facts. Full speed ahead with the war. Americans greeted the fall of the Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad almost as gleefully as we did when King George was defeated in the American Revolution. But what did Saddam Hussein ever do to Americans?

He was a brutal dictator, of course. But so too are Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Fidel Castro in Cuba and Kim Jong Il in North Korea. Are they next?

Given the lack of evidence against Iraq, it should concern us that the American media and public were so easily convinced that our chief enemy was a two-bit Arab leader who had never attacked us and whose bark was far worse than his bite. Now that Hussein has been dethroned, are we any safer than we were before? Perhaps, a little, but remember just a year ago Osama bin Laden was public enemy number one, and he has yet to be caught.

The Media Play Games With the News

Since the war started three weeks ago, I have refrained from criticizing the military strategy or commenting on the progress of the war.

Embedded safely in my position in Manhattan, I have no special expertise about the war plan. For the past three weeks, I have limited my access to television news coverage to less than an hour a day. Some days I don't watch the news at all.

I've been disappointed by the media coverage of the war. At times, the war coverage felt too much like watching a football game. The Americans are on the Iraqi 40 yard line and closing in on a touchdown. The Iraqis go for a "Hail Mary" but it's blocked by the Americans. And the Americans reach the end zone in the final seconds of the game. What a game this has been , folks!

A staff person at a college I visited recently took the analogy even farther. He said we seem to pick our sides on the war almost as casually as we pick our favorite teams. We don't know why, but we root for the home team. Or could it be we've come to appreciate the $400 billion roster, the superior coaching, the skilled offensive line, or the ability to go deep into the field up in the air.

Now that "the game is over," as Iraq's ambassador to the U.N. put it, where do we go from here? Do we march into Syria, Iran or North Korea? Do we launch a new policy that respects human rights throughout the world? Or do we drum up another new enemy to keep us occupied and distracted from the economy?

There are questions for Iraq too. How do we restore power to the Iraqi people? How do we rebuild a country we just helped destroy? What role should the U.N. play in a "post-Saddam Iraq"? And how do we pay for it all when our own economy is faltering and our deficits are skyrocketing?

As the old saying goes, "Be careful what you ask for because you just might get it."

Comments (12) reveal