48 Hours

Forty-eight hours. It makes it seem longer if you spell it out. I wish it were. That’s how long the President of the United States gave the President of Iraq today to leave his office and his nation. We have presented this ultimatum because the Iraqi dictator has violated United Nations sanctions on disarmament, continues to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, and because he rules his people in a tyrannical fashion rather than in ways that the civilized world recognizes as reasonable and just. Unfortunately we have been unable to persuade most of the civilized world that our actions are reasonable or just. But confident we are right we are moving ahead.

We apparently have “intelligence” that would be persuasive to draw support for our cause, but are unwilling to share enough of it to change the opposition we have encountered from many otherwise sympathetic nations. We have said throughout this crisis that we value what other nations think or else we wouldn’t have spent so much time and energy engaged in serious debate with them through individual discussions and through the officers of the United Nations. But it now seems that either we didn’t really mean that or something has changed. And then there’s always those unnamed factors, like the selfish interests of those other nations, which limit their abilities to be reasonable, and our own unsaid selfish motivations that limit our ability to be reasonable.

We have been asked how we might govern this complex nation of peoples after we “win,” but the only reply so far is that much work needs to be done on that front. Again, the concerns of most of our friendly partner nations seem to be falling on deaf ears in this moment in history. There must be more to it than we hear in the news. But I thought we were a nation whose government was of the people and for the people. None of this secrecy seems to be in keeping with that kind of government – the kind that we describe as Democratic. I wonder how our behavior will influence our credibility around the world. I wonder if our neighbors in Asia and Europe will add this soon-to-be invasion of ours to other recent actions – such as our refusal to sign the Kyoto agreement - as yet another example of American arrogance? I wonder if – as promised - we can win in a matter of weeks, minimize the loss of life, bring our troops home with only a small number left behind to advise and help police Iraq, encourage the various indigenous people of Iraq to work together to form some new version of a Mid-East democracy, maybe with a legislative body like the Knesset, phase our involvement out completely over a few years, and restore confidence with the rest of the world that America can be trusted to act in cooperation with other world leaders and is still genuinely dedicated to the idea of world peace and a common good? I wonder if, as we are being told, that this action will make the United States a safer place.

It’s strange how the Iraqi people seem to be taking all this. I sure wish they were able to send us a signal of their hopes of being liberated. I mean their lives are at risk – at least those who live in the major urban centers, which I understand is the vast majority of the population. Maybe they’re more afraid of their tyrannical leader than they are of our bombs. Is that possible? Maybe there are no real journalists on the ground. Maybe there’s such a momentum towards starting a war – for the first time in our nations’ history – that the real news is being suppressed – or bent. Maybe the journalists have been duped. Maybe they’re afraid. Maybe the Iraqi people are genuinely eager for us to invade their nation for the sake of a better life. Really? Could that really be possible?  

And then there are our soldiers. We seem to refer to them more often as “the military,” than we do as soldiers. Maybe that makes it seem less personal. Well it’s real personal to those who are soldiers, or the families of soldiers, or those of us who live in community with soldiers. Here in Norfolk, Virginia dozens of our neighbors and friends are deeply affected by these plans that will likely unfold in 48 hours, and many of us feel real hesitation about this engagement – and not from fear. These soldiers and sailors are brave and dedicated people. So are their families. It’s because the explanations seem to be so flimsy. And yet there are others who react to that hesitation with dirty looks and accusations of being unpatriotic. I thought holding our government responsible for serving the people and telling the truth WAS patriotic. I thought doing all we can to ensure that we put our soldiers lives at risk only as an absolute last resort WAS patriotic. I thought honoring the Constitution of the United States and challenging any political choices that appear to be unconstitutional, such as starting a war without provocation, WAS patriotic. Why is patriotism now suddenly to be understood in different terms that it has been historically? Why is patriotism now seen as blind allegiance to one political point of view – a view that cannot find reasonable support from other leading nations – and a point of view that among scholars of international politics makes absolutely no sense at all? Since when did patriotism become confused with tribal loyalty?  

I realize that there are times when we have to put it all on the line in order to take the important steps towards a vision of a common good – an international common good. We cannot permit international courtesies to stand in the way of justice – even with our friends. We cannot tolerate suicide bombers or permit terrorist leaders to sit at the international table. If we are to be engaged in our noble vision of the common good we need to take risks. There’s no progress without risk. But are these risks we are now taking aimed at a lasting good that has been thought through - that has been reached through open debate - that is in the best interest of both Iraq and the United States - that will without doubt curb terrorism to such a degree that it will be worth the loss of life that will surely result from this American invasion? I know there comes a point in time when decisions need to be taken – even imperfect ones. But is this 48 hour deadline one that allows all affected parties an opportunity to participate in the decision?  Have we even asked the people we say we are planning to liberate if the want to be liberated? Was there some sort of secret vote on that I missed? Do we actually know the mind and heart of the people we claim to serve? Have they asked us for this help? Have we asked them? If not, then this is a war of aggression and not a war of liberation. If so, then let’s at least call it what it really is. If so, then is the evidence of threat sufficiently immanent and compelling to justify this historically unique action? Because if not, thousands of lives are at stake and there must be recourse if this is about something other than the common good. We have 48 hours.

I wonder if we have honored the best process, revealed as much to our colleague nations as we could, taken seriously the need for as much international unity as could be mustered, been sensitive to perceptions of American hubris, and realized that we are 48 hours away from a very new America – and very possibly a very new world. God only knows if it will be a better one.  So many questions. So little information. Absolutely no clarity or certitude – except about one thing. The world has 48 hours.