In the barbershops, on the stoops, wherever everyday people talk about politics and the world, some are wisely asking: If America goes to war against Iraq, what will be our cost and consequences?
President Bush and those in his administration argue fervently for taking out Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein. The rhetoric is full of patriotism and support for the war on terrorism.
I've listened to many Americans who wonder about the consequences of war. They are not unpatriotic; they're dealing with the reality that if there are casualties, they will look like them.
As an Army veteran, from a family of veterans, I don't take the prospect of war lightly.
The modern all-volunteer Army looks more like America -- or is certainly more representative of the U.S. population -- than are the ranks of Wall Street brokers, the U.S. Senate or the corporate boards of the Fortune 500, whose children do not fill the ranks of the military. The volunteer Army, in particular the combat units, are disproportionately filled with people from black, brown and working-class white families.
There is a false sense among many Americans that casualties in a conflict with Iraq will be slight. Our experiences in the Gulf War and Serbia have persuaded too many that modern warfare is a bloodless enterprise fought at a distance -- that with highly sophisticated technology such as Stealth planes, pilotless drones, night-vision cameras and smart bombs, there will be minimal casualties. If conflict becomes up-close -- so goes this delusion -- we have highly trained and specialized forces that can demoralize, decimate and subdue the enemy.
After all, in Desert Storm, technology helped the United States and its allies smash the Iraqi army and run it out of Kuwait with relatively little loss of American life.
But this isn't invading Kuwait to throw out the Iraqis; this is invading Iraq to throw out Hussein. Invasion will entail more than the safe superiority of air power. There was little cover in the desert for Iraqi troops in the Gulf War. But if we have to invade Baghdad, there will be house-to-house combat, and casualties may be high.
NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE
Debate over going to war in Iraq soon will begin in Congress. Has Bush given clear enough evidence that Hussein is such a threat to our personal and national interests that we should go to war? Does Hussein really have (or will he soon get) weapons of mass destruction that are an imminent threat to America? Why go to war against Iraq and not China and North Korea, two nations that have weapons of mass destructions and can deliver them? Let's say we rout Hussein. What is the plan after that?
After Saudi Arabia, Iraq has the most oil in the Middle East. But if the American public believed oil was the real reason to invade, that public would demand a better reason or withhold support. Yet on Friday some Wall Street TV analysts said that a war with Iraq will be good for the economy and business. It is said that U.S. oil interests are hoping for a war.
No matter what the power elite think the war is about, for people at home, it's about casualties. There were casualties in the Gulf War, many a result of friendly fire, mistakes and accidents.
Those who represent the American people in Congress should be considering that reality. Many of their constituents are. These Americans do not always fly the flag, but their questions are patriotic, asked in the country's best interest -- their own. Best ask now rather than after the first body bags arrive.
Acel Moore is associate editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Copyright 2002 Miami Herald
###
