In the summer of 1950, Charles Rangel's Army unit, the Second Infantry Division,
left Fort Lewis, Wash., for South Korea to fight the North Koreans and the Chinese.
Fifty-two years later, that same division is still mired in Korea, guarding
the South against the North, says Rangel, who was wounded there. So it's with
no little knowledge of war that he believes that for the United States to make
war on Iraq would be a terrible mistake.
If some enemy were planning to attack the United States, and we had the evidence,
"I'd have no problem with a pre-emptive strike and taking them out," Congressman
Rangel, who has represented Harlem for 32 years, told me the other day. But going
to war against Iraq at this time would be wrong, he said.
"How many troops would we need to rebuild Iraq? Who will help us? What happens
when the foot soldiers are in the street? Who is the enemy? And do we expect the
Muslim people to be standing there with little American flags, saying 'We've been
waiting for you?'"
The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote today on a resolution giving
George W. Bush the authority to declare war on Saddam Hussein on a pretext that
remains unsupported by evidence. The resolution is sure to pass. And the question
Rangel's asking is "where's the outrage?" - not just in Washington, but from Americans
in general.
"This is the eve of an election, and the president is wrapping this issue
up in the flag," Rangel said. "To be honest, even the Democrats are saying where
are the Democrats?"
A survey taken by Congressman Dennis Kucinich this week estimated that as
many as 100 Democrats, along with a handful of Republicans in the 435-member House,
will vote against the resolution. But others put the final tally much lower. In
the Senate, war opponents can be counted on one hand: Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy
and Carl Levin, according to my last count.
Even New York Sens. Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton say they don't know
how they're going to vote, while half the state's congressional delegation is
saying they'll support the president. The collective lack of courage about a gratuitous
and potentially disastrous war is mind-boggling.
"When they ask the president why go to war now, he said it was 9/11," Rangel
told me. "I said, there's another date too - Nov. 5. When the flag goes up - and
the president has certainly picked this time to raise this issue - there's a saying
in Congress that if you have to explain your position, you've got a problem."
The latest poll says Americans' support for a war on Iraq has fallen in the
last two weeks, and that our support drops to only 33 percent when Americans are
told there could be as many as 5,000 U.S. casualties. But moral outrage among
ordinary Americans over this deadly venture seems oddly lacking, too. Fifteen
thousand antiwar protestors gathered in Central Park this week, but numbers like
those are too small to prevent a cave-in Congress.
"The issue in my opinion is where are the American people," Rangel said. "We
are elected to provide leadership. But we are also elected to represent and to
share the feelings of our constituents. ... People should be asking their representatives,
'Have you lost your mind? Whose boys and girls are going to be put in harm's way?'"
Rangel's district, however, is safe, and in contests between principles and
political safety, our legislators tend to march straight toward the safety zone.
The American public is confused about this war and manipulated by a president
who keeps repeating that Saddam Hussein is evil and that he's out to get us. If
the president keeps saying it, then it must be true, people figure - even though
the CIA this week released information suggesting that if this war is based on
an Iraqi threat, then it is a sham and a lie.
It's Congress, not the public, who will vote on this resolution and possibly
put a war in motion. And if the members vote for it because it's safer to wrap
themselves in the flag than it is to do what's right for the country, then they
alone will bear the blame.
Copyright © 2002, Newsday, Inc.
###