To bomb or not to bomb, that is the...

To bomb or not to bomb, that is the…

Editorial

Well, OSU’s fleeting moment in the international spotlight is over. Time to – depending on your point of view – sit back and pat yourselves on the back for a job well done, or scratch your head and wonder what the hell just happened.While we stand behind our earlier assessment of one group’s less than constructive behavior, we’d remind everyone that there are still issues of vital importance concerning possible military action against Iraq which the Clinton administration has failed to address.Disruptions aside, what Secretary of State Albright, Secretary of Defense Cohen and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger presented to the public may as well not have been said at all. There was no new information given, no direct answers proffered. Consequently, there was no reason for anyone in St. John Arena, or anywhere else in the world, to feel any more comfortable with the idea of military intervention following the town meeting than before it began.On Monday we used the words ‘incoherent’ and ‘disconnected’ to explain the administration’s policy toward Iraq. And following Wednesday’s rather lackluster performance by Albright and company, we’d like to add two more.Vague and evasive.When confronted with tough, probing questions concerning both the goals and justifications of a United States military response to Iraqi defiance, the defense team hid behind generic testimonials to American military strength and Saddam Hussein’s endless capacity for evil. And while there is little doubt in our minds that we do, indeed, possess the strongest armed forces on the planet and that everyone’s more than convinced that Saddam is a very, very bad man, these two universal truths cannot serve as blanket justifications for air strikes against the Iraqi people.In short, there are still too many unanswered questions to, in good conscience, throw support behind the president and his ambiguous policy.So, because the green sweater guy took up such an inordinate amount of time spazzing out and we didn’t get a chance to ask our question, here’s a brief wish list of things that make you go ‘hmmm’:- Defense Secretary Cohen has gone on record as saying that when it comes to Iraqi biological and chemical weapons they could ‘reconstitute them in a fairly short period of time.’ If this is the case, how can we be certain that we’re not going to be back in the same position a couple of years down the road?- Saddam needs to go, we think even Jon Strange would agree with that. But the defense team flatly stated that their intended goal is not to topple Hussein. Rather, they’d like to see a popular domestic revolt overthrow the dictator. Fine. But is the U.S. prepared to give financial and military support to the ethnic Kurds in the North and the Shiite Muslims in the South? These are Saddam’s most likely successors, and when they’ve attempted uprisings in the past, we’ve failed to come to their aid. They must love us.- The Middle East Peace Process. Although Albright tried to say that they were separate issues, neither the woman who questioned her about a military action’s possible effects on the peace process, nor the audience really bought the Secretary of State’s line. What about the Palestinian group Hamas and their threat to attack Israeli targets if the United States bombs Iraq? A separate issue indeed.The questions could continue ad nauseum, and should. What we’re talking about is taking the lives of thousands of civilians, of attacking the Iraqi nation to embattle the Iraqi state. If the administration wants us to come around to their way of thinking, they’re going to have to do a better job of making their case.