Gulf War II: The Obsession Continues
Editorial
Ahh euphemism.The gentle, innocuous art of replacing an offensive word or term with a phrase more pleasing to the ear and psyche has been receiving quite an extensive – if quiet – refinement in our culture over the last decade or so:- The 1986 Challenger explosion was dubbed a “major malfunction” by NASA.- Gulf War civilian casualties became “collateral damage” under the smooth direction of the Pentagon.- And now a pep rally designed to spin public opinion and gather support for an already predetermined course of action inexplicably becomes a “town meeting” when placed in the hands of the Clinton administration’s public relations behemoth.We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: A rose by any other name does not smell as sweet.But, it seems, Washington heavy hitters Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger believe otherwise. The purpose of their visit to OSU, presumably, is to more clearly articulate the administration’s heretofore incoherent, inconsistent policy toward middle-eastern ne’er-do-well Saddam Hussein. Good luck.The world is a vastly different place today than it was when Bush assembled an international coalition of nations to expel the Iraqi occupying invasion force from Kuwait in 1991. There are no enemy lines to point to on a map, no tiny country to liberate. No, the goals – such as they have been outlined – are far less tangible.”What we want to do is significantly diminish the capacity of the Iraqi’s to reconstitute, to develop, to deploy their weapons of mass destruction, and to threaten their neighbors,” said President Clinton earlier this month. The obvious question then becomes, how?As you’ll recall, this entire brouhaha ensued last October after the announcement that all Americans working for the United Nations special commission were to be kicked out of Iraq. The commission – which is charged with performing weapons inspections and surveillance of Iraqi armaments – was trying to determine whether or not Iraq has complied with the 1991 Security Council resolution ordering them to destroy all long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Now it’s access to Iraqi “presidential palaces” which has become the sticking point in diplomatic negotiations. The U.N. commission demands that it have free reign to explore every nook and cranny of the country. Baghdad refuses, citing national sovereignty and security concerns. And at this writing, east is east, west is west and never the twain shall meet.Til now we’ve been implicitly led to believe that if a military solution were to become necessary, the lion’s share of the task would be accomplished through air strikes. Unlike 1991, we won’t be sending hundreds of thousands of ground troops to achieve our objectives. Unfortunately, it is counter intuitive to believe that air strikes can accomplish the President’s stated goals.Although reports coming out of Baghdad are conflicting, there is a general consensus that we have very little idea of how many sites may exist or exactly where they are located. And, let’s face it, Saddam is almost certainly better at hiding stuff than we’re going to be at finding it.Even given the unlikely scenario that air strikes do somehow reduce the threat presented by Hussein, Cohen himself has acknowledged that rebuilding any weapons which might be destroyed would take “a fairly short period of time.”All of this makes us question what Clinton and company are hoping to accomplish. To many, our preoccupation with Saddam smacks of obsession, and quite possibly revenge. And as U.S. motivations continue to be questioned by the international community, our stature and credibility erode exponentially.If military action is necessary, then it’s necessary. But don’t pee on our collective leg and try to tell us it’s raining. That’s one euphemism we won’t buy.
