America's slippery slope

There is no such thing as an inevitable war. If war comes, it will be from the failure of human wisdom.

-- James Truslow Adams

Life in the 21st century continues to be viewed as a part of the inevitable truth that the lives among the peoples of all nations are expendable, and as mankind draws closer to the moment of yet another destructive war, we seem to be accepting human destruction as simply part of the total, universal process. Few can deny that this has been true since tribes became nations and before mankind reached any understanding of the sanctity of individual human beings.

It has been true throughout U.S. history, and as true as the stories of man's first centuries on Earth, that leaders gained approval and support from constituents by promising that their lives would be held sacred and that the innocent would not be offered as sacrifices to the ambitions of their leaders. Thus, this unrealized promise of previous ages once again threatens today's earthly inhabitants as America begins to wage war once again in the name of ending the terror spread by such evil men as Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

The inevitability of the power of evil on this fragile piece of the universe finds common ground in the sacrifice of innocent human beings who have no course to follow except that outlined by their leaders whose considerations take in not only their potential for success but inevitably their own personal rankings in the world's history books. One need not be an historian to recognize that the future heroes of civilization are those whose armies were defeated. The temptation for fame, unfortunately, is too great for many to forgo, while the ambitious are willing to risk the lives of their constituents on a single roll of the dice.

America faces war with an aggressive survivor of multiple wars in the Middle East, undoubtedly the deadliest spot on Earth because of religious and racial hatreds that have festered longer than the U.S. has been a nation. That Saddam Hussein is a survivor of the bitterest environment imaginable qualifies him as a ruthless, determined madman whose capacity for compassion is nonexistent, a fact which in turn makes him worthy of America's concern for civilization in the Middle East.

Those who have opposed any military reaction to the steady reaming by Iraq are quick to find numerous political motivations of those, including our president and much of Congress, who propose war over continued negotiation. It has not gone unnoticed that George W. Bush, well into his next-to-last year in office, has failed to stimulate the economy to the degree promised in 2000 and that efforts to restore some of the economic vitality of the 1990s have been far less than successful. This kind of malaise may or may not have yielded to programs offered by other leaders at varied moments since prosperity, but they did not reappear to any marked degree upon the establishment of the second Bush dynasty starting in 2001.

It was at the moment of the Twin Towers and Pentagon attacks that any priority existed to fight terrorism on a worldwide scale and the word al-Qaida became a part of the American dialogue. Our leaders soon identified bin Laden as World Threat No. 1 but looking into every tent in the Middle East was unproductive, and if there is a cry for vengeance, it can only be answered by producing a conspicuous villain.

This may not be sufficient reason for a multibillion-dollar war that will place greater pressure on a lagging U.S. domestic economy, but a telling statement by a member of the White House staff explains it well: "It's all war, and until this gets resolved, it's all about Iraq. History shows that once the shooting starts, the public rallies around the president and once it's over, this president will use his political capital to get things done at home."

What a horrifying, cynical explanation for the loss of American, British and Iraqi lives, but in reality, a truthful outline of the analysis that takes place in the strategic centers of our world's civilizations. America goes to war to transfer issues from one location to another while seeking constituent approval, which will in turn serve to bolster the profits of American businesses and corporations, which will then guarantee the political longevity of the leader of one of the two U.S. political parties.

Although he earlier said he would not support any such plan, President Bush has again relented on a major sticking point and agreed to rebuild Iraq after the war, an agreement that may lead to U.S. outlays nearly as large as the military engagements themselves. We have plans, not yet formally announced, to engage in the same kind of infrastructural rebuilding the United States launched after World War II, and will spend billions and billions rebuilding the homes, businesses and manufacturing components we will destroy in war.

Those with any memory of the late 1940s will recall the doctrine proposed by Gen. George Marshall, and implemented by President Harry Truman, to rebuild the internal structure of our war allies and friends: Germany, France, Italy and the Soviet Union. In the event you may have overlooked the irony, appreciation for the billions we spent on the Marshall Plan was never paid by Germany, France or Russia as recently as their votes in the United Nations to oppose our regime change proposals in Iraq. Long live ingratitude.

Everybody gets something from this crisis: Iraqis get a new or restored infrastructure, Hussein gets a lifetime of luxury in an exotic locale, North Korea gets breathing room to expand its nuclear capabilities, Middle East exporters get to reap higher profits on their petroleum, a sluggish U.S. economy is overcome, plus George W. wins re-election.

And the American taxpayers gets the bill!

Jack Stapleton is the editor of Missouri News & Editorial Service.