The Political Inquirer

March 20th, 2008, marks the 5th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq by Coalition forces. The debate over whether we should withdrawal or not continues to this day, but it has begun to subside—one of the greatest dangers in American politics today. Media reporting on the war has gone down. The continuing failure of the Democrats to stop the war has shown that they are politically powerless. Iraq was a major factor in the beginning of the presidential primary race, but is no longer. John McCain is arguably the most pro-war of the Republicans, while Hillary Clinton is obviously the biggest support of the war on the Democrat side. Barack Obama, hailed as an antiwar guru, has been shown time and time again not to be truly against the Iraq war. Ron Paul, who made his mark in the race by standing out from the other Republicans as an antiwar conservative, has lost the race for his party’s nomination. The Iraq war rages on, but the debate dwindles.

Has the debate been silenced?

Yes and no.

Iraq continues to be a dominate theme on Capitol Hill—but it is losing its coverage from the media as well as losing the public interest. The economy and healthcare seem to be the main issues concerning the public as time progresses. The debate over Iraq is apparently over—and those in favor of the war have won.

The issue should not be silenced. Those who agree with the war often argue that the opposition should “let the troops do their job”, “support the troops”, etc., but as soon as the war is criticized, those in agreement with the war accuse the opposition of “hurting troop morale” and “not supporting the troops”, among other things. Indeed, it goes to question the patriotism of those who oppose the war. As long as something is in the interest of “national security”, it should not be questioned until after the fact—it is, after all, national security.

I will admit I was once a proponent of the Iraq war, but things have changed. As I have learned more of foreign policy in the past few years I have realized that foreign intervention, from virtually every power and empire, has led to evil. It isn’t even about the deaths of innocents (which those in favor of intervention tend to overlook). The corruption and malice in the new government shows no limits. American interests lobby the government for favors. Companies get contracts from the government to do business in Iraq. Politicians in the Iraqi government give favors to American companies. Jobs are created that helps Iraq to some degree, but is a drain on the American taxpayer. Our three trillion dollar budget doesn’t include the massive war spending that Congress reauthorizes every few months.

What good did we do in Iraq? There is, obviously a debate. Is the killing and terrorism that abounds there now a good price to pay for overthrowing Saddam Hussein? Five years ago I said any price was worth it—he was evil. Now I disagree. Others still hold to the view I once took. There can be disagreements on foreign policy, but the way pro-war forces have won the debate are wrong.

To question one’s patriotism or his sincerity about supporting the troops and not the mission is not a good argument. It is a personal attack against the person—trying to show the person is flawed, which then would discredit the attack he makes. For years this kind of attack by conservatives has continued without much success. The war continued to lose popularity and success seemed a more and more distant goal.

But then towards the end of 2007, with the two Democrats with a chance to win the White House ceasing to debate votes on funding for the Iraq war, the media slowly stopped talking about Iraq in the same tone. Ask someone on the street today what the biggest issue is to them—they probably will say the economy or some variant thereof (taxes, healthcare, etc.). The war is slowly being forced into our minds as something that had to happen and there just is not anything we can do about it. I beg to differ.

The Iraq war must be debated and the principles which guide foreign policy must be brought to light. The root causes of interventionism must be shown. A look back to our Founding Fathers quickly shows us that they were opposed to foreign intervention. John Adams made his mark as the second President of the United States by opposing a war with France which the precursors to modern neoconservatives, the Hamiltonian Federalists, would have loved. Adams thought peace in the United States so important he even thought of an epitaph for himself: “Here lies John Adams, who took upon himself the responsibility of peace with France in the year 1800.”

We must not cease debate on the Iraq war. A permanent state of war opens the door to tyranny. As long as the executive has a reason to argue for an expansion of power, he will. Power continuously grows, and few will take it upon themselves to check that power. It is the purpose of government to continually grow in power. War is the easiest way to put the people in a fearful state of mind where they will surrender liberties that much more easily. Without a continuing debate over the war, Americans will become lax in their fight for preservation of rights and will accept such tyranny without opposition.

If we do not continue debating the occupation of Iraq, we will likely end up with another South Korea on our hands—and a universally accepted approval of the war.