Tylor Brand

OK, let's get this out in the open: our little jaunt into Iraq is not a black and white issue, despite all efforts made by all diplomatic parties to make it so ÷ particularly the "allies," meaning America, Britain, and the tagalongs who hope to snag some scraps from those carving up Iraq's interests in the aftermath. There is some truth: Saddam Hussein is a cruel dictator who oppresses his people and needs to be stopped. But there is quite a bit of dubiousness as well: The way to accomplish this liberation is to bomb the country into gravel, decimate the infrastructure, then impose a dictator.

Few in America stop to think, "Are we the ones wearing the white hats?" because everybody is right, to themselves at least. What if the vast majority of the world, and even our ally nations, are on to something (say, Turkey's 90 percent disapproval rating of the war)? What if there's something to both the Kurdish and Iraqi opposition leadership's

disapproval of war as a way to finish this? Are we the bad guys? Nah!

The blurring is clear in our threat to make the United Nations "follow the League of Nations." If you recall, the League of Nations tanked due to the world's most advanced military power, Germany, deciding that it didn't have to play by the rules for its own interests and starting to pick off areas that would boost its power. That situation is playing out right now, but with a different actor playing the leading role ÷ we say Saddam, though he couldn't legitimately threaten the Swiss with his pathetic conventional forces ÷ but following the analogy, it's us.

It's not Iraq, but the United States bullying the world into accepting an action that will benefit it and its allies, and whoever doesn't jive with that is demonized as "Old Europe" (as opposed to the fresh, vigorous New Europe · Slovakia!), meaning greedy anti-Americans trying to "enable" Saddam. Are we the new Germany? In their own eyes, even the Nazis were right.

Here's where the "high ground" starts to erode: we ask to be sainted for trying to overthrow a savage dictator while we simultaneously prop up the worst human rights violators in recent history: Congress finally put stipulations on supplying arms and training to the Indonesians after their murder of a third of the population of East Timor starting in 1975 and their scorched-earth campaign in 1999 after the East Timorese voted to free themselves from the oppression. Colombia illegally uses much of our $2.4 billion in annual military aid to fund paramilitary groups to protect our pipeline against leftist rebels, resulting in over 40,000 dead. Turkey has been the largest arms purchaser in recent history with their $8 billion shopping spree that has gone to genocide against the Turkish Kurds, which will likely extend to Iraq after the war is underway (rumors say the Turks have been offered part of Northern Iraq so as to prevent any Kurdish tomfoolery like freedom or democracy). I won't even discuss Israel. So now we are going to invade a country against international law, world and increasingly domestic opinion, and the predicted humanitarian disaster · for what? Who benefits?

The one thing we can say is it's not the Iraqis. They get a new dictator and no political autonomy since that would involve Shi'ite majority control and Kurdish involvement ÷ a big diplomatic no-no. Add to this a land poisoned with more cluster bomblets and depleted uranium munitions, and then leave 50 percent of the post-war population without drinking water and you've got a real party on your hands. The U.N. predicts at least 500,000 dead, 16 million starving, and over 200,000 refugees in the aftermath. The sure winners: weapons manufacturers, the five corporations controlling the media (many, like General Electric Co., have stakes in both the media and weaponry, a conflict of interest if there ever was one), oil companies, and of course the Republicans, with their new immortal Caesar (they pronounce it "Reagan") leading the parade. Are we the good guys? Hardly.

So who's the hero? It's obviously not Saddam, who has subjected his people to repression and terror for decades. It's not France, Germany, Russia, or China, who have been selling Saddam military goods since the '80s, and it's definitely not the United States, which now stands on borderline genocide due to sanctions, let alone adding the predicted results of the war.

Maybe there is no good, maybe there is no evil. But here's the kicker: Have imperialistic greed and tribal vengeance ever caused anything but death and vengeance? The answer can only be "no."

Tylor Brand is a philosophy sophomore. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.