Has the invasion started yet? Because honestly, the Bush administration makes it sound like there is no reason to wait. We heard a week ago that a "coalition of the willing" is going to remove him with or without the United Nations. So why hasn't it done so?
The United States would certainly appreciate fiscal or military assistance, but what the hawks are really looking for is the moral green light. Plans for this war have met with protest and outrage from international leaders and millions of people worldwide. Despite frequently being accused of imperialism and spouting his own unilateralist rhetoric, the fact of the matter is that Bush still wants approval before going to war. Anti-war demonstrations here in the U.S. are very effective at keeping this approval away from him, and must be continued to help avert violence.
At his press conference last week, President Bush praised the freedom that our society grants to protestors and commented that the people of Iraq lack this freedom. However, he dismissed the protestors, citing anti-globalization demonstrations as an instance in which protests failed to sway his opinion. This was perhaps meant to discourage the protests that are now taking place every few weekends, or at least to say that they are having no effect. He's very wrong about that.
Recent events at the United Nations and the continuing anti-war demonstrations indicate that the administration will not get the approval it seeks, and should not delude itself into thinking it does. The administration knows that this war has become politically unfeasible, and we can only hope this continues to be the case.
Since last September, the White House has brought a great deal of attention to Iraq -- some would say to the exclusion of pressing domestic problems. There have been repeated attempts to connect the removal of Hussein's regime with the larger war on terror, and every day there is some news of the massive military deployment to the region or the negotiations with Iraq's neighbors for locations from which to stage the invasion.
What this all amounts to is that the White House has a tremendous amount of political capital invested; anything short of full regime change would leave it bankrupt in that regard. If the invasion or subsequent occupation were not to go as expected -- and the administration's reluctance to put a price tag on the whole endeavor leaves it some leeway -- the hawks would be out on a limb. They would lose all political clout, both at home and abroad. This is a question of more than just reelection; it's a question of legitimacy and of generally being able to influence people and get things done.
But this would not be the case if the international community went along with the president. In his press conference last week, President Bush tried to bluff the world into agreeing with him. He basically said that the United States would do this anyway, and would do it now, so everyone else may as well join in. France and Russia called his bluff, indicating a likely veto for the resolution that could be put to a vote within days.
The fact that Britain, America's staunchest ally, has started wavering recently suggests that the U.N. Security Council vote is about more than the "relevance" of the United Nations. Security Council disapproval means that the United States and its few allies -- but mostly the United States -- would take all the blame if things go badly. This is why the administration continues its attempts to get the international community's nod of approval.
So why hasn't the nod been given? That seems to be a question beyond President Bush's comprehension. During last week's press conference, several different reporters asked the same basic question: If the way to deal with Hussein's Iraq is so obvious to the American leadership, why does so much of the rest of the world disagree? Each time, the president either acknowledged the disagreement without offering possible reasons for it or simply ignored the question completely.
War protests seem almost anachronistic, yet they still work. That Bush's opinion will be changed is doubtful, but the protests are proof that millions of people hold a different opinion. These millions of people have no voting power when it comes to actually stopping the invasion, but they lend immense support and confidence to the handful of leaders who do. Bush may be able to condescendingly ignore normal people, but he still operates in a world of international political elites who have the legal ability and the media pull to stop him or make him and his cronies look like the warmongers they are.
The administration would love for us to think that there's nothing the American people can do to stop the war. The media, with cable news segments such as MSNBC's "Countdown Iraq," have accepted the war's inevitability. But the millions of protestors who will convene again this Saturday in locations around the world, including Charlottesville, beg to differ.
This war will be stopped before it starts by people telling the world's leaders that violence is not the answer. Keep voicing your dissent, and even if it doesn't stop the President from wanting to go to war, it will at least make it politically impossible for him to do so.
(Dave Algoso is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
