On the Eve of 2004

Roberta M. Gilbert M.D., Basye, Virginia

In 2003 the United States went to war against a small nation with an evil dictator. There was so little evident justification for this devastating first strike attack that people are left speculating about the real reasons for the new and aggressive stance of the U. S. Did it have to do with the 'war on terror'? Hardly. My reading of several books on the bin Ladin operation indicated that there were many nations known to have contributed funds to Usama bin Ladin. Iraq was not one. The books documented that several nations had allowed terrorism training camps within their borders and still have them. But Iraq was known to have harbored only a transient one, small and in the past.

Hussein was, to be sure, an evil dictator. But, there are many of these in the world. How did he happen to be picked out for a war that killed many of his people (although it has not been in our major news media, one report cited upwards of 30,000 Iraqi civilians lost their lives in the war) but not the dictator himself?

Were we trying to 'spread democracy?' If we were, that is a new initiative that should rightly have had a great deal of discussion and press. There was none. And since when do we go spreading democracy by first strike wars?

Was it to increase the security of Israel? Was it to take over Iraqi oil? Was it to bolster our economy as war is said by some to do? Was it to move the focus of the terrorist machine from U.S. shores to another land? We can only guess what the real reasons for the war are, so far are we, in this country, from a real democracy.

For those of us who love peace and hate war, we can only hope that leaders of the United States begin to see things differently and act differently toward the other nations of the world soon. We the people can envision and work for, more of a democracy here. We can only hope for and work toward a populace that thinks more clearly and is less led by what appears to be unsound policy and 'groupthink'.

In 2004, if civilization endures, there will be an election in the United States. This election carries immense significance because of the enormous power that is now vested in the administrative branch of our government, in a country now commonly referred to as a 'superpower.' So, now U.S. elections carry significance for all the peoples of the world.

The citizens of the U.S. will have an opportunity to approve or protest against the incredible course of events of 2003.

If they endorse the present administration, we can expect more of the same behavior from the powerful U.S.:

• Decisions driven by emotional reactivity, public relations or political considerations, rather than by the facts, logic, a desire for peace, or even what is in the interest of the American people.
• We might even see more wars (if those surrounding the president continue to influence events as they have so far) for reasons that are ill-defined and not understood completely by the people.

We can expect to see, therefore, if the current administration is re-elected, less and less democratic process in the U.S. In that case, the U.S. will be in the ludicrous position of forcing what it puts forward as democracy on other, conquered countries, while knowing nothing of it at home. This is tyranny, expanding and imperialistic. Tyrannies have proved themselves to be time-limited. In history, they have a record of collapsing suddenly of their own weight.

Even if there is a change in the administrative branch with the election, it is possible that there will be little change. Only one candidate is in opposition of the war and he is opposed by his party. Presidents from both parties in modern history have engaged in wars that were ill-justified. What right did we have to engage war in Bosnia? By what right do we deploy troops in over 100 countries presently?

One can only hope that, even in the societal regression in which we find ourselves, U.S. citizens and those concerned citizens of the world at large will exert some corrective influence over the force and power of those at the head of the superpower.

One can only hope that, somehow, this great power will come to be modulated by integrity, logic, fair play and less emotional reactivity and political considerations, both internal and international.

One hopes that the great power of the U.S. will not be wasted on war, but used instead to bring peace to conflicted areas, to understand how it can work to help solve the horrors of the world rather than becoming a part of themÑthat there is actually a potential, with such power, for great good in the world. We would not rush in as murderers, but, armed with an understanding about human relationships, be connected with the peoples of the world in ways that further their and our interests. May we learn that, rather than throwing money at problems we would learn what is appropriate long-term, useful assistance, when needed, and if asked.

If the present situation eventually compels people to come to grips with the awfulness of the reality of war, find ways to actually outlaw it, finding better ways to protect the peace and well-being of citizens, perhaps it will have had a positive side. It would have had a positive side, too, if a dialogue could be initiated on:

• What, if anything nations should do about other nations ruled by dictators whose actions are inhumane or unethical,
• What is proper action against nations who host activities that directly impact other nations adversely, or
• How to address people, institutions and nations that support such dictators.

But I am not sure we will see the positive side of this or any other war in 2004. Humanity has rarely shown any ability to learn from its mistakes. May we each do what we can in the coming year to understand as many of the facts as possible, and live up to that understanding, taking the most responsible position we possibly can.