As the possibility of a U.S.-led attack on Iraq becomes increasingly likely, the rhetoric surrounding the issue has become correspondingly heated. There are sound arguments on both sides, but the implication that those who question America’s foreign policy or oppose the war are somehow “un-American” is ludicrous.

Government documents recently declassified under the Freedom of Information Act reveal some disturbing facts about the history of U.S. policy toward Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, acting as a special presidential envoy for President Regan, personally met with Saddam in December 1983, at a time when Saddam was using chemical weapons routinely against Iran in the Iran-Iraq War. During their meeting, Rumsfeld told Saddam that Washington wanted to resume full diplomatic relations with the regime.

Prior to the Gulf War, Washington shared intelligence with Iraq and provided Saddam with cluster bombs and some material needed to develop anthrax. Washington felt the U.S. had a strategic interest in seeing Iraq beat Iran in the war; Saddam’s secular despotism was seen as preferable to Iran’s brand of fundamentalist Islam.

These are facts; they are undisputed, and readily available to any U.S. citizen with a curiosity about U.S. foreign policy.

When I see Secretary Rumsfeld on the news, speaking somberly about the horror of Iraq’s human-rights violations, I cannot help but question his honesty. Do the facts I listed above conclusively prove that the U.S. should not invade Iraq? They do not. However, they should give any reasonable American pause when considering the justification for such a war.

A distrust of government, whether from the right or the left, is certainly always healthy, and it would be silly not to question the motives of an administration run, at least in part, by men who would justify war on moral grounds they clearly lack the moral authority to speak on.

Sam Swope, Lewiston

Copy the Story Link