4 - The Michigan Daily - Friday, March 21, 2003 OP/ED Ulbe [itcht'rga t &zlg 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 letters@michigandaily.com EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 LOUIE MEIZLISH Editor in Chief AUBREY HENRETTY ZAC PESKOWITZ Editorial Page Editors NOTABLE QUOTABLE "(Students are outraged by this war." SAM BUTLER THE SOAPBOX Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of the majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other articles, letters and cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily. i Ar'i I Wank Gov A-0 1e+ khe pce sS know W0004-- PeCQ . or omb--l-in2-Zro.clt ' j kocdS-- '0' Ne11- so -We. -the f 'Qeaom--Fo W'ie d r 1. r VSR I / Rv ~,; "- T j s - ~ -; r-eaqi~Y 1 ~-e aooj And I.1 Rile ims9 - Community High School student Ben Ayer, who protested against the war yesterday in Ann Arbor, as quoted by the Detroit Free Press. Liberation, second chances and dark days ahead DAVID ENDERS WEIRD SCIENCE BEIRUT, Lebanon - had a wonderful dream last night. Saddam Hussein agreed to go into exile in order to save his ' people from death and destruction. George f Bush the Lesser called off his war, saying his belligerence and crusader zeal were all part of a brilliant ruse. "We just wanted to liberate the people of Iraq without bloodshed," he said from the White House Rose Garden. "The only way to do that was to look real serious. Cold War-style brinksmanship. I've been practicin' my poker face. Me and Colin were the only ones in on it! We fooled ya! And all these months Dick Cheney has been in an 'undisclosed location?' He's been working on a comprehensive and responsible plan to rebuild the Iraqi infrastruc- ture. Halliburton's even gonna donate the money to do it." Waking up these days is more depressing than usual. Now that the "liberation" of Iraq's oil - uh, people - has begun, it's time for the Bush junta to make good on the promise that all the United States wants is to spread democracy and make the world safer for everyone. But there are better ways to promote those ideals. For example, there is Kirsten Scheid, a Princeton graduate student living in Beirut who attended an anti-war demonstration in front of the American Embassy here earlier this month. The embassy, a compound in one of the sub- urbs, is guarded by Lebanese soldiers and demonstrators are often met with tear gas and water cannons. Scheid arrived at the embassy carrying a sign identifying her (in Arabic and English) as an American against the war. She noticed that at this particular protest, the alleys into which peo- ple normally escaped when they were gassed or hosed were blocked by barbed wire. As the sol- diers appeared to be preparing to use the water, she was hurried to the front by the mostly Arab protesters. The police told her it wasn't safe to be there, but she stayed put. No one was hosed, no gas was used and the protest stayed peaceful. Sheid is convinced she was a major reason - if not the only one - this was the case. One American, living abroad, seeing her citizenship as a way to help other people instead of a reason to be scared. International Solidarity Movement activist Rachel Corrie, murdered last week in Gaza, was following the same sort of logic. Losing people who are waging the fight for civil liberties with civil disobedience is tragic, but we'll lose far fewer people that way than we will by bombing. Direct action isn't the only way to spread American ideals. Every morning, on my way down the street to pick up a newspaper, I have to sidestep the Kalishnikov barrels of Lebanese soldiers assigned to protect the near- by McDonald's. I'm not a big fan of burger and fries diplomacy, but it beats bombing. Export your consumer culture and their politi- cal thought will follow. Granted, this and the aforementioned process are slower than the shock therapy of war, but strong-arming peo- ple just makes them resentful. Ground-level methods for introducing American culture (and in theory, democracy along with it) have much longer-lasting effects. Perhaps if U.S. policymakers worked along those lines, McDonald's wouldn't need armed guards. After Sept. 11, the optimistic side of me pre- dicted Americans would be imbued with a new interest in understanding world affairs, specifi- cally how and why American foreign policy often causes resentment from those on the short end of it. The pessimistic side of me predicted Sept. 11 would be hijacked as specious reason- ing for killing people in foreign countries. Now that we're giving people all over the world another reason to resent the United States, here's your next big opportunity to learn about why they don't like us very much. This time, please pay attention. Things are going to get worse before they get better. It has been over a day since the first mis- siles were fired into Iraq and I just returned from a demonstration at the British Embassy. The overwhelming sentiment in the streets is one of futility. After the police turned the water cannons on the protesters (who in this case provoked the police by trying to remove a barrier blocking the road to the embassy), two men picked up an Iraqi flag, stood defiantly in the stream of water and hoisted it above their heads. They looked rather ... liberated. For my part, I was the only obvious foreigner present (I, don't exactly blend in when standing in a crowd of Arabs) besides a pair of European students who were with me. We weathered a few "aren't you guys on the wrong side of the fence?" looks before we began talking to some of the protesters, who expressed gratitude instead of animosity that we had stayed. Some came up and shook our hands. "You, you and you! You are the good ones!" one guy said. It doesn't just have to be us. Enders can be reached at denders@umich.edu. EXCLUSIVE OPINION INTERVIEW The Michigan Daily's Neal Pais recently inter- viewed journalist Simon Reeve on the repercussions of war in Iraq. Reeve is an expert on al-Qaida, author of The New York Times' bestseller "The New Jackals: Ramzi Yousef, Osama bin Laden and the Future of Terrorism" and a former staff writer for The Sunday Times of London. The Michigan Daily: Is Saddam as danger- ous to global security as the media purports him to be? Simon Reeve: Yes, I think he is an extraordi- narily dangerous individual who could launch forces against his neighbors in the future just as he has done in the past. Trouble is, like any wounded animal, he'll be most dangerous when cornered. So the United States and its allies could now be provoking him into using weapons of mass destruction. I also agree with the Bush administration that there are links between Iraq and terrorist groups. But there are links between several countries, such as Pakistan and Qatar, and terrorist groups including al-Qaida, and nobody is talking about invading Pakistan. I simply don't accept the basic notion that tackling Iraq in this fashion will help to prevent future terrorist attacks and will save American and Western lives. I think this war will achieve the opposite, and in the longterm could be disas- trous for the United States and its Western allies. TMD: How credible is the threat of imminent terrorist attack upon U.S. soil? SR: There is a strong likelihood that terrorists will try to launch another major apocalyptic ter- ror attack in the United States within the next few years. I cannot tell you exactly when it will occur, but I don't think anyone should doubt that even now al-Qaida will be plotting more atroci- ties. TMD: Do you feel that the Bush administra- tion had Iraq on its agenda before Sept. 11? -SR: I don't think the Bush administration was taking any interest in Iraq at all before Septem- ber 11. But those attacks have made the U.S. government realize that it can't just isolate the country from the rest of the world. The United States needs to engage with troubled countries, get involved and make a difference. TMD: Precisely what type of reaction is to be expected from the Arab world? SR: The Arab world is already reacting extremely negatively to the invasion of Iraq. The British government are finally realizing that resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict is the single most effective step they could take to discourage and prevent terrorist attacks on the West by al- Qaida and affiliated groups. I believe they will have to launch a major new initiative to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict when the fighting ends in Iraq. Currently, the West is still not doing enough to address this cancerous conflict. Europeans were prime movers in creating the problem in the first place (by annihilating European Jewry and thus encouraging the creation of the Israeli state in 1948), and yet they are doing nothing to force the two sides to the negotiating table. It is an utter disgrace and a criminal neglect of duty. TMD: Is there any substantial proof that war in the Gulf will be waged in order to protect Israel from Saddam? SR: I don't think America is going after Sad- dam to protect Israel. America is going after Saddam to protect America. And that's perfectly normal behavior for a major power. However Israel has certainly been talking up the dangers posed by Saddam to encourage the West to tackle him. TMD: In your view, what are the true motives that are propelling this war? SR: I think most of the powers involved truly believe that Saddam and the Iraqi regime poses a threat to them now or in the future. But that doesn't mean they are right. And of course there are other issues involved, including oil, xenopho- bic fear and distrust of Islam. TMD: How does this campaign fit in with the war on terror and Sept. 11? SR: It is hard to see how Gulf War II is an integral part of the war on terror. The Iraqi regime certainly has links to terrorists and in the future it may pose a threat to the West. But Sad- dam has been successfully contained for several years, and other countries also have strong links to terror groups including al-Qaida. A full-scale invasion of Iraq is exceptionally dangerous and could result in a wave of massive terror strikes on the West. One of my main prob- lems with this war is that it is simply not the best way of saving innocent lives by stopping future terror atrocities. There should be a much greater emphasis on resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, the most important cause of international terrorism, before recruits for their cause. Even in Europe, hardline preachers are deliv- ering increasingly fiery sermons about Iraq which are drawing young men into the arms of terror groups such as al-Qaida. Al-Qaida and other militant organizations ignore the atrocities perpetrated by Saddam against his own people, and instead see this as yet another example of the West attacking Mus- lims. It will be very hard to counter that view, particularly if the war is not over in a couple of weeks, or if there are heavy civilian casualties. In many ways, a new war in the Gulf will be a win-win situation for Osama bin Laden and his men. I think Gulf War II could be just what al- Qaida needs to attract new recruits and regener- ate itself after a series of setbacks for the group and after a number of its senior operatives have been captured. TMD: How is the Middle East divided over this war? SR: The Middle East is always hopelessly divided at the best of times. Most leaders in the region are now afraid that if they fail to support the United States in the war on terror they could be next for the chop. But they also fear the reaction from their people if they are seen to be helping the United States wage war on a Muslim nation. Most people in the Middle East recognize that Saddam is an evil dictator, but they also believe the West is hypocritical and targeting Muslims. And they are furious that nobody is doing any- thing to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including their own leaders. TMD: What would be the likely conse- quences if American and British troops occupied Iraq during the installation of a new govern- ment? SR: It all depends how long the war lasts and how U.S. and British troops are seen by the Iraqi people. If they are seen as invaders bent on destroying Iraq then clearly there is going to be anger and hatred. It would be far better if the "invading" army was withdrawn as quickly as possible and replaced by peace-keepers who could ensure there were free and fair elections. TMD: Will American and British troops face armed resistance from Iraqis and any anti-Amer- ican supporters? SR: Quite possibly. The Iraqi people are heavily armed, and it is likely there will be 0 THE BOONDOCKS .AARONMcGR'[,.'DER r" _~ - 11 .,.- . i