CATEGORIES

• Audio/Visuals
• Entries
• Phoenix Pix
• Stuff We Like
• True Maroons

I read with interest the news about the university's commemoration of the Hiroshima bombing during World War II.

I live in Laos where there are approximately 500,000 tonnes of unexploded U.S. ordnance from the Vietnam War.

On Monday I watched as expert technicians exploded two U.S. bombs that were found on a mine site near the Ho Chi Minh Trail on the border of Laos and Vietnam.

It was the second largest explosion I have ever experienced. The first was the IRA bomb that almost destroyed London's financial district in the early 1990s.

Monday's explosion in Laos sent my body into an instinctive survival crouch. Obviously this experience does not, in any way, compare to what the Lao experienced during the so-called "Secret War" that President Kennedy started in 1963.

Nor can I imagine the excruciating burns and loss of life of those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whether they were civilian or military.

What I can imagine is feeling uncomfortable at the commemorative event as speakers encouraged the crowd to play Monday morning quarter-back, arguing the wisdom of unleashing nuclear weapons into the world.

It is good for a democracy to evaluate our military and foreign policy. In fact, it is essential. But let us consider the facts.

President Truman said dropped the atomic bombs to end the Pacific war quickly, and to save lives. He also said he was sending a strong message to the Soviets that the U.S. would not accept a post-WWII world dominated by communism.

And the American people and U.S. Congress believed him.

Those war conditions may sound similar to post-Sept. 11, 2001 America. But if we look more closely, no two presidents could have handled war more differently.

The most stunning difference between Truman and Bush's world is that Truman dealt with leading a war that was forced onto the American people after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Bush instigated and welcomed a war. Remember his taunts, "Bring it on!"

Truman struggled with the idea of dropping atomic bombs on the Japanese. But ultimately he made a decision that saved lives. And for that he was praised by Americans and the U.S. wartime allies.

Bush, on the other hand, was planning an invasion of Iraq as early as January 2001, nine months BEFORE the Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S. on September 11, 2001.

This fact is confirmed by several credible sources. Also you can read about the Cabinet planning sessions in former Treasury Secretary O'Neill's book.

Imagine, a U.S. President desiring war. Unimaginable, even in Truman's day. Unless you were Adolf Hitler, who relished the planning of the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland, among several other nations. Recent history shows us that unwarranted invasions are the work of egomaniacs and paranoid leaders.

Ultimately, the hum-dinger of a comparative question is "Will Bush use nuclear weapons to stop the war with Al-Qaeda?"

Where would he strike? Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, London, New York or Detroit? Terrorists are everywhere. But they are not a conventional war fighting unit that a tactical nuclear strike could eliminate. We’ll have to deal with them as assuredly as we’ve dealt with other threats. Day by day, quietly and effectively with our special forces and trained intelligence forces.

In the mean time, we live ours lives in our democracy, and never let them frighten us. If we do, the terrorists win.

In Bush's black and white world he has replaced 'communism' with 'terrorism' and expects us to support him, unfailingly. Americans are a bit more sophisticated than that. And we remember and respect our traditions and history. We look to our great leaders for guidance in tough times.

Truman would not invade a country unprovoked. That simply is not the American way.

But that is exactly what President George Bush chose to do, and then called it a pre-emptive strike against terrorism. And we let him.

President Truman's decisions were difficult and made under real world war conditions that do not reflect our world today. To say so, is irresponsible and disrespectful to the lives lost on the battlefields of Europe, Africa, Asia, Japan and the south Pacific.

Yes, Truman's decision to drop atomic bombs caused much destruction and the loss of life in Japan. No one could have imagined the gruesome force A-Bombs would unleash. And when we did, we have not used them since. Instead the U.S. turned to chemical weapons (Agent Orange, napalm), much like the Soviets and Hussein after them. And ultimately, even these weapons are not effective. Chemical weapons have been used throughout history. This is nothing new.

What seems new to us is the wanton killing of innocent civilians in the name of fanatic religion. But if we are honest and careful, this also is not new.

So what to do? Rely on our democratic principles and use them. Show by example that different groups can live together in peace. And share these principles with the world. And when necessary, use military force when it will be used effectively, and in the context of achieving world peace.

Using force to achieve peace is not irrational. If you said this to Truman, Churchill and Stalin, they would understand this concept instantly. It was their reality: fighting for peace.

What did the American people think of Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs? For the most part, they agreed. They did not storm the White House calling for his resignation. They were happy the War ended in the South Pacific. Their sons and daughters, husbands and wives could come home, finally.

Are these the same conditions facing President Bush today?

The pre-conditions leading up to the invasion of Iraq do not compare to Truman’s war time conditions. If we are honest, we allowed President Bush to use the U.N. Security Council as a dangerous smoke screen to lead our young Americans into battle, and to disgrace our traditions.

The tide is changing. Congress and most Americans are seeing clearly through the smoke screen.

So now the question becomes, what messages are we, as American citizens, sending to the citizens of Iraq and to the world? We are sending our troops. Is that the right message?

What responsibilities, if any, do we have to those Iraqi civilians? And to others we have bombed in recent years?

Ultimately, we – through our representatives in Congress – are responsible for U.S. military and foreign policy. Not the president, even if he thinks so.

If you are moved by the stories of survivors of Hiroshima and Iraq, then contact your congressman or senator, hit the streets and use the ultimate power – your vote. You're voice is stronger than you think.

It would send a message to the president and the rest of the world that:

1. Americans do care about what happens outside its borders.
2. We take responsibility for our government.
3. An unwarranted invasion of a sovereign nation is not the American way.

There is still time to send the message.

Respectfully,
Rachel Cunningham
AB, Political Science 1989