THE SNIPER. That's been the only thing on the minds of residents of D.C., Maryland and Virginia since the deadly spree began Oct. 2. Though none of the shootings has been anywhere within 50 miles of the University, everybody is concerned about safety in Charlottesville, traveling to Washington and even stopping for gas in between. Amid this reign of terror, stories of the "murderous tyrant," Saddam Hussein, have been pushed out of the headlines. If the elimination of Hussein's despotism is such a pressing concern, why can one sniper take our attention away? Quite simply, because Mr. Sniper actually presents a threat to American lives in the here and now, whereas Saddam Hussein's intent is far from clear.
President Bush, who seems to be living in isolation from the rest of the world, ignores the fact that buildup of weapons does not mean Hussein is planning an attack. Saddam is a narcissistic, tyrannical, mean and detestable man capable of destruction. There are countless stories of his inhumanity and unfathomable cruelty. But Hussein is not a fanatic like Osama bin Laden, nor is he a sociopath like Mr. Sniper. The politicians ready to send their kids to the Reserves and everybody else's children over to the Middle East for war must realize that there is no tangible evidence that Hussein has the desire to attack.
So let's do a quick comparison between Mr. Sniper and Mr. Hussein. Americans killed in the month of October:Sniper-9, Hussein-0. Likeliness to kill President Bush this month: Advantage Sniper. Narcissism: Unknown. Evil moustache: Advantage Hussein (we haven't seen the sniper, but it can't beat Hussein's). Number of Americans to be killed when authorities catch up to them: Hussein, countless. Sniper, 0.
Though one is more likely to be killed driving up to Washington than shot while stopped for gas, people are concerned because, unlike Hussein, the sniper presents an immediate threat that authorities cannot contain or eradicate. Bush and the hawks in Washington suggest that Americans are merely blind to the situation in Iraq and there can be no abiding a despot with big guns. But who are they to tell Hussein he can't have big guns but it's all right if they and others do? Israel has big guns, but we like Israel, so it's all right to share with them. But their opponent is a big jerk, so he can't have any. Bush has been adhering to the "Kindergarten Principle" of shutting out Iraq irrespective of moral authority. The U.S. action in Vietnam failed in part because of the lack of moral authority; Gulf War II is likely to follow suit.
It would be naive to declare that Hussein poses zero threat -- the truth is that he does hate America, but critical examination of Hussein's valuation system belies the truth about his likely course of action. Hussein would like to rule the world, but so do many other world leaders, and they all know it just isn't feasible without blowing up half the world to accomplish it. Hussein intensely loathes America, but he will not choose martyrdom over idleness. Bin Laden would probably die if it meant victory over America; Hussein is not declaring such a holy war and will not make such a sacrifice. If Hussein fires at America with every weapon he can get a hold of, it won't matter because Bush will reciprocate with such force that the only things capable of living anywhere in the entire country will be Anna Nicole Smith's breast implants. Hussein will only push the panic button when the end is near, a situation not being ameliorated but exacerbated and accelerated by the current climate.
Avoiding weapons inspection is not a sign of impending war. Loathing America is not a sign of impending war. Being a violent man is not a sign of impending war. The nation is being led by half-truths, paranoid theories, unverifiable accusations, blind fear and not one classifiable shred of evidence substantiating a future attack -- exceptif Hussein is backed into a wall.
Lately, Hussein has posed less of a tangible threat than German zookeepers. It was recently discovered that zookeepers in a German town have been eating several of the animals from their zoo. At least they are aggressors who are doing something unprovoked. Hussein did invade Kuwait; he does commit abhorrent human rights violations; he is a naughty puppy and nobody can deny it. But Hussein's ties to al Qaeda are sketchy at best and, in the past 10 years, I'm pretty sure he hasn't eaten any American zoo animals. But it is certain that he is not ready to jeopardize his little utopia to destroy the American way of life.
Call it the price of being top dog, but the most powerful nation in the world cannot make a pre-emptive strike without knowing with near 100 percent certainty that failure to act will result in defeat. Bush, Cheney and many Republicans in Congress claim to know such a fact. They do have better information than the average American, but nobody is seeing it and it is unconscionable to affirm certainty without proving the unequivocal veracity of the opposition's goals. The cost of being wrong and letting Hussein eventually strike would be devastating, but cutting Iraq out before they even have the chance -- let alone the will -- to declare an all-out war would cost America far more than lives. Empires have a short lifespan, and perhaps President Bush should stop watching the South Park movie for strategic tips on how to defeat Hussein and look no farther than his own surroundings for truly verifiable peril and fear.
(Brad Cohen's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at bcohen@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | YesterdayPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 5 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | April 27, 2024The University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
