RALEIGH — Let’s say you were a member of Congress representing a North Carolina district.
Let’s further say that you vociferously opposed the current war in Iraq. Joining others in public office and private life with similar views, you believed that President George W. Bush was making a bad decision in targeting Saddam Hussein’s regime for potential military action. You thought he was allowing a personal vendatta to distract him and his government from the ongoing war on terrorism, which didn’t extend to Iraq because al Qaeda had nothing in common with the secularist tyrant of Baghdad.
You suspected that the president might be influenced by his past and present ties with the oil industry. American companies had for decades been shut out of the development and operation of oil fields in Iraq, which has the second-largest known reserves in the world. You further suspected that Vice President Dick Cheney, also enjoying longstanding ties with oil companies, was angling to influence post-war Iraq and steer business to the firm he formerly headed, Haliburton. With so many problems here at home to address, why spend billions of dollars to fight a war overseas that might only feed the greed of a few?
On the war itself, you saw no clear policy. The president had cited multiple justifications for intervention. Which one was the real one? And you feared that war in an Arab country would exacerbate tensions and increase the possibility of domestic terrorism by Islamist fanatics, rather than acting to dampen the risk.
Finally, you were greatly concerned about the international implications of a war fought without a new United Nations resolution specifically authorizing force. France, Germany, Russia, and other countries had declined to join the U.S. Public opinion in countries around the world was already dead-set against a war, so surely its commencement would cause more anti-Americanism.
These were the reasons you opposed the war in Iraq. And then, with a sudden air strike on Baghdad, it began.
Believing the policy to be flawed, you nonetheless recognized that U.S. forces were in harms’ way, that they were fighting (and in some cases dying). You witnessed egregious violations of international law in the first few days of the war, including the execution of American POWs. You saw media reports suggesting that Saddam Hussein’s loyal fanatics were threatening Iraqi civilians, and in some cases shooting at them, in order to keep them from welcoming and assisting American troops as liberators.
You knew that unified political support at home gave America a valuable asset during an international crisis. You also knew that once the war had started, calling it off and withdrawing troops only a few days or weeks later would constitute a massive blow to American credibility and to the effectiveness of future military actions that you might well favor and think to be highly important. Nor did you want any service member’s family to believe that he or she did not have your best wishes and prayers.
So even though you had doubts, you did whatever you could to support U.S. troops in the field and their commander-in-chief in Washington. You went out of your way to commend soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines from your state, and to wish them and the mission well. You hoped to be proven wrong. And you did your duty as a member of the United States government.
Right?
Yes — unless you are Rep. Mel Watt, Democrat from Charlotte. He was one of only a handful of members of the U.S. House who refused a few days ago to vote for a resolution supporting U.S. troops and the president during time of war. He was the only member of the North Carolina delegation to do so.
Shameful.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of Carolina Journal.