The Iraq and Afghan Wars: Tyranny on Trial

The names Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney have altered our perception of the US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan for the worse. Oil is now thought as the sole reason for entering these two countries, and the mass media went from undying support of the wars to extreme critics in the second half of the conflict. With them, they dragged most of the American populace along for the ride, but at what expense? The country has forgotten,or at least threw away, the idea that our invasion destroyed the roots of tyranny in both Middle Eastern countries. Although people tend to dwell about our mistakes in Iraq especially, it would foolish not to think about the positive consequences that have unfolded. Iraq and Afghanistan now have democratic societies that, if prosperous, will be good for their people and the United States. Dictators were thrown from their seats of power, and people were finally given a chance to rule themselves.

The "Students of Islamic Knowledge" movement, traditionally known as the Taliban, were a fringe group of mujahideen (holy warriors) who began their rise to power during the Soviet invasion of Russia in the late 1980s. Although not a large political force until 1996, this group had always believed in strict interpretations of Sharia Law and immediately implemented it following the fall of Kabul. These new laws introduced extreme human rights violations to the populace as whole and women specifically. Public beatings and executions were acted out during Afghan soccer matches, and foreign TV was outlawed along with Internet and foreign radio. For the other half of our species, women could not go to school, work outside the home, or leave the house without a male relative. If the latter "crime" was committed than the woman could have been shot or beaten by the "Ministry for the Protection of Virtue and Prevention of Vice".

This zealous group of men were admired at first by the Afghan people, who hoped they would restore devote non-corrupted politics in the war torn country. But, instead, Afghanistan was blanketed with a strict tyrannical ruler-ship that installed draconian laws that killed innocent people. The world watched this advancement of fascist government without blinking an eye. That changed when Afghanistan's guest, Osama Bin Laden, attacked the United States with hijacked planes. Along with the collapse of the Twin Towers came the destruction of the Taliban regime.

Although it was a war fought on the premise that the United States was attacked first, it cannot be denied that the end of the Taliban was good for the people of Afghanistan. This war could have been morally justified even without Al Qaeda's help, thanks to the dictatorship that subdued the Afghans' innate human rights. No one enjoys war, especially the people of Afghanistan that have barely survived over two decades of it, but the Taliban's goal of spitting on human rights and establishing an Islamic tyranny cannot be allowed.

The Iraq War has become more controversial than America's invasion of Afghanistan. This has something to do with the idea that this country had nothing to do with September 11th or the terrorist group Al Qaeda (which has been debated). However, my argument for the invasion is based upon the fact the Saddam needed to go, and that dictatorships around the world need to be dealt with harshly. Mr. Hussein is a leading example of why tyrannical rule has no place in a modern world where human rights should be the main concern. When a ruler of any nation destroys the foundations for humanism then he must be removed by whoever is willing to help. In Iraq's case, the United States did the dirty work.

Hussein came to power in the late 1970s and early 80s by consolidating power within the presidency. He used his secret police to undermine his opposition within the government, and began a campaign to reach the hearts and emotions of the populace. Saddam was a member of the Ba'ath party and elevated it to a position of power by mandating that only members of this party could participate in the national government- mind you that only 8% of Iraqis claimed to be Ba'ath party members.

Hussein, like the Taliban, began a policy of restrictive laws that the president himself had a tough time following. Theft and corruption were cracked down upon to support his own regime and stop others from speaking out against him. Iraqis were not allowed to assemble unless their motives were pro-government. A dictator to his core Saddam suppressed political opposition within the government, the population, and most brutally in the Kurdish region of the north. Leading a different religious and social life than most Iraqis and requesting more sovereignty from Baghdad, the Kurds were a target for the dictator.

In 1988, after the Kurds uprised during the Iran-Iraq War, the Kurds were brutally murdered with reoccuring chemical weapon assaults. Using the same weapons of mass destruction he inflicted upon the Iranians, Sadam opened fire on his own people resulting in the death of about 50,000 Kurds. Alongside this was the mass imprisonment of women, children, and elderly, and the destruction of almost 2,000 villages. After his defeat in Kuwait, by the hands of the global community, Saddam returned to the Kurdish region with more crackdowns. The destruction caused anywhere from 20,000-100,000 deaths. Like many dictators that proceeded him, Hussein alienated one ethic group of people and began a campaign of mass murder and genocide.

This only stopped once the allied forces entered Iraq in 2003. Although civil war broke out during America's presence, the destruction is no where near as nasty or wide spread as was the case for the Kurds. Democracy was installed and the Kurdish people, along with the 92% of people not in the Ba'ath party, have been given a voice. With elections, a free press, and a parliamentary government, the Iraqi people are on their way to a free society that can do away with the old traditions of Saddam Hussein.

These two wars had many initial motives for their beginnings, but the idea that America sits back and allows dictators and tyrants to direct the course of millions of people without their consent is sickening. You may not have any true emotional connection with the Iraqi people or the Afghans but it is essential to connect with their rights as human beings. In his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" Martin Luther King Jr. says, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." In its deepest roots Tyranny is unjust and laughs at human rights everywhere. Dictators know that if justice was to reign then their power would be destroyed and legitimate authority would take its place.

This is why tyrants will do anything to make injustice the central aspect of their regime. They will suppress a people's voice, their writing, and their right to a representational government. And they will act out against anyone or anything that threatens their unquenchable thirst for power. Saddam would not settle for Iraq. He wanted Iran and Kuwait. The Taliban hoped for more as well. They funded and supported a terrorist organization that had the dream of bringing down the United States, a country that has made mistakes but has stood the test of time as a pillar for human rights. These governments were not to be dealt with halfheartedly, and deserved the sudden death that found them. These tyrannies was tried quickly, found guilty of vast human rights violations, and sentenced to death.