What are we Afraid of? What Should we be Afraid of?

          Upon Failure to establish a reasonable connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, the White House transitioned its war motivations elsewhere. Saddam’s use of the Sarin nerve agent against his Kurdish population is one of the most horrific human rights violations to his name. Although chemical agents are indeed brutal, it is hard to categorize their impacts as massively destructive. Generally, munitions categorized as Weapons of Mass Destruction would only consist of nuclear capabilities, and fast spreading biological agents such as a weaponized smallpox. In essence, weapons that could cause mass destruction with a single application. However with the onset of the ‘ Iraq threat’ chemical agents such as mustard gas and Sarin, weapons often considered less lethal than traditional firepower suddenly fit into the category. Iraq unquestionably had nuclear and biological weapons programs during the late eighties and into the nineties. However it was generally accepted that Saddam had destroyed his WMD capabilities following the end of the Gulf War. Yet with the onset of the War on Terror, and the broadened definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction, these assumptions became questionable.

          On March 18 th, 2003, on top of claims that Saddam wished to cause harm to the United States, George Bush publicly stated that “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised”. The notion of an alleged mad dictator possessing the ability to wipe out entire cities is bound to arouse a state of fear reminiscent of the cold war. In the face of such a paralyzing fear, the public response is often one of blind patriotism, in other words, a feeling of total dependency towards those ‘protecting’ the public. Such a fear has been manifested countless times throughout the history of the United States, most memorably during the Red Scare of the 1960’s. The result of a fear induced dependency is often a heightened state of agreeableness that would normally not be tolerated. For instance, the imprisonment of individuals based upon their political views clearly voids the principles of the constitution; however when the public is convinced that these individuals present some form of a threat, the community becomes more consensual to the negating individual rights in the name of safety. In the same sense, when the populace was placed under an intense fear of Saddam’s weapon capabilities, the arguable and illegal invasion of Iraq appeared to be a justifiable move.

          A few hours following the initial invasion of Iraq, George Bush addressed the country saying:

          The people of the United States… will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the           peace  with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy,           Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and           police and doctors on the streets of our cities. ( 3/20/2003).

Reinforcing the survivalist mentality, Bush presented the population with the choice of confronting Saddam militarily or facing the consequences of his weapons within United States borders. In the eyes of the fearful citizen, statements such as this replace the questionable evidence surrounding Saddam’s weapons program with the perception that he could attack at any moment. By maintaining a constant state of fear, the public becomes less likely to question actions pertaining to their well being. In the face living through a cold war like scenario, the legitimacy of invasion was manifested by the Bush Administration in the form of protection, first producing a crisis to fear, then offering a solution to the presented problem.