Bush's career merits lecture invitation

I was disheartened in reading Emily Good's inflammatory viewpoint ("George H.W. Bush, War Criminal, Fares Lecturer," Jan 21, 2003). While voicing policy disagreements should always be welcome in our free society, it is particularly regrettable that Ms. Good's viewpoint uses distorted facts and contradictory argumentation to personally malign former President Bush.

Designating former President Bush as a "war criminal" who presided over a "bloody reign," Ms. Good's article claims that George Bush is guilty of human rights abuses in Grenada, Libya, Central, and South America. While disagreements on the value of US policy in these countries is to be expected, it is a bit far-fetched to assert that then-Vice President Bush somehow possessed a supreme role in running the governments and tyrannizing the people of these countries.

Ms. Good's viewpoint also condemns US efforts to support the war of the Contras against the Sandinistas, and rails against US efforts to support free elections in Nicaragua. Aiding the fight against communism and helping establish democracy are both somehow contemptible and actions worthy of a "war criminal." Ms. Good also curiously blames President Bush for apparent corruption in Nicaragua during the 1990s, as if George Bush, who left office in 1993, is somehow responsible for the Nicaraguan President Aleman's embezzlement of $100 million from 1997 to 2002.

Finally, Ms. Good's viewpoint condemns President Bush's actions in the Persian Gulf as constituting "an American invasion of Iraq" and "disastrous sanctions that have killed one million people and are still going strong." Such assertions are simply factually incorrect. Clearly, there was no full-fledged US "invasion" of Iraq; if there were, there would be no reason to talk of war against Saddam Hussein today. Instead, to the dismay of many conservatives, President Bush chose not to invade Iraq since such a military course would exceed the United Nations mandate against Iraq. If the Gulf War were truly a "war over oil," the United States would have taken over Iraq when it easily had the chance to do so in 1991.

A corresponding respect for United Nations mandates is something Iraq has clearly lacked. Proving a chronic hostility toward the UN, Iraq has continually failed to live up to the obligations to which it agreed after the conclusion of the Persian Gulf War. Iraq's failure to abide by international law is the reason why sanctions are still in place. If Saddam were to follow the law, the sanctions would be lifted. How ironic that Ms. Good's viewpoint condemns the US for not abiding by the 1986 ICJ ruling on Nicaragua while denouncing the US for insisting that Iraq abide by its international obligations!

Iraqi oil sales since the late 1990s generated about $10 billion in revenue that Saddam chose not to use to provide for his people, but to use instead for developing weapons of mass destruction. Ascribing the blame for the Iraqi people's suffering to President Bush misses the point that Saddam Hussein had the tools in his hands to end his people's suffering, but chose not to do so.

Many thoughtful individuals have long disagreed over the appropriate role of the United States in the world. However, to resort to name-calling does a great disservice to both reasoned debate and historical record. Terms like "war criminal" should be reserved for tyrants and megalomaniacal, cold-blooded leaders, not a former president elected by the American people. Likening George Bush to Hitler and Milosevic trivializes the term "war criminal," and devalues the horror of the premeditated systems of mass extermination that the world's Hitlers, Stalins, and Milosevics inflicted upon their societies. We should honor the victims of Nazism, Communism, and totalitarianism by resisting the temptation to associate those with whom we disagree with the tyrants who deliberately and methodically inflicted pain and suffering on incomprehensible numbers of real people.

We should remember that George Bush spent most of his life fighting against tyranny and injustice. Not content to merely shout slogans or write angry letters in protest of totalitarianism, George Bush put his life on the line in World War II, performed with distinction in dangerous missions, and nearly lost his life in the Pacific. Choosing a career in public service over a more lucrative career as an oil executive, President Bush served his country in Congress, China, the CIA, as vice president, and president. Through it all, Republicans and Democrats alike have lauded President Bush as a man of character and integrity, deeply devoted to his family and to ideals of civility, morality, and America's founding principles. Some may disagree with the policies he espoused, but no one can doubt that George Bush is a patriot with high ideals who undertook substantial risks in his life to serve his country.

Involvement in public life inevitably involves difficult choices between morally troublesome scenarios. Today, proponents of a war against Iraq must grapple with justifying a war which seems to have so little international support. Opponents to a war in Iraq must struggle with reconciling their hatred of military force with their desires to end the torturous suffering and daily abuses inflicted on the Iraqi people by a regime in Baghdad that is unresponsive to liberal principles of law and human rights. As students, we can learn a lot about morality, politics, and pragmatism by listening to a man like George Bush who spent his career making difficult policy decisions aimed at advancing American ideals.

The purpose of the university is not to give us a forum from which to shout hackneyed slogans or build credentials as a demonstrator. It is instead to provide us with the tools to become critical thinkers and doers, developing an ability to use informed judgment to make difficult and right decisions in our careers and private lives. George Bush should be an example to us all as one who has succeeded in leading a meaningful career devoted to family, country, and the highest personal standards in private and public life. Tufts University was right to invite this inspiring American to speak and should be applauded for doing so.

Robert Kokta is a student of American diplomatic history at the Fletcher School.