To eliminate weapons of mass destruction. To depose Saddam Hussein. To create a peaceful democracy that will serve as an example to the rest of the Middle East. To destroy terrorist cells. To protect our freedoms and way of life. I’ve heard many reasons for why we’re fighting the war in Iraq. Every time those reasons are proven wrong or the public starts to question them, the Bush administration comes up with a new one.

When we originally went to Iraq, we were told that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction.” Now for most Americans, that meant nuclear warheads. Of course we didn’t find any nuclear warheads or much of anything else that most people would consider a WMD. Apologists for the president will tell you that plans, research, test results for such weapons have been found, and the liberal media just is not reporting these stories. They accuse liberals of having too narrow a definition of “weapon of mass destruction.” But we weren’t the ones who used the phrase to justify military action. In a speech in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002, George W. Bush said, “(Iraq) possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html) The president told the American people exactly what he was looking for. He didn’t find it. So then the Republicans tried to redefine WMDs. Most Americans didn’t buy that, so G.W.B. and company switched tactics and began justifying the war as a means of deposing a murderous tyrant.

Now that’s an effort I can get behind. Saddam Hussein murdered thousands of his own people. He was evil, and I am glad he is gone. But his regime was toppled in April of 2003. Saddam himself was captured in December of the same year. Three years ago. With Saddam gone, we needed a new justification for our continued presence in Iraq.

President Bush’s reasoning shifted to the establishment of a peaceful democracy that can become an example “for free and decent governments throughout the Middle East.” (President’s Radio Address, October 29, 2005) The Iraqis held elections; they established their constitution. American forces have been “training” Iraqi police and military forces for years now. Where is the peace? Turns out that things were just a little more complicated than anticipated. It seems that not everyone in Iraq was all that keen on the United States’ plan for their country. Plus, we’re dealing with the problem that every time our troops accidentally kill an innocent Iraqi, they create enemies in the family and friends of that person. It’s rather like cutting the head off a hydra.

With things spiraling out of control, Republican justification of the war had to be re-focused yet again. We are fighting terrorism in Iraq. And in Afghanistan. And in Iran shortly. If the war on terror is as successful in other locations as it has been in Iraq, we will be at war forever. Which seems to be where we’re headed anyway.

Of course, the Bush administration really can’t go to the American people with the message that the war on terror is a slippery slope, and we are looking at an endless fight. So they’ve begun talking to us about preserving our own freedoms and protecting our way of life. Ironic to hear this message coming from a president who also tells us that we have to surrender some of our precious freedoms to fight the war on terror. This afternoon, a U.S. District judge declared Bush’s surveillance wiretaps unconstitutional. The administration appealed the ruling, reminding us that we must “use every tool in our arsenal to respond to emerging threats” (Bush predicts courts will uphold security wiretaps, Reuters, 8/18/06). If we’re already giving up some of our freedoms to fight terror, then what freedoms are we fighting for?

So now I’m left wondering - when they run out of excuses for killing Iraqi civilians and U.S. soldiers, will they finally pull our troops out of Iraq?

With a cigarette in one hand and a martini in the other, Barbara Stanwyck always looked so cool, so tough in those black-and-white movies. When I was a smoker back in college, I used to imagine I looked just like her. I felt tough, sexy with my cigarettes. Then I saw a photo of myself with a cigarette, and I was terribly disappointed. I didn’t look anything like Barbara Stanwyck. I looked more like Madeline Kahn in “Blazing Saddles.”
I quit about ten years ago, but I sympathize with my students who are struggling with our new campus policy banning tobacco products. One of my angry students compared the crusade against tobacco to the Prohibition of the 1920s and 1930s and comforted himself with the idea that tobacco, like alcohol, would eventually be exonerated and the bans lifted. I let him rant. He was clearly upset and in a fit of nicotine withdrawal. But I thought about it after class. Is the current rash of anti-tobacco policies and laws comparable to Prohibition? Will the “fad” pass? Will cigarettes and other tobacco products eventually come back into society’s good graces the way liquor did?

At the risk of mortally disappointing my student, I must disagree with his assumption that the anti-tobacco crusade is just a passing phase the way Prohibition was. In fact, there are just too many differences between tobacco and alcohol to draw any kind of legitimate comparison between the two.

First, if you look at the histories of tobacco and alcohol, you can immediately see an enormous discrepancy between the two. Alcohol has been part of human society for thousands and thousands of years: the ancient Greeks drank wine, and the Bible mentions wine many times. In ancient times, alcohol was often safer to drink than water because of the poor sanitation. Tobacco is a recent addition to human history. Until the late 15th century, it was known only to Native Americans, and they used it ritually, not casually. The Europeans began importing it from America for two reasons: fashion and money. It was fashionable to have things from “the New World,” and tobacco became a status symbol. Tobacco also fueled the infant economy of the new colonies and became a driving factor in slave labor. Not exactly an auspicious start for the nasty little plant.

Then there’s the issue of the anti-tobacco crusaders vs. anti-alcohol crusaders. The anti-alcohol crusade was led primarily by people who saw drinking as a sin. It was a religious and humanitarian movement driven by preachers and women who wanted to keep “demon rum” out of American homes. The anti-tobacco crusade is less moralistic and more clinical. It has been led primarily by doctors and other medical personnel who are dealing with the horrific effects of tobacco on their patients.

In addition, no one has ever been able to identify any health benefits of tobacco, and you’d better believe the big companies have tried. Sure, there are economic benefits, but at terrible human and environmental costs. Alcohol, on the other hand, has been shown to have health benefits and it does little or no harm when consumed responsibly.

Finally, there is the issue of tobacco’s victims vs. alcohol’s victims. Tobacco hurts not only the user, but also non-users and the environment. Secondhand smoke can cause cancer in non-smokers. Smokers accidentally cause fires that destroy homes and lives. Smoke pollutes the air; cigarette butts litter our streets. You don’t have to be a serious smoker to do damage with tobacco. Even people who smoke only half a pack a day endanger themselves, those around them and the environment. Alcohol, on the other hand, is not harmful unless it is abused. When consumed responsibly, alcohol will not hurt anyone, including the consumer.

At this point in tobacco’s history, smoking is no longer considered fashionable in most places; in some small circles, like rock stars and models, it is seen as part of a lifestyle. Today there are still just two nasty reasons for tobacco to exist: addiction and money. Smokers need tobacco, psychologically or physically. Tobacco companies need tobacco for the money. Neither of these really warrants the continuation of a dangerous and dirty product. So I think my poor student is going to be disappointed, and I must admit that in at least one way, I’ll be sorry to see cigarettes go. They sure made nice props in film noir.