Within the next few months, the United States will likely begin a
war in the Middle East against the country of Iraq.
Unlike Afghanistan we all know where this country is thanks to our
last war in the region. To their credit, the Bush family’s interest
in Saddam Hussein has been the wonderful boost for American geography
quiz scores. But, regardless of the education benefits of dropping
bombs all over the world, perhaps we should consider some of the effects
of our next war. In this mad rush to start putting our hard earned
warheads to work, we have been a bit hasty in both the pro- and anti-war
sentiment brewing around the issue of Iraq. Let us weigh the pros
and cons of an invasion to oust Saddam Hussein.
Even I must admit that there are some good reasons for this invasion.
Currently, the most politically relevant issue for Bush is to safeguard
national security. This would include eliminating a hostile dictator
who may or may not have access to weapons of mass destruction. Even
more relevant to international affairs, this would remove a highly
unstable element from an already delicate region. Saddam is a violent
man without concern for loss of life if it suits his own ends, and
with everyone so irritable from the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, the less megalomaniacal dictators in the area the better.
Third, the removal of Hussein would allow Bush to save face for himself
and his father if he were to lift sanctions against Iraq. He wouldn't
have to admit that his father, and the UN,
made a big boo-boo when coming up with that plan. Fourth, the removal
of Hussein would also stop Iraq from sending money to the families
of suicide bombers as compensation in the Palestinian territories.
Let’s face it; $25,000 is a damn good life insurance policy in the
West Bank and Gaza. It might also help reduce illegal arms shipments
to terrorist groups in the region as well. And, just incase we aren’t
over the whole “terrorist training camp safe havens in Muslim countries”
thing, we get to remove a few of those as well. Fifth, it would help
reduce financial support for terrorist groups that train in and get
funding from Iraq.
With that said, we need to also consider the reasons not to invade.
First, the potential for creating another war torn, ravaged country
that gets no help and has a pro-American but corrupt dictator is obvious.
The world would have to commit wholeheartedly to rebuilding and establishing
Iraq as a free democratic nation for our long term goal to succeed.
As a tradition of democracy
does not exist at all in Iraq, it would likely take generations for
such a democratic system to become fully rooted in the political culture
of the country. Second, the monetary costs would be incredible and
sustained. We would have to pour billions upon billions into the country
to help ensure its success. We are supposedly doing the same in Afghanistan.
Proceeding in this manner is not something that can be sustained as
canonized American foreign policy. Third, and possibly the most gripping,
is the cost in human life. Iraqis, Americans, Israelis, Kurds,
etc. will pay the price for this war. There will be innocents killed
in the invasion by mistakenly aimed bombs, booby traps, land mines,
cluster bombs, and possibly biological weapons. American soldiers
will die in their effort to invade. Iraq is not incredibly powerful
in military terms, but they will most likely put up a better fight
than the Taliban.
The Iraqi army is better organized, has more control over its territory,
is better armed, and has known about the coming invasion for so long
it could make a commander cry. Also, odds are Hussein will not hesitate
to use an invasion as an excuse to bomb Israel, something he proved
he was willing to do during the Gulf War. Fifth, if we don't have
the support of the Arab world, odds are we won't be able to strike.
We need Saudi land for our bases, landing strips, and for a safe zone
from which to prepare our military forces. And it’s not going to be
easy to get the Arab world to back us, unless Saddam gives them a
reason to want him dead.
My stance is completely conditional. If we are truly dedicated to
establishing a lasting democracy in Iraq, if we are willing to put
the time, money and effort into doing this the right way, if we are
willing to accept the human cost of this war, and if we are willing
to wait on world agreement of the necessity of this act, then by all
means I support a war against Saddam Hussein.
The problem arises when we need to make things very simple, so simple
that the average American can join a side and spew rhetoric out at
other people and prove their liberalness or love
of America. On the left, we have people who would be against military
action even if we were trying to fight Hitler II. The idea that there
is absolutely no situation where force is the right choice of action
is preposterous. Force is the last line of defense when we’ve screwed
up too much to do anything else. And, surprise! That’s exactly what’s
happened in the Middle East for the last century. So when people say
war isn’t the answer, they’re right. War, now, is damage control.
But Saddam Hussein is the kind of terrible mistake that we need to
rectify, because if we wait for him to act every time we’re going
to be too late one day.
The right, however, has its own errors. I obviously have no love
for Saddam Hussein, but I don’t see this need to remove him as black
and white. Hussein rose to power because of our security interests.
Is anyone else afraid of the fact that we’re using the same justification
to attack the man now that we used to support him a few decades ago?
Being bit in the ass like this should serve as a wakeup call to foreign
policy makers that foresight has been one of the things lacking from
our policy decisions. It is more than a war against evil; it’s a slap
in our face. The U.S.’s two greatest enemies in the last year (at
least, perceived as such), are two men who we have armed and supported
in the past. So, to all those on the right who think that we’re good,
and they’re evil, I remind them that we are implicated in that evil
for the aid we have provided.
