|
|
last updated 12/14/2003 |
|
WAR IN IRAQ “The United States of America should never go to war because it wants to go to war; it should only go to war because it has to go to war.” -- Presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (awarded the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three purple hearts for combat in Vietnam), speaking of the plans to invade Iraq put forward by President George Bush (served in the Texas National Guard during the Vietnam War). Do we have to go to war? I don’t think so. In the aftermath of the Sept 11, 2001 attack on America, the Bush administration has responded with a variety of measures, the most recent of which is a plan to attack Iraq. This attack is badly conceived, dangerous, and is being sold to the American people using a variety of deceptive arguments. Here are some counter-arguments: IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SEPTEMBER 11 If we weren’t planning to attack Iraq before Sept 11, why should we be planning to attack it now? For some, the answer is revenge. A surprising number of Americans believe that Iraq was connected to the Sept 11 attacks. To the best of our knowledge, Sept 11 was masterminded by Al Qaeda, a radical Islamic terrorist organization led by Osama bin Laden. None of the hijackers were Iraqis (15 were Saudis, 1 was Lebanese, 1 was Egyptian, and 2 were from the United Arab Emirates). Al Qaeda receives its funding from a variety of sources, none of them Iraqi. Some of it comes from Bin Laden’s personal fortune and much of the rest comes from donations; many of the donors are rich Muslims from Saudi Arabia. HUSSEIN AND OSAMA BIN LADEN ARE NOT TERRORIST ALLIES Bin Laden wants the countries of the Islamic world to be governed by Muslim religious law. He considers most Arab governments, including Hussein’s, to be illegitimate. Bin Laden has called Hussein a heretic. Hussein rules Iraq as a secular socialist dictatorship and suppresses radical Islamic activity in his country. The two men have always been hostile to each other. Attacking Iraq is not the way to get revenge for Sept 11. IRAQ HAS NOT ATTACKED THE UNITED STATES Although Iraq fought America in the 1991 Desert Storm campaign, it was clearly not a war Hussein sought out. (In fact, Iraq received American support during its war with Iran in the 1980s, and many accounts argue that Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait took place because he had been given the impression by the United States ambassador that he had a green light.) Since 1991, Iraq has not attacked us. Iraq has sponsored some terrorists, but not those who target America. In the past, the groups Iraq has supported include Kurdish rebels in Turkey, Iranian socialists, and Palestinian nationalists, including Hamas, who target Israel. A war against Iraq would not be a war of self-defense. IRAQ DOES NOT HAVE LARGE STOCKPILES OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION The U.S. government has argued that Iraq has been accumulating and hiding weapons of mass destruction. This is questionable. The United States has offered no proof, only satellite pictures of trucks moving around. Weapons inspectors have suggested that Iraq may still have some stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons, but these weapons have historically been far less dangerous than regular explosives. Nuclear weapons, of course, are horribly dangerous, but all the evidence argues that Iraq has no nuclear weapons. (Unlike Israel and Pakistan, who both have these ultimate weapons, or North Korea, which is fast on the road to building them.) Even the Bush administration has not claimed that Iraq currently has nuclear weapons, although it has successfully given that impression to many Americans. The unproven existence of relatively small amounts of chemical and biological weapons is not a sufficient justification for war. (Even if their existence was proven, the danger they represent is far less than the danger posed by war and its fallout.) IRAQ IS NOT A THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES Iraq’s military is far weaker than it was in 1991 when we first defeated it. Ten years of sanctions and intermittent inspections have left the country a military midget. Hussein’s air force is essentially nonexistent, his tanks are few and without spare parts, his missiles are short-range and unreliable. Even if he wanted to, he could never hurt the United States. He isn’t even a serious threat to neighbors like Turkey or Iran. (It is worth noting that Iran--which fought against Iraq in the 1980s and which continues to have a chilly relationship with Hussein--strongly opposes an American invasion.) IRAQ IS EXTREMELY UNLIKELY TO USE TERRORISM AGAINST US Some people arguing in favor of invasion suggest that Hussein, because he has supported terrorism in the past, might someday use terrorism against us in the future. All things are possible, but Hussein has never given chemical or biological weapons to any terrorist group and he has never supported any terrorist group that directly targeted the U.S. Invading a country because it might do something bad in the future is a dangerous policy. THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY OPPOSES THIS WAR In their eagerness to attack Iraq, the Bush administration has alienated much of the world. During the 1991 war against Iraq, we were supported by an international coalition; the current plan to invade Iraq his no such support. In 1991, we were supported by troops from many countries, including France, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, none of whom support us now. We had all 5 permanent members of the Security Council on our side; today, three of them (Russia, China, France) oppose our actions. In 1991 we received billions of dollars in support from countries who did not send troops; today, we are forced to pay billions of dollars in bribes in an attempt to get countries to support us. International newspapers, from Le Monde to the London Observer, have been far more critical of Bush’s plans than the cheerleading American media. The great outpouring of support that we received after Sept 11, and that continued through our invasion of Afghanistan, has dried up in the face of our plans to invade Iraq. International opposition does not automatically make an invasion wrong, but should make us think twice about the reasonableness of our plan. Furthermore, invading without United Nations’ approval will make us appear to be a lawless rogue state in the eyes of many people around the world. Even a superpower should be careful not to alienate the entire planet. AN INVASION WILL MAKE US EVEN MORE UNPOPULAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST America’s support for Israel and its military presence in Saudi Arabia have long fed hostility among large numbers of Arabs. Whether or not our support of Israel is fair, it is perceived by the Arab world as biased and damaging to Arab interests. An invasion of an Arab country, without any direct provocation, is likely to increase the kind of hostility that feeds groups like Al Qaeda. Invading Iraq will not stop terrorism, but it is far more likely to add to the numbers of angry young Muslim men who are eager to become martyrs in a jihad against America. HUSSEIN’S ABUSE OF HIS OWN PEOPLE DOES NOT JUSTIFY AN INVASION It is very true that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. However, it is far from clear that an invasion by an American army will be improve the lives of Iraqis. The invasion itself will kill thousands, perhaps tens of thousands. The attempt to create a stable government in Iraq is likely to be plagued with difficulties (we still haven’t succeeded in Afghanistan, where guerilla fighting and chaos continue to trouble the countryside) and will require keeping American troops bogged down for years in pacification operations. Moreover, brutal behavior by itself is not--except in extreme circumstances--a justification for invasion. There are many brutal regimes in the world, but we have no plans to invade them and oust their leaders. Finally, the Bush administration’s commitment to building democracy in Iraq--a country with no democratic tradition and a long history of internal ethnic violence--seems questionable. Either they have no real conception of the difficulties involved or they have no real intention of actually attempting the task. WAR IS A DANGEROUS GAME AND SHOULD BE A LAST RESORT The pro-war pundits clogging the airwaves give the impression that this war will be quick, easy, and successful. This is foolishness. War is sometimes quick, rarely easy, and only occasionally successful. Few wars turn out the way their planners expected. We fought a war in Vietnam believing that we were protecting America’s security and ended up losing fifty thousand young men and losing the war. War should be a last resort, a matter of self-defense or humanitarian necessity. Hussein and Iraq are largely contained by sanctions and inspections. Going to war risks much for an insufficient gain. War is not the answer. SPREAD THE TRUTH Our anger at September 11 and our fear of terrorism are being used by the current administration to justify an invasion that has nothing to do with stopping terrorism or protecting America. The Bush administration knows this, but clearly supports the invasion for other reasons (to establish America’s dominance, to secure our oil supplies, to support our ally Israel). They have used our post Sept 11 fears to imply that Iraq is part of the problem and that an invasion is part of the solution. Don’t let them. Spread the truth. |
Home
What is WastedIrony? Contact WastedIrony WastedIrony Mailbag Irony Certified Links ESSAYS Irony is dead Israel for Beginners Pt 1 Israel for Beginners Pt 2 Israel for Beginners Pt 3 Israel for Beginners Pt 4 Commercial Drama Thoughts on Terrorism Marijuana America: Rogue State No War in Iraq Invasion words and reaction Mar 22 Protest Pics War Daze  Post-war thoughts, 5/22/03
MISCELLANEA CoulterWatch |