The War Against Iraq – Part I
Gallons of ink and millions of pixels have been spilled on the issue of what to do with Iraq. A great many options have been tossed around: invade, sanction, contain, withdraw, assassinate, overthrow, etc. I have been struggling with this issue for some time and have had a hard time coming to a conclusion.
Many of the arguments, if they may be called such, out there on the subject are unpersuasive; full of emotion and accusations but light on facts and logic. Another problem, is that much of the discussion is based a poor or ridiculous historical analogies. So let me state up front: this is not “like” Japan or Germany or Vietnam or Korea or Afghanistan or even Iraq the first time around. What we are dealing with is a question of an aggressive first strike against a nation when there has been no clear cut Causes Beli. I don’t mean there are not good reasons to attack, just that there has been no overt aggression that is usually the obvious trigger for war.
It is important to note, however, that Iraq is not really a sovereign nation either. They were defeated in the first Gulf War but have yet to fully comply with the strictures imposed on them at the time. They are in an awkward state, wanting to be sovereign but unwilling to play nice in order to get back in the club.
So, what to do in Iraq: go to war or continue containment? The underlying issue is one of risk reward – how much potential reward for the risk taken. Rather than undergo a massive analysis of the pros and cons of each side, debunking the faulty logic and bad historical analogies of each, I will simple present what I think are the strongest arguments for both sides.
I think the strongest argument for war with Iraq is the old fashioned one of the balance of power. The US has been undergoing a slow weakening of our power base in the region. A sizable chunk of the international community is simply unwilling to fully acknowledge the threat of terrorism or to think clearly about it. Europe continues to fail at constructing an intelligent and useful foreign policy strategy other than “Americans are too big for their britches” or “we need more meetings.” Support for our ally Israel is under attack across the globe. Our original Gulf War ally Saudi Arabia is deeply enmeshed in Islamic terrorism and has been backing away from support of US policies while kissing up to its despotic neighbors. The Muslim nations seem unwilling to risk a single iota of prestige among their brethren in order to deal with the US strategically. This is not the type environment in which US is likely to succeed in furthering its national interests. Given that Saddam Hussein is at the very least capable of plotting and attempting great harm against our citizens and our interests, we must consider changing that environment. You don’t want a gun pointed at your back if everyone around you is taking a step back, leaving you the sole target.
A plan that would allow the US to defeat and remove Saddam from power would certainly strengthen our position in the region; simply by having removed our strongest enemy. I think claiming that this would result in the creation of a liberal democracy in Iraq; the downfall of Arafat, and the severing of our ties with Saudi Arabia is a stretch of the imagination. I am not arguing that defeating Saddam would accomplish those things and I personally think anyone that does is describing flights of fancy rather than concrete strategy. Defeating Iraq might be a necessary first step towards those goals but it does not make them likely. The argument is that our position is slowly being sapped and that a decisive victory over our strongest opponent is likely to extend our direct safety in the short term and, if used effectively, help us reassert our strength and influence in the near to long term. If we could be confident – not perfectly confident but reasonable confident – that in place of the menacing Saddam we could deal with a moderate regime willing to focus on the interests of its people rather than aggression and saber rattling we should act. This would even the balance of power in the region and at the same time send a message to our enemies that it does not pay to threaten us and to our allies that it pays to work with us.
24 Responses to “The War Against Iraq – Part I”
Comments
Read below or add a comment...
Got something to say? Say it ...
-
Flickr Photos
More Photos Stats
I think we shouldn’t because war in that nation could destabalize several Muslim or Arab nations.
BOMB them! BOMB them alot! KIll them all!!!
I think there are other options of getting Saddam out of power in Iraq than a full fledged war. Is it to protect us and the world from terror or to gain more power for Bush’s oil buddies. Odd how every time A Bush gets in office we wage war on the arab world, why don’t more people realize this and vote for non-idiots that will care about their problems and not of the rich. Someone that rode to school in a limo doesn’t know how to solve my problems or yours.
I do agree with Jason on finding better soutions to our problems with Iraq, but I ask you this Jason, do you think Sadam would give a second thought on how to settle with us peacefully if he was to protect his people from our bombs. Hummm….. I wonder. I wouldn’t belittle Bush before you really understand what its like to be the President. Thats a lot for one human being to do. I am little indifferent to the whole war thing. I think its a bad idea, but what would happen to our future children if Sadam decides to have a bomb fest on our country. Not a good thought. I’m sure you understand this Jason, you don’t sound like a stupid person. I do feel that Bush is going a little to fast with this “Lets bomb Iraq now” bit. Too soon, and so many uncertanties. But if it comes down to war, then Bush should wait a while and realy see how he should handle this responsibly. I guess you could say I’m both DOVE and HAWK.
It would be foolish not to stop Hussein in his tracks before the situation worsens. He already possesses biological and chemical weapons and is not afraid to use them.
I don’t believe war is necessary. As far as I can tell, we have no proof that Iraq actually has any weapons to give to terrorists, or to use against us. And yet we do have such weapons, so what’s stopping our leaders from blowing past the UN and doing some under-the-table sort of things: handing off our weapons to corrupt rulers to do evil things for us or bombing them and killing them all. And to Lindsay (bomb them bomb them..): Do you have any idea how many innocents would die if we just bombed the place to the ground? Wouldn’t that make us worse than the terrorists? But I guess, since we’re americans we have the right to defend ourselves. But if the threat is nonexistent? It’s a depressing issue.
GO TO WAR!!!!!!!
KKKKKKKKKIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLL
TTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEMMMMMMM
TTTTHHHHHHHOOOSSSSSSEEEEEE
PPPPPUUUUNNNNNNNKKKKKKKKSSSSSSSS
I LIKE WAR WITH PEOPLE
I think a war is stupid innocent people have to die for no reason. I think if we get weapons inspectors and clear out all the nukes then boom were done without death cost and time taken away from us.
The war in Iraq should not happen in my opinion. However, without war our freedom would not exist. It is the same deal with Iraq. This war needs to be seen through all angles, and not just one. So, for all of those people with their own opinion’s, they need to keep them to themselves. As an up comming soilder in the army, I say this for everyone to remember: “It is the soilder who feels the deepest wounds and scars of war and not the people with the opinions.” The people with the opinions should keep them, and not express them. However, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
The war in Iraq should not happen in my opinion. However, without war our freedom would not exist. It is the same deal with Iraq. This war needs to be seen through all angles, and not just one. So, for all of those people with their own opinion’s, they need to keep them to themselves. As an up comming soilder in the army, I say this for everyone to remember: “It is the soilder who feels the deepest wounds and scars of war and not the people with the opinions.” The people with the opinions should keep them, and not express them. However, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
The war in Iraq should not happen in my opinion. However, without war our freedom would not exist. It is the same deal with Iraq. This war needs to be seen through all angles, and not just one. So, for all of those people with their own opinion’s, they need to keep them to themselves. As an up comming soilder in the army, I say this for everyone to remember: “It is the soilder who feels the deepest wounds and scars of war and not the people with the opinions.” The people with the opinions should keep them, and not express them. However, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
How do we have money for wars and can’t feed the poor. This is what Tupac said in one of his songs. Like a lot of other people I feel as though we need to find better solutions to this problem. I mean BUSH’s job is to protect us, but then what if we were Iraqians? I am somewhere in the middle of this issue. I feel like we should not go to war, but America has to protect us because we pay taxes for these things
maybe we aren’t going to war? maybe the huge mass of force that is being built up in the region is just that, a show of force. it is clear that a war with iraq isn’t welcomed by the world, i hope that our country would listen to popular opinion, i mean, i think we’re still a democracy. maybe we’re just pretending to punch, then we will take the weapons and give iraq two for flinching, and a new government to boot. or maybe we will club them and take their mammoth skins. either way, the french are still sissys
hi every1 me and DOTTY and DAVE R dead against the war !!!!!!!!!!!!! xxxxxxxxxx
I don’t specifically agree that Saddam is our biggest enemy. He is our most publicly avowed enemy, but not necessarily our biggest enemy.
To start with, George Tenet, director of the CIA has specifically stated to Congress that the no-fly zones are having an effect of reducing Saddam’s ability move his conventional forces around, which are now reduced to half their Gulf War size. Economic sanctions make it harder to re-arm his troops. Ultimately, this means that the Iraq of today we’re facing is signficantly weaker in terms of total strength then they were ten years ago. Considering the difficulty Saddam is having building conventional forces, of course he would seek to clandestinely produce WMD, but there is no concrete evidence he can in fact build any weapon today. I have seen no evidence for a war that was up-to-date or convincing. Much has been said of his capabilities in the late 1990s, but very little has been proven to be the case.
Considering all of this, I would suggest that it is more accurate to describe this as not just an act of aggression, but a pre-emptive act of aggression in search of a valued commodity. Control of Iraq means a much strengthened hand in power politics regarding oil.
The biggest effect would not be moving Saudi Arabia away from us, but towards us, as it sees the continued futility of opposing American oil demands; insuring a continuance of their policy of trading oil for security. That would stabilize oil prices for Americans, and insure American hegemony abroad as well. In addition, our “allies”, such as France and Russia, who either have oil concessions in Iraq post-sanction, or would like to, will find that an American-backed and controlled regime will be happy to allow these allies to extract crude oil from Iraq. Will there be any doubt at who’s largess they will be enjoying? Our allies will know full well who the real master of that house will be.
KILL OF THOSE BASTARDS
In my opinion i think that this is a pre-fabricated war by the government of the united states. This is an attempt to take control over a country and put democracy to work, so this way the u.s can take control of the mideast oil and the cia will conrol the opium and heroin supply so they would have an open market with the u.s.
This is to Lindsay,brenda pibbins,nick,spock and abcde
War with Iraq is stupid because people die and why do you think that they are punks or bastards you don’t know them what if they’re nice people ost of them don’t want to go to war but saddam forces them to. think of you being caled a bastard. I think this whole thingis about the U.S. getting richer and taking he oil from Iraq. What will happen to the people of Iraq after the war !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
War is most unecessary. Bush is a bumbling idiot. *grins dryly* The earlier statement is said with all due respect, sir.
Saddam Hussein becoming a threat? There’s a fine line between wary and paranoid, and America’s on the verge of crossing that line. Not to mention defying the expressed disgust of the rest of the world.
The US needs to get a nice kick in the ass and realize that, no, the world does not revolve around them–and that minding one’s own business does one much good.
Cut the bullshit.
Going to war with Iraq is a hard decision to make. If you look at the facts that no one wants to go to war, but sometimes you just have to do what is best for everyone. Yes, innocent people will die, a lot of people will die, U S troops will die, but that is what happens when you go to war!There has never been a war where no one has been killed. So yes I think we need to go to war unless Saddam Backs down from office. As long as he is in power, he needs to die. He is killing his own people. Manipulating them like Hitler!
Why go to war and not think about how many peoply ur going to kill. I know that they came and sept. 11 happened but wow who cares just bulid more bulidings. we are called the peace making country but dose it look like we are trying to keep peace with them? If I had to do something about it it would be to kill our president just for thinking about going to war. If you were to ask around I bet more people would be against going to war than for it. the president need to listen to the people on this one because he really dont know what he’s getting us into.
invade their country, kill Saddam, make Iraq an american state for our benifits