POINT: Much ado about Iraq
The arguments surrounding Iraq are manifold, and all deserve due consideration. Hopefully, I can add some insight to the surfeit of information already available.
A series of short questions and answers, I believe, reveals the Bush administration’s mistakes in its policy on this issue.
First Question: Is military action in Iraq a necessity?
Probably not. The United States and the United Nations among others have a marked interest in ensuring Saddam Hussein’s threat is kept to a minimum.
However, the Iraqi army remains severely diminished from the time of the first Gulf War. This is not a reason for invasion but rather a justification for cautious optimism. Hussein is less of a threat than he was 12 years ago.
Second question: Why does Bush want to go to Iraq?
Administration officials claim that a post-9/11 world merits a new foreign policy doctrine, but the “Bush doctrine” and its acceptance of preemptive military strikes stem not from the events of 9/11, but from the end of the cold war. White House insider Paul Wolfowitz created this doctrine in 1991 as a justification for re-invasion of Iraq after the Gulf War and a foreign policy direction that recognized U.S. hegemony.
Commendable as Wolfowitz’s recognition of a rapidly changing world was, his new foreign policy fell flat on its face because it recommended too radical a change from the United States’ internationally cooperative past. Instead of recognizing his defeat, Wolfowitz and hawkish conservatives bided their time for a president more open to ignoring precedent and world opinion.
After 9/11, George W. Bush — reacting to the moment rather than reflecting on the past — adopted an untried foreign policy direction.
In any case, this doctrine is being tested for the first time in Iraq. Unfortunately, the doctrine is inadequate in such a case because it was written in 1991. It fails to consider 9/11 issues such as the causes of terrorism, and ethno-national concerns.
We are being asked to fight a war based on a new idea; we should be concerned whether it might not be a very good one.
Third question: If Saddam is such a ruthless dictator, aren’t we justified and even obligated to bomb Iraq?
Estimates of the war in Iraq predict eight times the amount of bombing in its first three days as seen in a comparable time during the first Gulf War. Errant bombs should be expected. If thousands of civilians die, claims of humanitarian concerns will ring with falsity in the Middle East and the world.
In addition, not only do the atrocious humanitarian records of some U.S. allies invalidate this argument, some of Saddam’s worst acts of genocide took place while a precarious alliance existed between he and the United States. If we really want to improve human rights in the world, it would probably be best to work on our friends before attacking enemies.
I recognize that the few arguments I have forwarded represent little of everything out there, but I have found them sufficient to oppose the need for war.
Such a stance reflects more of an adherence to accepted American principles — reservation in conflict, diplomacy first and concern for democratic international cooperation.
Wednesday at noon, there will be a protest on the TSC patio. For all those interested in finding out more about the war in Iraq and the peace movement, come see something new on the USU campus.
Aaron Law is a senior majoring in political science. Comments can be sent to aaronl@cc.usu.edu.