COUNTERPOINT: The War on Terror–the U.S. should accept war as a last resort
When discussing with my co-columnist about the possibility of writing about the potential for war in Iraq, it was brought up that a column such as this hardly seems adequate for discussing such an issue. It seems that discussing the potential for lost lives and severe destruction should be done in a much more calm, lengthy discussion than a short column such as this. However, on further examination, it seems to me that the issue is actually quite simple.
There are a number of reasons why war in Iraq is a bad idea. First of all, there will most certainly be loss of lives, both Iraqi and U.S./British. Second, any war in the Middle East threatens to disrupt the flow of oil to the United States, something that our struggling economy certainly doesn’t need. Third, there is great potential for further inflaming the anti-American sentiment that currently pervades much of that region of the world. Finally, the difficulties of maintaining stability in the region become greater after a major military intervention by an outside power. With the instability already present in the area, none of us relish the thought of further troubles.
Having said all of that and conceding to those who are opposed to the war that all of those things are absolutely true, it still seems very clear to me that going to war in Iraq is absolutely the correct thing to do.
First of all, Saddam Hussein is a butcher, a ruler who cares very little for the people he rules over with an iron fist. I recently watched a television news program where teenagers were stating their opinions about the possibility of war, and one young lady said she thought it was terrible we would consider taking an action so many Iraqi’s were opposed to.
I almost felt like crying at her ignorance of reality in Iraq, where Saddam has ruled as an absolute dictator for many years, murdering those who oppose him, using chemical and biological weapons against those in his country who believe that they should be free. That he regularly engages in a detestable mockery of “free elections” every few years only makes his offenses more abhorrent to true lovers of liberty and freedom. If for no other reason than to liberate the Iraqi people, war in Iraq would be justified, in my mind.
Second of all, however, Saddam is one of the largest sponsors of terrorist activities. There are very few people left in civilized society that don’t believe he would use a nuclear weapon against the west or Israel were he to obtain it. What is most appalling, however, is that even many of those who admit that such a scenario is likely would have us wait until we are sure he is in possession of such a weapon before taking action.
Finally, the issue of anti-American sentiment is one that must be addressed in defending war in Iraq. While it is certainly true that anti-American sentiment is likely to increase with war in Iraq, only those who actively delude themselves would deny that such anti-American sentiment is likely to increase even if we do nothing in Iraq. That anti-American sentiment exists not because of what we DO as a nation, but because of what we ARE as a nation.
We have freedom that most Middle-Eastern nations cannot dream of. Freedom is an infectious thing, and once exposed to it, most people refuse to return to oppression. Discontent about lack of personal freedoms must find a vent somewhere, and instead of giving their people the freedom they desperately want, Middle-Eastern leaders have become very adept at changing that discontent into anger toward countries that have freedom, such as us.
The only thing that will stop anti-American sentiment in the Middle East is freedom and democracy, and by toppling a dictator, and establishing a working democracy in the region, war may be the only way of eliminating anti-American sentiment, in the long run.
Jeremy Kidd is a graduate student in economics. Comments can be sent to him at jeremykidd@cc.usu.edu.