 |  |  |  |  |  |
whether they should support the executive branch with a Gulf of Tonkin-like resolution to wage war on Iraq.
Why are they even bothering to debate this. To me it is a clear-cut issue, with the answer being a
resounding, "No!" We should not become a country that wages war on a first strike basis; frankly we had
our chance and we blew it. We made no attempt to overthrow the regime in Iraq when it would have been
appropriate and, at the time, very efficient, because we had demolished Saddam?s military capabilities. It
is almost as if a statute of limitations has passed. Our opportunity to launch an all out attack on the regime
in Iraq is lost. We have to accept that it is not proper diplomatic etiquette to make up for our laziness and
procrastination of the last ten years with a rush to war for vigilante justice today.
I am listening to one elected official after another tell the congress that we need to attack Iraq because
Saddam Hussein possesses the ability to attack us. So what? Saddam is not going to "first-strike" us ever.
He knows that if he is to maintain power he has to avoid a confrontation with the US. Saddam will only use
his Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) if he has been backed into a corner; his logic being, "If I'm going
down, I'm taking you with me." Saddam is not stupid enough to release a WMD directed towards the United
States that leads to the death of our citizens. He knows that we will ruthlessly turn Iraq into nothing more
than the proverbial parking lot before he had any opportunity to enjoy his feat.
These same representatives ignorantly insist on making the point of linking Saddam Hussein with the
terrorists who launched the attack on September 11th . They claim that Saddam will house said terrorists
and that he and Osama bin Laden (Who according to the president "doesn't matter anymore") will form an
alliance against us. This is so off base as to be laughable. Not only are our own intelligence gathering
agencies informing us that Saddam Hussein will never fund terrorism, but so do the rest of the world?s
intelligence communities. The reason is this: Saddam will not fund and supply terror groups because he is
legitimately afraid that the same funding and weapons will be used against him (this is what the CIA refers
to as "blowback"). Not only that, but Osama bin Laden loathes Saddam Hussein and his secular regime
which has no foundation in Islam. Bin Laden sees Saddam as a threat to Islam, a tumor on the region that
should be removed.
The danger to waging war on Iraq is the overwhelming dearth of public support behind the possibility of an
unprovoked unilateral war. If and when we do launch an attack on Iraq and the first images of a platoon of
gassed soldiers lying still on a desert plain are aired on CNN the existing support for the war will quickly
evaporate. The US will be forced under public pressure to withdraw from Iraq (much like we did in
Vietnam), without victory and with even less legitimacy than we have now to return with the idea of war to
the region.
The unilateral aspect of the war on Iraq leaves a strong precedent with the global stage. What is to keep
the rest of the countries in the world from invoking their right to strike first against an adversary citing the
United States as an example? China could attack Taiwan. Russia could invade Georgia. India and Pakistan
could leave a gaping hole in Central Asia, just to name a few. As the worlds last remaining superpower, an
act of first strike proportions would not only place in danger the rather precarious level of peace that exists
across the globe, but could, in all actuality, lead to our ultimate demise. Every superpower in modern times
that has resorted to first strike invasions no longer exists. Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, The Soviet
Union? They are all no more. Let us not add The United States of America to that list.
Since the United States is the most powerful nation in the world, what is to stop us from just placing
inspectors in Iraq whether Saddam wants them or not? We tell Saddam that he will let the inspectors and
their entourage investigate anything they so choose from presidential palaces and schools, to military
sights and private residences. He will do this without delay and with a smile on his face. If he does not
comply in a reasonably quick fashion, or worse yet, causes harm to our inspectors, we will then have a
legitimate cause to wage war.
If we were to send inspectors into Iraq and they were then to be harmed while performing their duties the
rest of the world would jump to our defense. We would no longer be in the situation of engaging in a
unilateral action with Iraq. It would become an allied effort. One that will finish the job, improve public
support at home and not tarnish our image abroad. What is so wrong with inspections that we cannot use
them as our first tactic to limit Saddam's power (something we should have done long ago when we first
withdrew the UN inspectors in 1998) and use war as a "plan B?"
If it is so important to force Saddam out of power as soon as possible, how come it was not one of the first
things Bush did when he entered office? Instead, when Bush assumed office, one of the first things he did
was unfreeze the offshore accounts of his corporate buddies (which inadvertently sped up the collapse of
Enron et. al) and that of the more than $400 million in al-Qaeda funding that Clinton froze after the
embassy bombings in 1998. In the United States 12% of the oil we consume is that of which is smuggled
illegally out of Iraq. This is not to say, we as a nation are to blame for furthering the current Iraqi regime. I
do think that the current administration must put its foot down in regards to the corporations that do
smuggle in this oil. This must be done before we ever resort to a war in Iraq, a country who has always, in
one way or another, been financed by American dollars. Starting with the Reagan/Bush administrations
during the Iran/Iraq war and presently by US oil companies (who happen to hold very close ties to the
current administration). Also consider the fact that our current vice president is responsible for conducting
business with two countries that are members of the "Axis of Evil." This includes over $23 million worth
business with the government of Iraq when he held the position of CEO at Halliburton. Due to Cheney's
previous experience as Secretary of Defense under the first Bush administration he should know full well
the implications of doing business with a country that we bomb almost on a daily basis. Is it not considered
treason to do business with the enemy? One just does not have the moral high ground to call Iraq evil and
desire war with that country if one is still financing its fascist leader.
Let us use war as a last resort and instead extend our diplomatic efforts until our foresight on the situation
is clearer.
Thank You.