rv581
01-13-03, 11:20 AM
From www.laststory.com
“Give War a Chance: Reasons to Invade Iraq”
“This is an idea that grew out of the 60s peace movement. The idea then was that if enough ‘good’ people sang, chanted, and held hands, all the ‘evil’ people would give up their money, weapons, and power. Worked great, didn’t it?” –George Carlin, Braindroppings
There are those among us who’d never support an American sponsored war; instead, they’d prefer to criticize and pontificate from afar, enjoying the freedoms borne of wars past. The rationale of these people for military inaction varies widely. For some, they harbor a deep anti-Bush, anti-Republican bias and distrust any statements or motives from the White House. Others belong in the moral-relativism camp and view Saddam’s regime no different than that of any other government, including the United States, sans a finite number of degrees. Others carry religious objections to any form of violent confrontation, regardless of threat or monstrosity posed. For these people, no justification for a war in Iraq would ever be accepted, for their minds and biases are fixed. This editorial is not intended for such an audience. Instead, the target-audience are those with a pragmatic disagreement with a war in Iraq—those who could conceivably support a military campaign in the Middle East, but for whatever reason believe that such an endeavor would cause more harm than good, or simply wouldn’t accomplish the intended goal.
The individual arguments outlined, in and of themselves might not be sufficient reason to wage war against Iraq, but taken as a whole, the argument is overwhelming:
1) Saddam is a wicked man capable of wicked things. Of this, even the doves agree. In the past 15 years, Saddam has either waged war or lobbed missiles at four of his neighbors (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Kuwait) and used chemical weapons against his own civilians. He has authorized genocide against one of his ethnic minorities (the Kurds) and promoted a climate of fear and terror. Those who’ve fled his country tell horrible tales of widespread murder, corruption, rape, and torture. Saddam maintains power not through benevolence or good will, but through the brunt use of force. This alone might not be sufficient reason to wage war, but it’s important that we identify Saddam for what he is—a brutal thug who does wicked, despicable things.
2) Inaction means Saddam acquires nuclear weapons. Again, this isn’t a debatable point; the only question is how long it will take. With sanctions, most experts believe the timeline is a matter of years… without sanctions, perhaps by the end of the year. Acquiring nuclear weapons has long been a priority to Saddam’s regime and he was precariously close to ownership in the 1980s when an Israeli aerial attack knocked out an Iraqi nuclear development plant. With his amoral use of power and ability to coerce his scientists with threats of death—or death to their family—the top Iraqi minds are hoping to unleash the nuclear genie even while the pacifists are urging us to “Give peace a chance.”
3) Saddam acquiring nuclear weapons changes the dynamics in the Middle East. He has already demonstrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction when he believes it suits his purpose; a nuclear bomb would be just another tool in his arsenal. With it, he has cover to wage war and conquer his neighbors without repercussion. He could roll into Kuwait and conquer Saudi Arabia, telling the United States that any action on our part would result in a nuclear explosion in Tel Aviv. And with Saddam’s history, would any American president dare call his bluff? A nuclear Iraq is Saddam’s passport to a stranglehold on a lion’s share of the oil fields and a conquered Middle East.
4) Certain scenarios exist where it would be in Saddam’s interest to sell nuclear technology to unsavory entities, including terrorists. Iran, Jordan, Libya, and Syria would enjoy possession of nuclear weapons. In exchange for violating the U.N. sanctions, such a trade could be brokered. Furthermore, the major terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda and Hamas, are extremely well funded with vast monetary resources at their disposal—and Saddam needs money to fund his war plans and placate his Republican Guard military division. Saddam worked feverishly in recent years to strengthen his ties to Hamas, going as far as offering financial rewards to the families of homicide bombers. And Hamas returned the favor by pledging support to Saddam in the event of war. On January 10, 2003, Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi told his supporters, “We urge the Iraqi leadership to open the door for Muslim volunteers who should perform their role in defense of Iraq because all Muslims are targeted by the USA.” Saddam will assuredly reward his “friends” for their loyalty… how he rewards them could pose a direct risk to the United States, her allies, and destabilize the entire region.
5) Nothing in Saddam’s past demonstrates that he’s content with Iraq’s borders as-is. Again, this point is beyond dispute. If past behavior is emblematic of future conduct, than we must assume that Iraq will invade his neighbors again. If it’s in our interests to prevent such a war from happening, we must decide if it’s better to attack him now, in a weaker state, or wait for Iraq to rebuild its military and gain nuclear defenses.
6) It’s in the interests of the United States to create a democratic, pro-Western Iraq. Beyond the obvious advantages—including access to oil—a democratic, prosperous Iraq is vital to our War on Terrorism. Islamic militants brainwash their young, instructing them that their economic misfortune if the fault of Christianity, America, Zionism, and our Western way of life. A rebuilt, prosperous Iraq in the heart of the Middle East would irrefutably demonstrate the folly of these inflammatory allegations. Freedom is a tricky thing; once let out of the bottle, it’s almost impossible to stifle. Right now the Arab countries in that region are either led by corrupt dictators or religious theologies. When the neighbors of Iraq see her prosper under a democratic, pro-Western government, they too will demand change. And they will recognize that their economic woes lay not at the feet of America, but with their own leadership. The War on Terrorism is largely a long-term battle for the hearts and minds of the Muslim youth. And we can’t win this war without proving the superiority of our way of life—and the inferiority of corrupt, despotic governments and Islamic religious extremism.
7) Rebuilding Iraq is possible. Despite all the protests over “nation-building,” the historical truth is that it works. Japan, Italy, Germany, and much of Europe owes its current shape to American nation-building. Japan provides the best example. Back in the 1930s, Japan was a military force that invaded its neighbors, committed widespread human rights violations—including rape, torture, and murder—all while operating under the extremist religious philosophy of Shintoism. So devoted were the Japanese to this religion that they embarked upon suicide missions against the United States, intentionally ramming their planes into American targets. And America responded in brutal fashion, deliberately targeting civilians with nuclear weapons. Upon the conclusion of World War II, the bad blood between the Japanese civilians and the United States was exponentially greater than any animosity between the people of Iraq and America. And still, nation-building worked because we successfully proved our superiority and invalidated the claims of our opponents. With American money and American resources, we’re capable of skyrocketing the Iraqi economy far beyond the heights it enjoyed back in 1989. And with lavish amounts of natural resources at its disposal and a secular past, Iraq is arguable better-equipped for rebuilding than the decimated, completely destroyed countries such as 1940s Germany, Japan, and Italy.
8) Saddam won’t leave power without a war. Most reasonable people would agree that it’s in our interest for Saddam to be removed from power and be replaced with a democratic, pro-Western leader. Because of his use of terror, it’s clear that the Iraqi people are incapable of removing their oppressor without foreign help. And even if Saddam is toppled by an assassin’s bullet, a strong probability exists that his replacement would be an Islamic extremist who’d transform Iraq into yet another Muslim theocracy with an anti-American tilt. A democratic Iraq won’t happen without our involvement. If it’s in our interest for the government of Iraq to change philosophically, we need to take an aggressive, proactive roll in actuating such change.
9) The same threats of terrorism will exist if we do nothing. Some like to argue that an American military campaign in Iraq would exasperate the Islamic fringe… but these groups were and are already plotting the death and destruction of Americans worldwide. These same naysayers made these same allegations before we invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban. These naysayers were wrong then and they’re wrong now. The terrorist threat won’t eliminate itself if we retreat from Iraq, as American foreign policy did not include an invasion of Baghdad prior to 9/11. The danger of inaction is greater than the danger of action, for hoping to appease these extremist won’t win their loyalty—it will only embolden their war plans.
10) Issues of morality. Morality often gets swept under the table in the pandering, appease-oriented world of foreign policy, particularly among the intellectual elites. Why? Because morality often serves as an impediment to negotiation, earning scoffs and derisions from international diplomats. But there is a legitimate issue of morality in this current conflict. Saddam is an evil butcher who’s terrorized his people for far too long and these people are simply incapable of defending themselves without our assistance. We have it within our power to provide the people of Iraq with freedom, liberty, and protection from a brutal government that orders torture, murder, and rape against opponents. We can protect an ethnic minority from genocide, giving these people a better tomorrow than they ever hoped possible. Edmund Burke once said, “All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.” It is up to us to decide if we wish to utilize our power for good… or to sit on the sidelines, allowing the innocent to suffer at the hands of a wicked tyrant. Apologists like to issue slippery-slope counterclaims: “Saddam is no worse than Dictator X and we can’t save everyone!” No, but we can provide safe haven when it’s in our national interest to do so, and such a case clearly exists in Iraq. And if the best you can say about Saddam is that someone somewhere might be worse, you still haven’t refuted those who label him as evil. The other slippery-slope talking point: “Iraq isn’t the only ‘bad’ country with a nuclear program—what about its Axis of Evil partners, Iran and North Korea? Do we invade them, too?” The answer is, we treat Iraq differently than Iran and North Korea because it is different: Iran and North Korea haven’t invaded any sovereign nations in the past 30 years; in just the decade prior to the Gulf War, Iraq invaded Kuwait and Iran, fired missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia, and massacred the Kurdish people with chemical weapons. Of these three countries, only Iraq has a history of utilizing weapons of mass destruction for offensive purposes. Despite the line-blurring of the relativists, Iraq is clearly a different animal than the others—a more dangerous animal.
It’s time to give war a chance.
“Give War a Chance: Reasons to Invade Iraq”
“This is an idea that grew out of the 60s peace movement. The idea then was that if enough ‘good’ people sang, chanted, and held hands, all the ‘evil’ people would give up their money, weapons, and power. Worked great, didn’t it?” –George Carlin, Braindroppings
There are those among us who’d never support an American sponsored war; instead, they’d prefer to criticize and pontificate from afar, enjoying the freedoms borne of wars past. The rationale of these people for military inaction varies widely. For some, they harbor a deep anti-Bush, anti-Republican bias and distrust any statements or motives from the White House. Others belong in the moral-relativism camp and view Saddam’s regime no different than that of any other government, including the United States, sans a finite number of degrees. Others carry religious objections to any form of violent confrontation, regardless of threat or monstrosity posed. For these people, no justification for a war in Iraq would ever be accepted, for their minds and biases are fixed. This editorial is not intended for such an audience. Instead, the target-audience are those with a pragmatic disagreement with a war in Iraq—those who could conceivably support a military campaign in the Middle East, but for whatever reason believe that such an endeavor would cause more harm than good, or simply wouldn’t accomplish the intended goal.
The individual arguments outlined, in and of themselves might not be sufficient reason to wage war against Iraq, but taken as a whole, the argument is overwhelming:
1) Saddam is a wicked man capable of wicked things. Of this, even the doves agree. In the past 15 years, Saddam has either waged war or lobbed missiles at four of his neighbors (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Kuwait) and used chemical weapons against his own civilians. He has authorized genocide against one of his ethnic minorities (the Kurds) and promoted a climate of fear and terror. Those who’ve fled his country tell horrible tales of widespread murder, corruption, rape, and torture. Saddam maintains power not through benevolence or good will, but through the brunt use of force. This alone might not be sufficient reason to wage war, but it’s important that we identify Saddam for what he is—a brutal thug who does wicked, despicable things.
2) Inaction means Saddam acquires nuclear weapons. Again, this isn’t a debatable point; the only question is how long it will take. With sanctions, most experts believe the timeline is a matter of years… without sanctions, perhaps by the end of the year. Acquiring nuclear weapons has long been a priority to Saddam’s regime and he was precariously close to ownership in the 1980s when an Israeli aerial attack knocked out an Iraqi nuclear development plant. With his amoral use of power and ability to coerce his scientists with threats of death—or death to their family—the top Iraqi minds are hoping to unleash the nuclear genie even while the pacifists are urging us to “Give peace a chance.”
3) Saddam acquiring nuclear weapons changes the dynamics in the Middle East. He has already demonstrated a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction when he believes it suits his purpose; a nuclear bomb would be just another tool in his arsenal. With it, he has cover to wage war and conquer his neighbors without repercussion. He could roll into Kuwait and conquer Saudi Arabia, telling the United States that any action on our part would result in a nuclear explosion in Tel Aviv. And with Saddam’s history, would any American president dare call his bluff? A nuclear Iraq is Saddam’s passport to a stranglehold on a lion’s share of the oil fields and a conquered Middle East.
4) Certain scenarios exist where it would be in Saddam’s interest to sell nuclear technology to unsavory entities, including terrorists. Iran, Jordan, Libya, and Syria would enjoy possession of nuclear weapons. In exchange for violating the U.N. sanctions, such a trade could be brokered. Furthermore, the major terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda and Hamas, are extremely well funded with vast monetary resources at their disposal—and Saddam needs money to fund his war plans and placate his Republican Guard military division. Saddam worked feverishly in recent years to strengthen his ties to Hamas, going as far as offering financial rewards to the families of homicide bombers. And Hamas returned the favor by pledging support to Saddam in the event of war. On January 10, 2003, Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi told his supporters, “We urge the Iraqi leadership to open the door for Muslim volunteers who should perform their role in defense of Iraq because all Muslims are targeted by the USA.” Saddam will assuredly reward his “friends” for their loyalty… how he rewards them could pose a direct risk to the United States, her allies, and destabilize the entire region.
5) Nothing in Saddam’s past demonstrates that he’s content with Iraq’s borders as-is. Again, this point is beyond dispute. If past behavior is emblematic of future conduct, than we must assume that Iraq will invade his neighbors again. If it’s in our interests to prevent such a war from happening, we must decide if it’s better to attack him now, in a weaker state, or wait for Iraq to rebuild its military and gain nuclear defenses.
6) It’s in the interests of the United States to create a democratic, pro-Western Iraq. Beyond the obvious advantages—including access to oil—a democratic, prosperous Iraq is vital to our War on Terrorism. Islamic militants brainwash their young, instructing them that their economic misfortune if the fault of Christianity, America, Zionism, and our Western way of life. A rebuilt, prosperous Iraq in the heart of the Middle East would irrefutably demonstrate the folly of these inflammatory allegations. Freedom is a tricky thing; once let out of the bottle, it’s almost impossible to stifle. Right now the Arab countries in that region are either led by corrupt dictators or religious theologies. When the neighbors of Iraq see her prosper under a democratic, pro-Western government, they too will demand change. And they will recognize that their economic woes lay not at the feet of America, but with their own leadership. The War on Terrorism is largely a long-term battle for the hearts and minds of the Muslim youth. And we can’t win this war without proving the superiority of our way of life—and the inferiority of corrupt, despotic governments and Islamic religious extremism.
7) Rebuilding Iraq is possible. Despite all the protests over “nation-building,” the historical truth is that it works. Japan, Italy, Germany, and much of Europe owes its current shape to American nation-building. Japan provides the best example. Back in the 1930s, Japan was a military force that invaded its neighbors, committed widespread human rights violations—including rape, torture, and murder—all while operating under the extremist religious philosophy of Shintoism. So devoted were the Japanese to this religion that they embarked upon suicide missions against the United States, intentionally ramming their planes into American targets. And America responded in brutal fashion, deliberately targeting civilians with nuclear weapons. Upon the conclusion of World War II, the bad blood between the Japanese civilians and the United States was exponentially greater than any animosity between the people of Iraq and America. And still, nation-building worked because we successfully proved our superiority and invalidated the claims of our opponents. With American money and American resources, we’re capable of skyrocketing the Iraqi economy far beyond the heights it enjoyed back in 1989. And with lavish amounts of natural resources at its disposal and a secular past, Iraq is arguable better-equipped for rebuilding than the decimated, completely destroyed countries such as 1940s Germany, Japan, and Italy.
8) Saddam won’t leave power without a war. Most reasonable people would agree that it’s in our interest for Saddam to be removed from power and be replaced with a democratic, pro-Western leader. Because of his use of terror, it’s clear that the Iraqi people are incapable of removing their oppressor without foreign help. And even if Saddam is toppled by an assassin’s bullet, a strong probability exists that his replacement would be an Islamic extremist who’d transform Iraq into yet another Muslim theocracy with an anti-American tilt. A democratic Iraq won’t happen without our involvement. If it’s in our interest for the government of Iraq to change philosophically, we need to take an aggressive, proactive roll in actuating such change.
9) The same threats of terrorism will exist if we do nothing. Some like to argue that an American military campaign in Iraq would exasperate the Islamic fringe… but these groups were and are already plotting the death and destruction of Americans worldwide. These same naysayers made these same allegations before we invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban. These naysayers were wrong then and they’re wrong now. The terrorist threat won’t eliminate itself if we retreat from Iraq, as American foreign policy did not include an invasion of Baghdad prior to 9/11. The danger of inaction is greater than the danger of action, for hoping to appease these extremist won’t win their loyalty—it will only embolden their war plans.
10) Issues of morality. Morality often gets swept under the table in the pandering, appease-oriented world of foreign policy, particularly among the intellectual elites. Why? Because morality often serves as an impediment to negotiation, earning scoffs and derisions from international diplomats. But there is a legitimate issue of morality in this current conflict. Saddam is an evil butcher who’s terrorized his people for far too long and these people are simply incapable of defending themselves without our assistance. We have it within our power to provide the people of Iraq with freedom, liberty, and protection from a brutal government that orders torture, murder, and rape against opponents. We can protect an ethnic minority from genocide, giving these people a better tomorrow than they ever hoped possible. Edmund Burke once said, “All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.” It is up to us to decide if we wish to utilize our power for good… or to sit on the sidelines, allowing the innocent to suffer at the hands of a wicked tyrant. Apologists like to issue slippery-slope counterclaims: “Saddam is no worse than Dictator X and we can’t save everyone!” No, but we can provide safe haven when it’s in our national interest to do so, and such a case clearly exists in Iraq. And if the best you can say about Saddam is that someone somewhere might be worse, you still haven’t refuted those who label him as evil. The other slippery-slope talking point: “Iraq isn’t the only ‘bad’ country with a nuclear program—what about its Axis of Evil partners, Iran and North Korea? Do we invade them, too?” The answer is, we treat Iraq differently than Iran and North Korea because it is different: Iran and North Korea haven’t invaded any sovereign nations in the past 30 years; in just the decade prior to the Gulf War, Iraq invaded Kuwait and Iran, fired missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia, and massacred the Kurdish people with chemical weapons. Of these three countries, only Iraq has a history of utilizing weapons of mass destruction for offensive purposes. Despite the line-blurring of the relativists, Iraq is clearly a different animal than the others—a more dangerous animal.
It’s time to give war a chance.