Sep 112002
Authors: Oliver Cook

You should listen to that bearded man in the plaza handing out fliers stating why the U.S. should not go to war with Iraq; he makes a valid point. Saddam is not a madman.

He may be a dictator who commits genocide on his own people, but he is not crazy enough to believe that he can topple or even permanently damage the United States, especially knowing what our response would be.

Why, then, should the United States waste American lives as well as those of our non-existent allies to topple a regime that does not pose an immediate threat to American interests?

The situation may be direr than that, but not by as much as the Bush administration is making it out to be.

We do have an obligation to free the people we often forget about and should have helped in the first place: the oppressed citizens of Iraq. With no accountability coming from Saddam Hussein, it is the duty of America to achieve the great humanitarian project of taking out one of the last totalitarian regimes in the world. We have precedent in Bosnia. Why should this be any different than taking out Serbs who were committing genocide within, at the time, their own country? Are Kosovars more important to the international community than Kurds are?

As far as the argument against violating Iraq’s sovereignty, don’t trust a dictator. Don’t respect him or her or his or her right to leadership. This should be a struggle for liberation of an oppressed people, not the appeasement of a dictator.

I believe something must be done and Saddam needs to be removed from power and we, as the most powerful democracy, have an obligation to do it, especially if he is pursuing his dream of being a nuclear power.

It does not make sense, however, to sacrifice hundreds or even thousands of American soldiers, kill tens or even hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (innocent and otherwise), and blast the infrastructure of Iraq back to the Stone Age in order to do it.

Yeah, that’s great for regional stability.

The U.S. should be investing the billions of dollars the war could cost into finding an alternative solution. Perhaps something like a coup d’etat, assassination, economic destabilization or another type of clandestine operation like the ones pioneered by our nation’s intelligence agencies during the Cold War?

It seems to me that it would be less bloody, cheaper and more humane to send several special operations teams into the country with the mission of ensuring that the regime of Saddam Hussein falls covertly.

The counter argument to this is that Saddam’s security is so tight that an assassin’s chance of getting near to him is practically non-existent. Why doesn’t Bush follow through with his plan to develop tactical nuclear weapons? A special-forces team armed with a micro-nuke rocket-launcher could seriously disrupt Iraq’s chain of command in one fell swoop.

This is, of course, hypothetical, if not a little fanciful, but it is meant to demonstrate the point that there are other less destructive means of bringing democracy to Iraq, gaining economic spoils for U.S. corporations, and creating a media distraction for a poorly managed presidency.

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.