Subject:  The Case for Peace ****PLEASE READ |
Author:
Tim Stasevich
| [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 20:15:28 10/08/02 Tue
Yesterday evening on national television, Bush delivered a speech to make the case for a war with Iraq. After I watched it, I wasn’t convinced. I thought I’d share my opinion:
Bush is currently laying the groundwork for a new foreign policy, one based upon the notion of “preemptive action.” Furthermore, he wants congress to pass a resolution put forth by his administration that authorizes him the power to launch a unilateral, preemptive strike against any nation he feels is a threat, and to use “all means he determines to be appropriate“ (note the “he” and not “we”). That’s a tremendous amount of power in one man’s hands. If I’m not mistaken, the constitution grants congress the power to start war, not the president. The reason for this provision is clear: no one man should be given the power to wage war; after all, if that man should decide war were necessary, there would be no way to stop him. As Abraham Lincoln wisely put it,
"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose - - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't.' "
Our founding fathers had it right and we should heed their warning. Under no circumstance should we grant Bush the power he is requesting. Unfortunately, we may already be too late. Congress is set to vote on this issue next week and polls already suggest they will side with Bush. They are doing so for strictly political reasons. As Senator Byrd put it, “Republicans are already running attack ads against Democrats on Iraq. Democrats favor fast approval of a resolution so they can change the subject to domestic economic problems.”
Is this the type of example we want to set for the rest of the world? Do we really support the notion of preemptive action? Just imagine if Pakistan and India--following in our footsteps--were to adopt a similar foreign policy. Would there be anything to stop them from destroying each other? For that matter, imagine a world in which each country practices preemptive-action. Like wildfire, wars would sprout our of nowhere, igniting from nothing but perceived threats and speculation. This would not be a stable environment. It would be nothing more than a collection of cowboy nations, each taking the law into their own hands. It would be chaos. We cannot support Bush on this issue.
The proper avenue to deal with Iraq is through the UN. Sadly, Bush has made it clear that the US will attack Iraq with or without the UN’s support. Why take such an aggressive stance? Wouldn’t it be better to listen to what the world has to say? If Iraq were truly a threat to the world, and war were truly the only option, we would already have the support of a world coalition. In stark contrast, the opposite seems to true: most of the world opposes our belligerent plans. The Saudi president has said he fears the Middle East will be thrown into greater turmoil, and Russia, China, France, Spain, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Portugal all express deep reservations, if not blunt opposition, to the US plan. Out of respect for their voice, the UN, and democracy, we should heed their warning.
In his speech last night, Bush attempted to prove that Iraq poses a grave threat to Americans. To make the case, Bush talked about Saddam Hussein’s brutal history, his cruelty, and his desire for weapons of mass destruction (WMD). He talked about terrorism and nations which harbor them, and he brought up the horror of 9/11. Bush talked about a lot of things, but what he failed to do was connect them. Let me be clear: there is no established link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. Speculation alone does not authorize military action. Besides, if WMD are Bush’s main concern, the proper avenue to deal with these is, again, the UN. As Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector (and former US Marine) points out,
"From 1991 to 1998, UN weapons inspectors…were able to verifiably ascertain a 90 to 95 percent level of disarmament inside Iraq. This included all of the production facilities involved with WMD, together with their associated production equipment and the great majority of what was produced by these facilities."
Giving weapons inspectors the chance to get back in Iraq would appear to be the simplest way to rid Iraq of it’s WMD. Because Iraq has already offered full access to weapons inspectors, it is imperative they return as soon as possible. Unfortunately, as Scott Ritter points out,
"…the Bush administration has done little to further the cause of getting inspectors back on the job. Instead the administration has denigrated the efficacy of inspections and prevented any potential for diplomacy by insisting on an overall policy of regime change even if inspectors return to Iraq and find it in compliance with the UN ban."
Clearly Bush wants this war. Until he produces hard evidence of a serious threat, however, I am forced to question his motives and consider the possibility that the war is part of a larger political agenda. This is a concern to all Americans, most importantly those in the army because they will have to risk their lives for a cause that may or may not be just.
When I was listening to Bush’s speech last night, I noticed that he never mentioned the cost of a war with Iraq. I suppose this was a good idea because the cost is another reason not to go to war. Conservative estimates suggest the cost to be anywhere from 50 to 100 billion dollars, and that doesn’t include post-war government building. Furthermore, the cost will come almost entirely out of our pocket because there isn’t a world coalition behind us to fall back on for financial support (unlike the Gulf war which was largely funded by Japan, Saudi Arabia, and other supportive nations). Considering the fact that we are currently in an economic recession, there is a possibility that the war will further destabilize our market and send us into deeper recessions yet. I understand that if the war were justified, no price is too high, but considering that this war is based on speculation alone, I have to object.
In summary, Bush has made a case for war, but I am far from convinced. Not only is his policy of preemptive strike logically flawed, but his desire to move without the support of the UN is dangerous and sets a horrible example for the rest of the world. Although Bush has tried to convince us that the war is justifiable, he has failed to give the substantial evidence required for such a costly endeavor. His fascination with regime change seem to have clouded his original motives: the removal of WMD from Iraq--a goal which can be obtained peacefully through the UN and their weapons inspectors.
Finally, if you’re still not convinced that this war is a bad idea, if you’re still willing to send you sons and daughters into a hostile environment, and if you still feel the cost of war is justified, there’s one more group I think you should consider: the Iraqi citizens. You can be sure that the citizens of Iraq, especially Baghdad, will pay the highest price for our aggressive behavior. In the Gulf war alone, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s paid the highest price. Although it’s comforting to believe our superior weapons will target only military facilities, it’s far from the truth. The truth is simple: bombs are not precise, and many, many people will die in this war…
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] |
|
Feedback: 