Back to main page.

Iraq Invasion?



 
  In this article, I'm going to discuss the pros and cons of invading Iraq. Actually, the arguments on both sides are pretty good.

The case for invading Iraq

Over the past months, President Bush has advocated an invasion of Iraq. The response of the American people has varied. Some have agreed with this idea, others say that the economy should be a more important focus. Some people think its strange that we are invading a country that has not attacked us at all.
  In my opinion, America should attack Iraq as a pre-emptive strike. At this time, we cannot underestimate Iraq's destructive military capacity. In fact, Iraq is one of the world's superpowers. After the U.S., Russia, China, and a few Western European nations, Iraq's army would have to rank as one of the world's most powerful and sophisticated. Iraqis are smart and technologically savvy. Clearly, they have been developing chemical weapons as well as atomic weapons.
  We must move to crush the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein before he has a chance to act. The lesson of Sept.11 clearly illustrates that the U.S. is quite vulnerable. Saddam could give weapons to a terrorist group, and let them carry out an attack.
  Some people say that Saddam is insane. This is not the case. He has managed to hold onto power and maintain his brutal grip for over 15 years. He is unethical, and savage. But he is not insane. What would Saddam's motivation be for attacking the U.S., if he knew that his destruction will be inevitable? That's a good question. One answer is that Saddam believes that he could win a war with the U.S. This is in fact not impossible. Imagine the consequences if a nuclear bomb went off in Manhattan. It is unimaginable. It is not clear how the U.S. could respond to such an attack.
  Another scenario is if Iraq delivered an atomic payload to Tel Aviv. As demonstrated in the Gulf War, Iraq does have this capability. Destroying Tel Aviv might well start a World War between the Muslim and non-Muslim countries. This could end up with great destruction, and leave Iraq as a winner.
  Iraq is a dangerous country. Every day, it grows more menacing. Saddam Hussein is not insane, and that makes him all the more lethal. Ten years ago, Israeli planes destroyed an Iraqi reactor. The world condemned Israel, but in fact they knew what we should know now: we cannot wait. This is not an issue of partisan politics- whether you are Democrat or Republican, the answer is the same. It is time to destroy Saddam and his regime while we still can.
 

The case for NOT invading Iraq



  Many Americans are opposed to an Iraqi invasion. Here are the arguments that I've heard.
  Well, I'm going to start by dismissing the first two arguments. Look, everytime that any President does anything, it's natural to say, "Oh, it's just like that movie, Wag the Dog." For those of you who have not seen the movie, it's about a President who invades another country to boost his approval ratings. Actually, I haven't seen it myself. But you get the point.
  I really don't think that we should second guess the President in that way- whether it's Bush, or Clinton. We have to have some confidence that the President will act in a way consistent with the national interest. So let's just dismiss those arguments.
  Next argument: None of our allies support us. Well, let's be honest here. Our European allies are not known for their moral strength of principle. If we only did things when Europe asked us to, where would we be? The U.S. is a superpower, and it seems like sometimes we must act alone, if necessary. Further, it's quite natural that countries such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia do not support us. If they were to declare their support for the U.S. at this point, the political consquences to these regimes would not be good.
  Okay, so let's consider the last argument: It's all about the oil. In my understanding, this is a pretty good argument. A recent LA Times article by James Flanigan explored the current state of Iraqi oil. Apparently, Iraq has one of the world's largest oil reserves. However, their oil productivity in barrels per day is not among the top two in the world. This can be explained by the heavy U.S. sanctions against Iraqi oil. Here is a quote from that LA Times article:
  "Iraq's reserves total 112 billion barrels, compared with Saudi Arabia's 262 billion, and experts agree that more reserves remain to be discovered in both countries. But development of Iraq's oil potential is impossible while Saddam's regime, with its threats and weapons of mass destruction, remains in power, Washington experts say. A new Iraqi regime would launch aggressive development and use oil revenue to pay for the country's rebuilding, says Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a research organization."
  Clearly, the U.S. would stand to benefit from an Iraqi regime change. After Saddam is out, the U.S. oil companies will quickly move into Iraq. Their profit will be immense. It's no secret that Bush and Cheney are closely allied with U.S. oil interests. And interestingly enough, this really fits the Bush style. For example, in Florida, he recently delivered billions in federal money to some developers under the guise of "protecting the enviroment". Bush really likes to accomplish his goals, while giving them very admirable cloaking.
 

Conclusion


  So what can we conclude? The arguments for invading Iraq are clear. Saddam does possess many weapons of mass destruction (WMD). On the other hand, Bush and Cheney would have much to gain from a regime change, since the oil companies would reap vast profit.
  So is the President really concerned about our national security? Or is he using this as a pretext to accomplish his real goals? I'm not sure that I have the answer.