|
Updated 19 February 2003 (Posted 15 February 2003)
The Bush Administration wants a war. Unless you live on a desert island, which probably isn't so since you're reading
this, you know about the US government's push for war already. Though Bush may want a war, should we? What are the issues
involved, and why should we, or rather why should we not, go to war?
Weapons of Mass Destruction
A-bombs, anthrax, and arsenic - these are basically what weapons of mass destruction are all about. One of the biggest
arguments for war is that Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, has or is developing weapons like these and is just waiting
for the right moment to let people know what craters look like by replacing their homes with some. But UN inspectors say
that, as far as they've found so far, we'll have to look for some other way to get these craters. The UN inspectors'
executive chairman, Hans Blix, said in his report on February 14, 2003: "Since we arrived in Iraq,
we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice,
and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in
advance that the inspectors were coming." Though Blix says that Iraq needs to give some "
credible evidence" to prove it has no illegal arms, rolling tanks into Baghdad probably wouldn't be the best way
to convince the Iraqis to still "provide cooperation", and the main idea of the report seems
to be that the inspectors aren't done yet, but with time they can finish off whatever Iraq has left, and that the best way
to make sure Iraq doesn't wave goodbye to the inspectors with one hand while mixing up mustard gas with the other is to have
ongoing "monitoring [so] that no new proscribed activities occur".
Meanwhile, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, in charge of looking specifically for nuclear weapons, says, "We have
to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear related activities in Iraq." And, once again, we
hear the request for more time. The message is pretty clear: the inspections are going well, and the inspectors need time,
not war.
Not to mention that the Bush Administration's claim that Iraq will randomly use any weapons of mass destruction doesn't make
much sense. Though Bush and politicians in general usually aren't too familiar with or fond of logic, amazingly enough it can
actually be quite useful. For example, when exactly did Iraq become the beacon of mass destruction? Didn't several countries
have all kinds of beautiful little bundles of death long before Iraq? Don't several countries, including the one that wants to
invade Iraq, have weapons of mass destruction already and have had them for quite some time? Nuclear weapons, for example, have
been around for more than half a century, but they've only been used in war twice, and remember who used them: the self-nominated
guardian of the free world and so-called enemy of weapons of mass destruction everywhere. Sure, Iraq is an agressor nation thanks
to its invasion of Kuwait, but the US would be one as well if it invades Iraq without UN backing. The point of this is that the US
can't just say "No one on the face of the Earth should have these devices, but oh ya, see the fine print way at the bottom, that says
we do get to have them because we're just so awesome" and then expect everyone to go along with it. In the end, it comes down
to the fact that weapons of mass destruction can ruin everyone's day, and since the longterm effects of using them are hard to
calculate, the countries that have them usually won't use them. Unless, of course, they feel seriously threatened, like if the
world's biggest military were to breathe down their necks and make some fists. But we don't see that happening anywhere in the world
today, right?
Which brings up another point, which gives me the chance to spring the site's name on everyone: why would Saddam want to use these
weapons, anyways? Would it really give him such unending joy to drop 20 tons of anthrax on New York or on Israel if he knew that the
minute after he did, most of the world would point every gun it has towards Baghdad? Since he has no qualms about living in a palace
when his people are starved and diseased from sanctions (see
Atrocities In Iraq), he probably isn't just shaking all over with excitement at the chance to jump onto the armed ICBM for any
cause or ideal.
Humanitarianism
Quite a few accusations have been made against Saddam Hussein: he's a ruthless dictator who mercilessly opresses his people, he killed
many of his own people with chemical weapons, and he barely even cares about the survival of his people as long as it doesn't affect
his power. I say: no kidding. All of this is true, and so Saddam Hussein isn't exactly my role model. Then why not invade Iraq so that
he can be removed from power and his people freed?
Well, first of all, because of an amazing, and for many people, unbelievable truth: wars kill people. During WWII, did
the Allies save the Jews by dropping daisy cutters on concentration camps? Sure, the comparison isn't perfect, but it does bring to
light the fact that a war in Iraq would probably end up killing lots of the people we're trying to save. The numbers are almost impossible
to predict, but since the campaign in Afghanistan involved heaving bombing, and since the US and Britain are already bombing Iraq
(see Atrocities In Iraq), we can expect to see something like that
before ground troops go in. Since a bomb usually won't automatically disarm just because it hits an orpahage instead of the SAM site it was
meant to pound, and since aiming one of these from thousands of feet in the air is hard, a war will probably kill a good number of innocents.
Another fact that seems forgotten very quickly is that bombs aren't always a civillian's worst nightmare during war. In a case like Iraq's,
this award will probably be shared between the duo of starvation and disease. According to a UN press release from February 13, under just a
"medium-case scenario" a war could leave "up to 10 million people - which would include
internally displaced persons, refugees and the general public - may require food assistance during and immediately after the start of the
conflict, while up to half of the population may be without access to potable water." Though the briefing doesn't say how many of these
food assistence cases are severe (i.e. how many people will be corpses in very little time), it seems safe to guess that a pretty large number
of those who need any aid at all will at least miss meals every week. Add their hungry and weakened state with water that wouldn't be safe
to walk through, much less drink, and deadly diseases is the sum. A sanitation system that hasn't seen water treatment chemicals in over a decade
won't be improved by American-made bombs, and the water the Iraqis will be left with will be a biological weapon of mass destruction itself.
Finally, the idea of setting up democracy in Iraq is thrown about quite often. Many people think that the US can show Saddam Hussein the door/firing
squad and then set up a new and working government to provide gentle and loving aid to its happy and strong people. And they lived happily ever after.
Sorry to kill the fairy tale, but the US's resume on "nation building" is pretty bad. It's most recent refferal, Afghanistan, isn't in the best shape,
unless you consider "the dominance of professional criminals in government" responsible for "gruesome
examples of human rights violations", the Northern Alliance (see Into the
Fire). Though the US might put more effort into rebuilding Iraq, at least because of its oil wells, setting up any government in Iraq would be very
difficult if high civilian death rates turn the people hostile to Americans in general. They might decide that turning the job of government-building over to
the people who "saved" them by turning their homes into greasy smears isn't the best idea.
In fact, it seems even the Kurds (i.e. the guys that were gassed) are starting to wonder if maybe the Knight in Shining Armor of the US government isn't
coming to mug the damsel instead of saving her. Kurdish leaders started having these misgivings after meeting with American officials. The Kurds' deputy
prime minister says "Conquerors always call themselves liberators" in response to the US plan to occupy Iraq but keep the
government in Baghdad as it is, only replacing "Dictator Saddam Hussein" with "General [some officer who's mastered the skill of following orders]". Not
really impressed by the change in masters, the Kurds say that they would rather deal with a home-grown dictator than with an imperialistic foreign
power (possibly because they think it would be a lot easier to resist a two-bit despot like Hussein than the biggest military power on the face of the Earth).
[check back once in a while, things may be added as issues come up - if you'd like to see a certain issue addressed, send it to
askwhy@askwhy.8m.net]
|
