Democratic Underground  

Attack Iraq?
September 23, 2002
By James Partridge

This month, as our nation mourns the one-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks, our armed forces' men and women in Afghanistan appear to be fighting a war with no definite end in sight. However, President Bush and the Pentagon already seem to be hammering out new details and lobbying Congress on a new war - well, sort of new. Due to the current circumstances in the Middle East, the war in Afghanistan and the proposed war with Iraq, most Americans should be familiar with the course of events that took place in that region a decade ago with drastic similarity to what might take place this time.

Iraq has long been an area sodden with a war-like attitude. First occupied by the constantly fighting cultures of Sumer, Babylon and Assyria, Iraq was also at times ruled by the empires of Medes, Persia, Greece, and Rome. Iraq is now under the command of President Saddam Hussein, a man with virtually absolute power who has been involved in many military campaigns, including a successful war against Iran. In 1990, in reaction to the relatively unprovoked hostility and occupation by Iraq with respect to its smaller southern neighbor, Kuwait, the UN Security Council passed 12 resolutions detailing demands for Iraq's withdrawal. The deadline for complete retraction of Iraqi forces fell on January 15th, 1991. Dependent on petroleum supplies from its subjugated ally Kuwait, The United States, under command of the elder President Bush, allowed the deadline to lapse one day before launching a massive strike against Saddam's armies. The Persian Gulf War, fought from January 16th to February 28th of that year was a strike aimed at expelling Iraq and returning the rightful government to Kuwait.

Today, the younger President Bush seems to feel that the interests of the United States are again at stake. According to a report in the Boston Globe, Bush stated, " - we will not allow one of the world's most dangerous leaders to have the world's most dangerous weapons and hold the United States and our friends and allies hostage." Bush refers to the possibility of an Iraqi stockpile of dangerous nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and to CIA director George Tenet's feelings that Baghdad has a " - long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It has also had contacts with Al Qaeda."

However, Former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter, who spent five years examining Iraq's weapons program, feels differently. In an interview with CNN, Ritter stated, "As of December 1998 we had accounted for 90 to 95 percent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability - We destroyed all the factories, all of the means of production."' When considering the other 5 to 10 percent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Ritter acknowledges, "we couldn't account for some of the weaponry, but chemical weapons have a shelf-life of five years. Biological weapons have a shelf-life of three years." Therefore, he feels positive that Iraq possesses none of the dangerous capabilities that the Administration proposes and has no further methods of manufacturing more. "If I were an American, uninformed on Iraq as we all are," said Ritter, "I would be concerned - if an unquestionable case could be made that such weapons and terrorist connections existed, I would be all for a war in Iraq. It would be just, smart, and in the interest of national defense."

Nevertheless, President Bush, Director Tenet and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld continue to fail to illustrate such a case to the American public and to the world. "The Bush administration has provided the American public with little more than rhetorically laced speculation," said Ritter. "There has been nothing in the way of substantive fact presented that makes the case that Iraq possesses these weapons or has links to international terror, that Iraq poses a threat to the United States of America worthy of war." Ritter isn't alone in his beliefs; IHS senior Colleen Foley shares the former weapons inspector's dissatisfaction with the lack of evidence against Iraq. " - Bush hasn't made any attempt to research possible weapons in Iraq and present the findings to the American public," Foley states, "he just wants to emphasize his power to show himself as not afraid." However, launching any sort of military attack on as volatile a region as Iraq requires more justification than the personal pride of a nation's Commander-in-Chief. "There is nothing that President Bush can say to excuse such an action as bombing," declares Sophomore Thomas Reece, "that would only be sinking to the terrorist's level."

In spite of this, Bush continues to believe very strongly in his anti-Iraq sentiment, " - what I said about the axis of evil is what I mean. And I can't be any more plain about it." Although the American public has questions that remain to be answered, and a majority of the allies continue to be skeptical, Bush continues to gain support for his war in Iraq from his one of his closest allies, British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In the March 6th Daily Express, Blair expressed alarm for his belief that Hussein is a threat "to British lives, to British security, to British prosperity - if we fail to continue to restrain Saddam Hussein, what is already a volatile situation could easily become a world crisis." Whether or not Iraq has the potential to cause yet another "world crisis" is anyone's guess, especially as Bush continues to fail to present any tangible evidence explaining the need for a war with the Iraqi nation.

Americans rely on their President to keep them informed, protect their interests and promote the general welfare, so why as 6% of Americans are unemployed, consumer confidence is at its lowest rate since November of last year, the economy is troublingly shaky and older Americans struggle to fill a prescription, does our leader bail out and focus on attacking a nation which has proven that it is no threat to the US, our allies and interests, or even its immediate neighbors? This is a difficult yet important question, ensuring that Iraq will surely continue to be at the center of heated debate in the near future, especially as America prepares to send her fighting men and women into battle yet again, and Bush is forced to explain the inevitably nasty effects of such a war.

Printer-friendly version
Tell a friend about this article Tell a friend about this article
Discuss this article
Democratic Underground Homepage