I find it quite comical that during the presidential election two years ago, George W. Bush told an auditorium filled with Americans and millions of viewers watching at home that one of his main foreign policy goals if elected was to make America more "humble" in its foreign policy relations. I was pleased with Bush's declaration; the only problem-like with his father before him-Bush cannot keep campaign promises.
Over the last six months, the Bush administration has been fighting to get the world to support an American-led invasion of Iraq. United Nations inspectors working in Iraq have been searching to find whether Saddam Hussein truly has an active weapons program. The world waits until chief inspector Hans Blix delivers his dossier on Jan. 28 either incriminating Hussein or proving Hussein's innocence.
Unfortunately, many assert that either way an American-led invasion is likely to occur. For a war that has received so much skepticism domestically as well as abroad (with most countries denouncing the war as unjust and unwise for global security), one must ask why our government is so adamant about going to war and whether is our cause just?
Let's set the groundwork. The Bush administration maintains that Iraq is an intolerable threat to the United States' national security. They contend that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction and that Hussein intends to use them in a first strike against the United States or maybe to sell them to a terrorist group. Vice President Dick Cheney explained this is the main reason the United States is willing to enter a war halfway around the world. Sounds pretty reasonable, right? On the surface it might sound appealing, but it's only an empty explanation with neither compelling evidence nor logic.
The fact is that the Bush administration gives no solid proof that implicates Iraq as a serious military threat or as linked to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks. With our superior satellite technology and covert capabilities, it seems difficult to believe that Hussein has been able to hide huge nuclear facilities, conceal weapons transactions between Iraq and other rogue states and covertly buy biological and chemical weapons components that only certain groups in the world have and that are monitored constantly by intelligence agencies. As far as we can prove, Hussein doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. Why are we assuming the worst case scenario?
Especially considering the immense costs and risks incurred by entering in a military engagement in such a volatile region of the world, one must decide whether this is an overreaction. Moreover, if it seems unjust to us, it will probably seem even more evil to the rest of the world; I'm sure that Osama bin Laden would love for nothing more than an American overreaction, thrusting America into what can be construed as a war against Islam. This would fuel more terrorist attacks and toss the war into chaos and more instability. The American people need to hear the whole truth and a more detailed analysis of why our government feels Iraq is such a threat to our national security. I'd rather not assume that the people in government know what they are doing and won't get us in over our heads. Remember Vietnam?
Whether Hussein has weapons is one question. Whether he has the will to use them is another. Even if we assume that Hussein does have weapons of mass destruction, it's hard to imagine him using them in a first strike against us or even selling them. Why? Because Hussein knows that if he sells them or uses them, an invasion and his subsequent dethroning is imminent. Anyone familiar with his past knows that Hussein values his power more than anything, even more than his people.
He is neither a religious zealot nor a crazed fundamentalist. He merely is a power-hungry despot that will not abdicate his power for any cause. Hussein knows that he couldn't get away with committing anything remotely conspicuous. On the other hand, if he is attacked he might try in a last-ditch effort to use his weapons of destruction (once again, assuming he actually has them).
Essentially, the Bush administration has been unable to explain and refute these significant issues. We need to have an answer to why Iraq, this impoverished country, would launch a first strike against the United States or sell military technology to terrorist groups.
Unfortunately, up to now listening to a Bush speech does not clarify beyond a superficial level why Hussein is a threat. We often hear rhetoric that is poorly substantiated and only supported with oversimplified concepts and Bush's puerile good-versus-evil simplification of the world. "Saddam is evil" is usually the take-home message. There is little or no analysis of the true cost-benefit analysis and why we choose Iraq as the country to attack at this point. Many would argue that al Qaeda is a more legitimate threat that should be sought out.
Even assuming Bush's interests are not grounded on ulterior interests (that is, controlling Iraq's rich oil supply), Bush's view of humility still seems to be terribly distorted and haphazard. With his administration's poor reasoning instead of properly addressing how to fix America's image abroad (one of the main reasons Sept. 11 happened), we are well on the path of further perpetuating the image of the United States as the "Great Satan." This will incite more violence against Americans abroad and possibly at home. We need to thwart our determination to invade.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.