War games: U.S. vs. the world
By Justin Manger
The United States' decision to invade Iraq has been one of the most hotly-debated, emotionally-charged issues to arise within the course of American history.
Pro-war advocates think that Hussein's years-long, repeated shirkings of United Nations' security resolutions ostensibly discredits him as any sort of willingly diplomatic, peaceful ruler. Although circumstantial in nature, the substantial amount of military evidence that has been found in Iraq does nothing but suggest that Hussein has, at one point or another, attempted to construct (and given the protracted time period of his disobedience to the United States and U.N., logically would have had to complete) certain weapons of mass destruction. Considering his outspoken hatred of the United States (as most poignantly evidenced by his publicly-stated support of the Sept. 11 attacks), it makes an overwhelming amount of sense to believe that he would, at some point, use these hidden weapons against us.
Aside from these arguments, there also exists the fact that history irrefutably proves Hussein to be a megalomaniacal despot whom appears to have no political or moral problems with the brutal suppression of his political constituency for the advancement of his personal wealth and power. Frequent television images of Iraqi civilians savagely fighting amongst themselves for American and British relief should suggest to many anti-war proponents, most of whom also champion human rights, that a regime change in Iraq is of dire need.
It is undeniable that war is a horrible thing, but at the same time the reality of dealing with a violently-oppressive government, as evidenced repeatedly throughout history, dictates that force will be the only means of eventually removing such a corrupt regime from power, while "diplomatic" efforts, in the final analysis, will be nothing more than a forestalling of the inevitable.
Many believe the war is unjustified. Citing an avariciously single-minded American desire for Iraqi oil reserves as the overriding basis of their position, anti-war advocates often claim that Bush is somewhat analogous to a terrorist allowing his greed to corrupt his better political judgment. They view the war as a failure of diplomacy and focus on the fact that little more than circumstantial evidence of Hussein's alleged possession of biological, chemical and nuclear weaponry has been uncovered.
Keying on these argumentative cornerstones as well as broad United Nations disapproval, opponents of U.S. action in Iraq say that not only will our presence in the oil-rich middle eastern country cause needless death of soldier and civilian alike, but that it will inflame the numerous anti-American groups currently in existence around the globe, ultimately provoking them to manifest their hatred of us by attacking our country. This argument is frequently capped with the categorical "war is wrong because people get killed" argument, in this case augmented by the presupposed lack of greater purpose for which such death is occurring in the first place.
My characterizations of each argument are by no means complete, and when actually arguing the war, it becomes clear that both sides have a seemingly inexhaustible number of valid points. From this reality comes the inevitably-overlooked truth: attempting to determine whether the war is "right" or "wrong" is utter folly, as it simply cannot reasonably be done. Little in life is black-or-white, as is especially the case with international politics. What must be done, then, is to look at which course of action will be best for the greatest number of people in the long-run.
If no decisive action was to be taken, things would simply continue on as they had been. It has become clear now, as proven by Hussein's encouragement of his soldiers to use Iraqi civilians as human shields, that no amount of diplomatic effort will have removed Hussein from power, as he is too hopelessly addicted to control to willingly give it up. There would be constant international unease, and tensions would simply mount until one country attacked another, or possibly worse. During this waiting period, Iraqis would continue to live in desperate conditions as Hussein usurped their money and denied their personal freedoms.
On the other hand, U.S. action will cause substantial unrest in Iraq, in addition to putting a number of human lives on the line. However, in the long-run, we will have ousted a corrupt leader, erasing a number of blatant humans rights violations in addition to eliminating a visible threat to the United States. As a side effect, the United States will spend billions of dollars to industrialize the country, eventually dramatically improving the lives of the people within it.
Such a show of American goodwill (which, for those of you who doubt the nobility of the United States' stated intentions, will indeed come to fruition if for no other reason than its sheer diplomatic necessity at this point) will contribute positively to our otherwise-bad international reputation. If the people of other middle eastern nations see their Iraqi neighbors living lives far less miserable and desperate than they currently do, it will only be a matter of time before non-Iraqi middle easterners start wondering if the United States could help them do the same. No fundamental differences in the dogmatic tenets of Eastern philosophy versus the more liberal aspects of Western philosophy will ever supercede the overwhelmingly aggregate, instinctually-rooted human desire for the increased ease and enjoyment of life, especially when dealing with denizens of an essentially-impoverished country.
Now that we have committed troops in Iraq and the siege of Baghdad has begun, it is time we show solidarity as a nation. No, the United States is not entirely justified in its actions, yet it simultaneously is far from being entirely blameworthy. Never forget - we are able to live the lives we do largely because of our government's interactions with other countries, of which the war against Hussein's regime is but one.
If you are willing to live under the American flag and enjoy all of the luxuries that accompany its civil pledge, it is imperative that you be able to not only clearly understand both the costs and benefits of U.S. foreign policy, but reasonably conclude which one outweighs the other. In this case, I think that answer is clear. Many people would love to see the United States fall; but if we did, I assure you, some other country would be quick to assume our dominant economic and political role through much the same means we have used, if not worse. All things considered, the United States has done and is doing the best it can.