War on Iraq?

By Susan Anderson

Upon his return to Great Britain after the signing of the Munich Pact in 1938, former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain spoke of a hope for "peace in our time." The culmination of his policy of appeasement, titled Munich Pact, arranged for a compromise of sorts between Hitler and the rest of Europe. In essence, after a series of compromises, Hitler promised Mr. Chamberlain and the rest of the world that he would be "good boy." World War II proceeded to break out one year after Hitler's pact had been made "official."

Whether Chamberlain was really so naive as to believe that Hitler could be appeased or whether he was buying Great Britain time to regroup and prepare for conflict is up for debate. However, that the appeasement policy was a naive and dangerous gamble is for certain. Adolph Hitler's previous record would more than point the fact that Hitler was not to be appeased. Hitler would get what he wanted at any cost, or he would die trying. To say that Saddam Hussein is a modern day Hitler would, at least at this point, be an exaggeration. To say that Hitler and Hussein do share basic common goals and characteristics, would, however, be accurate. Talking basics, Hitler and Hussein are power driven madmen whose "word" means nothing. Hitler's word brought us World War. The question plaguing contemporary minds is, what will Hussein's word bring?

Precedent would have us believe that Saddam Hussein will continue to dodge weapons inspections, ignore international law, and repeatedly go back on his word. In fact, more than a decade after Hussein agreed to halt all dealings with weapons of mass destruction, evidence that the Iraqi government has continued to do so has surfaced.

There are, of course, many facets involved in dealing with Iraq, including international politics and, of course, money. Our current government realizes this. First and foremost, it realizes that not only is it in everyone's best interest that we consult the International Community before making any critical decisions about our situation with Iraq, but it is our responsibility. President Bush displayed this realization when he consulted the United Nations on the matter, asking that consequences be set if Iraq refused to comply with U.N. demands. Secondly, our administration is fully aware of the economic commitment that action against Iraq would require. It is also, however, equally aware of the possible, probable and much more serious commitment that inaction against Iraq would require; the "cost of inaction," something so very easy to overlook.

For the United States to demand that Iraq follow United Nations mandates unconditionally or face specific consequences is not only fair but essential. The fact that the Iraqi government balked at President Bush's proposal of consequences to the United Nations is evidence in and of itself that until it is made clear that there will be consequences to the Iraqi government's actions, we cannot expect any accountability. If the Iraqi government was intending to comply with the United Nation's demands, the idea of consequences would not pose them any threat. In essence, we must demand that consequences be set, and, if and when the Iraqi government continues to disregard Hussein's "word," then we will assess our situation and how we will dole out those consequences. We need not ask permission of anyone to protect our country. That is our right and that is our duty. Hussein should have no question about it.

Susan Anderson, a junior at Santa Clara, is president of Santa Clara Young Republicans. Her views do not necessarily represent those of the organization to which she belongs.

Hussein's actions don't justify violent retaliation

By Evan Hughes

Guest Writer

Weapons of mass destruction. This was the reason offered by the Bush Administration for invading Iraq when discussion came to the forefront earlier this year. Saddam Hussein had not been cooperating with United Nations weapons inspection as required at the end of the Gulf war. Accordingly, Bush threatened unilateral invasion to address the weapons issue. When Hussein finally offered the exact diplomatic path that most of the world and seemingly the U.S. had asked for - U.N. weapons inspectors to enter the country and to resume weapons inspections - Bush changed his tune. Bush brushed off the offer as another game of Hussein's to mislead with the West. According to Bush, diplomatic options can not be explored. So what is really going on here?

People will argue that Hussein is not to be trusted and that we must just deal with him for once and for all. This point has some force but there are multiple reasons why it must be questioned. First there would be huge costs to such a war. Already Iraq has been bombed and sanctioned such that it has moved from being a developed country in the 1980s to its current state as a third world country. This regression into utter poverty and human suffering will only continue with another invasion. The current war will undoubtedly take place in urban areas - Hussein has shown his willingness to put innocent civilians at risk. The question is whether the U.S. is willing to kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and thousands of U.S. ground troops.

Secondly, the issue of Hussein stockpiling weapons is by no means urgent according to many credible sources. Ex-U.N. weapons inspectors and both major conservative and major liberal U.S. think tanks have said it is highly unlikely that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. But, in responding to questioning about the timing of the invasion, defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld said "What's different? What's different is 3,000 people were killed." Yes, 3,000 people were tragically killed on Sept. 11. The fact is, however, no connections have been made between Hussein and Osama bin Laden and al-Quaeda-esque terrorists.

Even if Hussein had such weapons, he knows that he and his country would be obliterated if he were to use them; in short, Iraq is not a large threat to U.S. national security. The real threat would be our unilateral invasion, because, as many prominent Middle Eastern scholars have already said, an invasion would fan Middle Eastern anti-American sentiment to extremely high levels. A destroyed Iraq could easily become a fertile recruiting ground for al-Quaeda terrorists and the Middle East could easily be thrown into the chaos of a wider-spread Arab-Israeli conflict.

As Bush has nearly no international support he has threatened repeatedly that the U.S. will take military action alone. This action could easily undermine the validity of the U.N. as a peace-keeping force and mean that any recent progress in diplomatic solutions facilitated by the U.N. could regress to military-muscle flexing reminiscent of the cold war.

Mainstream papers like the New York Times have made claims that this war could be devastating for the U.S. economy. Oil prices would most likely climb dramatically and air travel may stagnate. Also, is the U.S. willing, at the cost of billions of dollars to use U.S. tax payers, to occupy Iraq with hundreds of thousands of U.S.troops for ten or more years after the invasion so as to build and stabilize the installed pro-western regime?

If weapons are the issue, the U.S. must work with U.N. weapons inspectors. Many people are rightfully starting to question if this is an issue of grabbing up oil resources by establishing American-friendly regimes - is the U.S. willing to take such extreme measures for oil or an increased sense of security? Before it does the US citizens must inform themselves; the history and reality of the Middle East are very complicated and we all must strive to understand the U.S.'s sometimes sordid involvement in the middle east, and we must as citizens let our voices be heard so as not to be implicated in something with which we disagree.

Evan Hughes, a senior globilization and social engagement major, is a member of SCCAP, the Peace Action Committee and Santa Clarans for Social Justice. His views do not necessarily represent those of the organizations to which he belongs.