The Scoop: Invading Iraq does not promote peace
The anti-war rallies have already begun and President Bush hasn’t even decided if the U.S. is going to invade Iraq.
More and more observers are saying the question is no longer if the U.S. will invade, but when. I say we’re being awfully inconsiderate. If we’re going to invade Iraq, we should at least give Saddam Hussein a loose timetable so he can adjust his social calendar.
War tension is already starting to grow, even right here in the Midstate. In Nashville, a group of about 70 protesters gathered Wednesday to show their disapproval for a military strike. While that group was busy protesting, a handful of people also gathered to show their support for Bush and an impending invasion, if that’s what ultimately occurs.
From my perch on this earth, I don’t see the benefit of attacking Iraq. In fact, it goes against everything our leaders continue to preach
For decades, the United States has urged and begged for peace in the Middle East. It seems every time a suicide bomber kills nine more innocent people aboard a bus, President Bush re-issues the plea to stop the violence. What better way to show the world we’re dedicated to promoting peace, than for the United States to invade Iraq.
The problem with attacking Iraq is it makes America look like the terrorists we’re so determined to eradicate. And, for the record, I think eradicating terrorism is a good thing, so long as we don’t act like terrorists in the process.
If we were to bomb Iraq today – blow up their buildings, kill their people and leave the country in ruins – how would that be different than what happened to us on Sept. 11? Such a strike wouldn’t have deep meaning to most Americans because it wouldn’t affect our country and our people, but it would sure infuriate the Iraqis.
What I always have trouble understanding is the fact we call Saddam Hussein a madman, a crazed leader, because he might someday decide to launch an attack which will kill thousands of Americans. Our answer to this threat is to launch an attack against Iraq which will likely kill thousands. Now who is the madman?
I’ve heard the reasoning spouted by Vice President Dick Cheney during his trip to Nashville earlier this week. Cheney said, “Wars are never won on the defensive,” and that America must “take the battle to the enemy.”
If that’s the case, we will be attacking much more than just Iraq. And Saudi Arabia would top the list.
Let’s not forget of the 19 hijackers who perpetrated the Sept. 11 attacks, 15 of them were Saudi citizens. I don’t remember the Saudi government ever apologizing for this fact. Maybe Saudi leaders believe (and it appears rightly so) since our SUVs are so dependent on their oil, they can do whatever they please.
We say we’re worried about Saddam Hussein developing an arsenal of nuclear weapons, but what about Libya, India and Iran? Those countries are hard at work obtaining nuclear capabilities – if they don’t have them already. Are we going to invade each one of those nations?
Terrorism is arguably the greatest single threat to Americans. It seems a group of Middle Eastern men are uncovered almost every week with an unnerving amount of information about a potential U.S. target. This can’t give any of us a reassuring feeling about homeland security.
But invading Iraq isn’t the answer. If we fail, it will show all-powerful America isn’t so invincible after all. If we succeed, it will be at great expense and at tremendous loss of American lives.
If we are successful, what happens next? There’s no guarantee another ruler will be any better than Hussein. Maintaining a military presence in Iraq until the end of time doesn’t sound feasible either.
Invading Iraq is a battle everybody loses, all the way around.
(James Clark is editor of the Standard. He can be reached at 473-2191.)