That is a rather weak argument. I will concede that. Before we go to war however I would like to know why we are doing so and right now I have serious doubts that we have been given even a sample of the real reasons.
Let's examine the reasons of this author:
Another argument made is that action against Iraq could “destabilize the Middle East.” When has the Middle East had any sort of stability? The only things stable about the Middle East are the denial of freedom to the citizens of these repressive regimes and the subordinate role of women. Are those worth defending?
Yes- apperently so and the United States of America did defend them- indirectly in the gulf war. Iraq is a secular state that tolerates the presence of other religions- notably a large Chirstian minority and even a smattering of Jews. It's women attend universities, can drive cars, hold jobs, and leave the house without being accompined by a male relative. On the other hand- our Saudi and Kuwaiti allies allow for no rights of women and not one house of worship for any other religion is even permitted to exist. It is a crime to bring the Bible into Saudi Arabia! This is not to say that Sadaam is not a brutal and repressive leader.
But as for repression- America is the chief sponsor and backer of the the House of Saud, of Kuwait, of Yemen, of the kleptocracy in Egypt, of the military dictatoship of Pakistan, and of Algeria, and a host of others in that region. We support those regimes because we fear the alternative- radical Islamic fundamentalist takeover of those governments. So how is Iraq different from those others? Is he any worse than the Turkish government that has slaughtered an estimated 40,000 kurds in ten years? How about Syria which killed 20'000 of it's own citizens in about a week 25 years ago? What about the Algerian government that is engaged in a brutal fight against extremeists in which both sides have pepetrated massacres of entire villages and which some observers say over 100,000 are dead? What about Sudan which has killed over a million Christian and Tribal religious worshippers in the south in the past 20 years? Since the US is the sponsor of and "allies" with regimes that are just as repressive if not more so that Iraq that argument falls on it's face and can't be taken seriously.
While they argue that Saddam has no connection to terrorism, they overlook the fact that he pays families of suicide bombers in Palestine $25,000.
Yes, he most certainly does. So does Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and even foundations of Arab Americans in the United States. What is the point of that? That becasue Sadaam gives money to the families of murderers that he is our enemy as well? What about the aid given directly to the people and groups who plan and operate these slaughters? That money comes from within the borders of our so called "allies". Another false argument.
And if I am not mistaken Abu Nidal was most likley murdered by Iraqi intelligence as he was an embarassment to the Regime and a risk. And Iraq is the only country hosting terrorists? What about Syria where Hama and Hezzbollah gurillas operate out of and stage attacks from daily? Pakistan aided and supported- hell - practically created the Taliban regime in Afghanistan! Sudan even hosted Osama for years.
No we don't need to solve the Isreali conflict or debate our war plans in open. Those arguments are absurd and put forth by people who would rather not point out the simply feable reasons this administration has floated for war with Iraq.
The last argument is the Weapons of Mass Destruction argument. Because Sadaam has WMD or might obtain them then we have a right to invade Iraq. Dubious and specious on both logical grounds and legal as well as tradition. Sadaam at best has chemical weapons and perhaps some anthrax right now. He has no mass delivery system and he knows that if such weapons were to be used against us either directly from him or though terrorist proxies his life would be over, his country invaded and taken over. And if anyone hear doubts that our "allies" don't have the exact same programs going on right now then I have a bridge to sell you.
So Iraq is not really any more repressive than the garden variety corrupt regime in that region and even less so in certain areas. He has even less to do with Islamic terrorism than do most of our "allies" and much less to do with 9/11 than even Saudi Arabia which still won't cooperate on the investigation into that dreadful day. And he ain't the only one with a WMD program in that region.
So I ask a question? What are the real reasons for this proposed war against Iraq since the ones we have been given so far are laughable?
I was encouraged by the title of the original article, but disappointed by the author's approach.
The title suggests, correctly, that the burden is on the anti-war advocates to make a strong case against removing Saddam.
It is accepted practice since time immemorial that a people can act to defend itself against an attacking enemy. Our President, using the best intelligence, has identified Saddam Hussein as a key element of enemy forces, which quite obviously transcend national borders and hold illegitimate grasp upon the resources of a number of sovereign states.
I'm a little confused, Burkeman1. Is it that we don't really have a right to defend ourselves, or is it that YOU PLACE MORE TRUST IN SADDAM HUSSEIN THAN GW BUSH regarding Saddam's complicity? Wouldn't it be stupid to ignore the kings and be satisfied with executioners like bin laden?
I find it interesting that pacifists and leftists are searching all over America for 'root causes', yet somehow the idea that the chain of cause and effect goes through Saddam's neighborhood is ludicrous beyond belief.
In the end it doesn't really matter if we have a 'right' to defend ourselves under 'international law'. The UN, its charter, and all its resolutions are a fat joke without US strength. The UN is a convenience and a mechanism for self-delusion permitted by Pax Americana.
When push comes to shove, national interest and power relations prevail as they always have. If taking down Saddam is required in the national interest, regardless of ironclad 'proof' we will do it.