Should Conservatives Support a War Against Iraq?

Quite a few conservatives, particularly neoconservatives, agree that President Bush has made the case for attacking Iraq. President Bush has obtained Congressional approval as well as the support of a U.N. Security Resolution to proceed with action against Iraq if Iraq does not comply with U.N. inspection and disarmament requests. Yet there are a few conservatives, including Bush's own Secretary of Defense, Colin Powell, who believe the U.S. should not start a war with Iraq, even if Saddam fails to comply completely with disarmanent and weapons inspection. There are intriguing arguments on both sides.

Iraq has flaunted requests for weapons inspections for years, so why invade now? Proponents of attacking Iraq argue that precisely because of the last decade of indecisiveness by the U.S., Saddam is getting more bold and so it is imperative now that he be stopped.

Since 1991, Iraqi officials have blocked weapons inspections attempts by the U.N. After Iraq completely kicked out the weapons inspectors in 1998, the U.S. and Britain launched a series of air attacks on Iraq, until Saddam reluctantly agreed to allow the inspections. However, most people are suspicious that he has not been revealing everything. Unfortunately, this has been difficult to prove. Critics of Bush's ultimatums against Iraq ask if it is really fair to attack a country based only on suspicion. Supporters of President Bush are hopeful that the U.S. does have real evidence to back Bush's position.

Looking at the broader picture, there are several reasons why many believe we must attack Iraq. Iraq has has given support to terrorist groups for years, and has ties to Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network. This is part of the war on terrorism. However, there are several countries that give support to terrorist counties. Furthermore, fifteen out of the nineteen hijackers in the 9/11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia, as well as Osama bin Laden himself. Several Saudi Arabian charities in the U.S. have been shut down since 9/11 for funneling money to terrorists. Yet Saudi Arabia is considered an ally, far from a country we would invade. There are other countries harboring mass weapons of destruction, yet Bush is not threatening war against them. Why isn’t the U.S. talking of invading North Korea or China? According to some, the difference is that Saddam Hussein is the only leader who has used weapons of mass destruction - chemical weapons. Furthermore, he has offered shelter to al Quaeda and vowed revenge against the U.S.

Some critics, as well as many conservatives including Colin Powell, Dick Armey, Pat Buchanan, General Schwartzkopf, Brett Scowcroft, and Lawrence Eagleburger, claim that Bush wants to invade Iraq because of a fear that Iraq will interfere with U.S. access to cheap oil in the Middle East. The U.S. frequently supports dictators of oil exporting countries, which currently include the dictators of Venezuela and Nigeria. The Left believes that the U.S. supports those tyrants because they are relatively "friendly" to the U.S., whereas Saddam has been far from "friendly." By 2020, the U.S. need for oil will increase by 70 percent, making it necessary to find new suppliers. Iraq currently exports 12% of the oil in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia exports the most of any Persian Gulf country, with 44% of total exports. As long as Saudi Arabia's government is perceived as being friendly to the U.S., it is expected that the U.S. will continue to treat it as an ally. This is troubling, because countries like Saudi Arabia really aren't loyal U.S. allies. Perhaps the U.S. should instead use the money it plans to spend on a military battle for alternative sources of energy or obtain oil elsewhere, such as within our own territory. Until it does, its military activities in the Middle East are going to look suspiciously related to its oil policy.

Opponents of attacking Iraq point out that killing Iraqis will only escalate hostility by Arabs and Muslims towards the U.S., increasing the likelihood of more terrorist attacks against the U.S. Few countries currently support a U.S. war against Iraq, but is suspected that several of Saddam's neighbors would not be unhappy to see him removed. Iraq has already attacked Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran, which has to make some of the other nearby countries uneasy. Because of Saddam's reputation for brutality even to those closest to him, it is also surmised that many of his own countrymen would be relieved to have him disposed of in some fashion.

Many on the Left would prefer to stick with President Clinton's Iraq policy, which, as pointed out in a recent article by Michael Kelly, preferred the status quo of Saddam Hussein in power because it ensured a certain level of stability in the Middle East. Yet what kind of "stability" is that, with Iraq occasionally attacking other nations and more recently threatening to attack the U.S.?

Critics of a U.S. invasion of Iraq point out that the U.S. is bound by the U.N. Charter, which at first glance appears not to support a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Article 2 of the U.N. Charter forbids "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state" and requires UN members to "settle their international disputes by peaceful means." Furthermore, the U.N. only authorizes region wide disarmament of “mass weapons of destruction" - not targeting one country for disarmament. Bush has clearly not called for disarming Israel, Pakistan, and India, the latter two which have nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, Bush has obtained the support of a U.N. resolution calling for "serious consequences" should Saddam fail to comply with weapons inspections. Saddam is in violation of the U.N. Gulf War Armistice, which provides that a failure by Iraq to adhere to its terms could result in continued hostilities. Iraq has repeatedly breached a past U.N. resolution, as well as the most recent one, prohibiting it from attacking U.S. and British aircraft in the No-Fly Zones. Why should the U.S. follow the U.N. charter to the letter if it contradicts the Gulf War Armistice, and removes the teeth from its own Security Resolution? The U.N. Charter was written by smaller countries, many of which dislike the amount of power the U.S. holds. Why should the U.S. allow itself to be subject to rules that weaken it, letting the wannabe bullies win? Iraq doesn't play by U.N. rules; does that mean it should be allowed to trump the U.S.? Yet on the other hand, maybe the U.S. should hold itself to a higher moral standard than Iraq.

Opponents of attacking Iraq point to a 1999 UNICEF study that reported that sanctions against Iraq have resulted in an extra 1,500,000 deaths of Iraqi citizens, and have increased the mortality rate for Iraqi children by 160%. They also contend that most of Iraq’s medical problems are a direct result of the U.S. bombing campaign in 1991 that destroyed Iraq’s factories, water and sewage treatment plants and electrical power plants, which have never been restored. However, it is also claimed by others that these are widely exaggerated numbers provided by Saddam’s regime for propaganda purposes.

Would a war with Iraq result in another Vietnam, or a Cuban Missile Crisis? Even if the U.S. were to successfully remove Saddam, it is beyond debate that U.S. troops would need to remain in Iraq for years down the road. Will Americans support keeping U.S. troops in a country for a reason they suspect is even less justified than supporting democracy - oil? Or, after attacking Baghdad, Saddam could concede just enough so Bush loses significant support, from both Congress and U.S. allies, rendering Bush powerless to continue a war. Nothing would end up being actually accomplished, similar to what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kruschev didn't go away, he just agreed not to use nuclear weapons at that instance, in return for major concessions from President Kennedy. The "success" was limited to containment, not a triumphant defeat. Is containment what Bush's goal is with Iraq? Even if the U.S. successfully attacks Iraq, what is success? The U.S. allegedly won the Gulf War, but obviously, it did not resolve the Iraq problem.

Are nuclear weapons really the reason why the U.S. should crack down on Iraq? What may end up being more dangerous than nuclear weapons is Saddam's chemical weapons. He knows how to use them effectively, having done so in the past. The weapons inspectors are not even sure where the chemical facilities are located, so they will likely not find them during their inspections. Even if Saddam allows an honest inspection of his nuclear facilities, the chemical weapons will still be there.

Although it is clear that Saddam and his regime comprise one of the most evil governments in the world today, it is important that conservatives understand thoroughly the reasons and ramifications for attacking Iraq, because ultimately, there are a lot of lives at stake.

this smacks of the "it's all about the oil" argument

It is. It's a thinly-disguised leftist polemic masquerading as an examination of both sides. In every case, the argument in favor of attacking Iraq is followed by a "but..." statement, whereas the "it's all about oil" statements are allowed to stand as self-evident truths.

Nowhere in any of this is there an examination of the actual horrors that these chemical and biological weapons represent. They are dismissed in essentially one line, as if having stated that they exist and that Saddam is known to be willing to use them, we can now return to the subject of oil.

Not so fast. The UN weapons inspectors estimated that Saddam Hussein possessed enough botulinum toxin to kill every human being on Earth, and then some. He is known to possess vast quantities of VX nerve gas, which is best understood as "bug spray for people." If you've ever watched a bug twitching and buzzing on its way to respiratory failure after a dose of Raid, you've got an idea what a stadium full of VX gas victims would look like.

Is this how we want to watch 10,000 people die? Like sprayed bugs?

What goes through the minds of people who know that this madman has this stuff, and instead look to evil intent on the part of Bush for reasons we might want to attack Saddam Hussein? Have they no sense of reality? They know what this stuff does; they know he has tons of it; they know he has a track record of starting ill-advised wars, and of using these weapons on his enemies... what the Hell are they doing entertaining any argument against nipping this in the bud? Do we really have to see the 10,000 -- or 100,000 -- dead before we act?

We've tried resolutions. We've tried diplomacy. We've tried sanctions. We've tried all the short-of-war measures that one can imagine, and we've been trying them for ten years. All to no avail. Yes, war should always be a last resort. Well, the last resort is here.

I do not understand these people who do not grasp the horror of what we face from a madman with weapons of mass murder. It is not moral to stand by and watch this happen. It is insane. It is wishing death -- and a particularly horrible and ignomonious death -- upon tens of thousands of your countrymen, upon even children, and perhaps yourself.

I don't like war any more than anyone else. But I'll be damned if I'm going to sit around and get sprayed like a bug when I can see that the guy has the can in his hand, and he's nuts. To have the means to stop this, and not do it, is a greater sin than any in history.

I am risking serious flame here, but I don't see Iraq as our biggest problem. Bush is obsessed with Iraq, perhaps because his dad failed to finish them or because Saddam threatened to kill Bush, Sr., but taking over Iraq will only cause more trouble for us. We'll be there for years, as we will in Afghanistan and Bosnia, and those savages will never become a civilized society.

If we're serious about fighting terrorism, we'd use our resources to boot all the Muslims out of this country and tell them Mecca will be toast the next time there's a terrorist attack. Then we'd put our troops along our borders and stop the wave of illegal immigration.

We'll be sitting in Iraq while we let the Trojan horse through our borders every day. It's insane. And Iraq is not the only dictator with WMD's, nor is he the sole brutal tyrant in the world. Are we really going to conquer and reform every backward, corrupt, third world country on the planet?

I'm joining you, Pining. Misery loves company, I guess. And why should you be flamed alone? I agree with you 100%.
I would like to add 2 items.
The obsession with Iraq, I believe comes from Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl, Libby, Ladeen, VP Cheney, Rummy, etc. etc. etc. These once well-meaning men, who were great in helping with the Cold War Win, have gone on to "better" things since the early '90s.
Now they wish to remake the ME, to make things safe for Western Civilization in the heart of the Muslims. "Fix" the borders, and see to it that they all have Democracy...whether the people like it or not.
They do want to be sure the oil will flow, but they are taking an enormous risk with OUR sons and daughters lives. Their hubris is astonishing.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.