Liberate Iraq

Last weekend, the New York Times revealed a Bush administration plan to attack Iraq next year with the purpose of finally ousting Saddam Hussein. The administration is right to draw up plans to invade Iraq when the time is ripe, though the apparent leak to the press seems ill advised. Yet, there seems to be an important point missing from its plans—namely, what to do after the war is won.

Administration officials said that they had already tried several times to support a coup, with no success. Iraq is a “horrific police state” where a conspiracy has little chance of success, as one American official said. Hussein has thrown out United Nations weapons inspectors, and he has recently been moving surface-to-air missile batteries into the no-fly zones, endangering American and British aircraft that patrol the area. Hussein has used chemical weapons on his own people, and fired missiles at Israeli cities during the Gulf War—even though Israel took no aggressive action against Iraq. According to the 2001 U.S. State Department report on Iraq, “the Government continued to execute summarily alleged political opponents and leaders in the Shi’ite religious community. Reports suggest that persons were executed merely because of their association with an opposition group or as part of a continuing effort to reduce prison populations.” Saddam Hussein’s actions speak for themselves; he is, and always has been, a cruel and dangerous leader for the Iraqi people.

Of course, his actions inside Iraq are not the only justification for an invasion. By repeatedly refusing to end his development of nuclear and biological weapons, Hussein appears determined to eventually use them again—most likely against either the U.S. or its ally, Israel.

Eleven years ago, President George W. Bush’s father made the mistake of leaving Hussein in power. Now, the younger Bush is in a position where he must send troops in again to finish the job. Bush has said he wants to remove Hussein, but he has not indicated what he hopes for Iraq after Hussein is gone. Bush must be prepared to keep troops in Iraq for as long as it takes to establish a fair democratic government with free elections and the separation of powers. In other words, Bush must commit himself to nation building—something he vowed not to do during the campaign. If Bush is unwilling to commit the time and effort it will take to create a democratic government in Iraq, then this process will only repeat itself.

Curiously, the only mention of oil by the administration officials was that the world would have to prepare for a rise in prices during the conflict. Deposing the Iraqi government, and thereby bringing increased security to the region in the long term, would help ensure a stable oil market. Iraq should not be invaded because of its oil—such an action would be despicable—but the reality that the American economy depends on oil from the Mideast cannot be denied.

Though planning for an invasion is prudent, releasing the plan was wrong for a number of reasons. First, it never makes sense to give advanced warning of America’s war plans. By saying the U.S. wants to wait until next winter to act, the administration is giving Hussein time to escape—or even worse, to preemptively use weapons of mass destruction. Describing America’s timetable puts Hussein in a position with nothing to lose.

Furthermore, releasing the plan reinforces other nations’ fears about America taking unilateral action, possibly provoking an international backlash. If Bush wants the support of the international community, he should continue to place increasing emphasis on Hussein’s most recent offences.

Invading a country is never something to be taken lightly, and attacking Iraq is not just the next step in the war on terror. But Saddam Hussein poses a clear and present danger—to his own people, to Israel and to America. President Bush must finish the job his father started, and then he must be willing to commit the U.S. to rebuilding Iraq.

Dissent: The Wrong War at the Wrong Time

Although the Staff correctly condemned the Pentagon for giving Iraq advanced warning of plans for an invasion, it is tremendously misguided in believing an invasion is the proper course of action. Despite being labeled the next logical extension of the war on terrorism, an attack on Iraq will be nothing but an attempt to fix the Gulf War’s failures. Saddam Hussein is indeed a brutal, dangerous dictator, but a large-scale invasion at this time seems sadly self-serving, unjustifiably reckless and unfortunately counterintuitive given our efforts to win allies in the unstable Middle East.

Despite Hussein’s deplorable human rights record, the charges against him are not new nor are they different from those against dictators in all too many countries. However, the United States is not rushing to be the moral protector of the downtrodden elsewhere. What is different about Iraq is oil, and the Staff naively dismisses oil’s central role, as well as the Bush administration’s history of accommodating the oil industry. America cannot in good faith try to take the moral high ground on this issue.

Furthermore, the Staff ignores the disastrous effects of a largely unprovoked, unilateral invasion. Already our closest allies have condemned such action, and under current circumstances, engaging Iraq alone—with the possibility for nuclear and biological warfare—is a gravely troubling prospect.

If we truly wish to make the Iraqi people more amenable to the idea of a stable government friendly to the West, we must act in a more principled and respectful way. Preventing future problems in the region, including terrorism, will require sensible American relations with the Iraqi people on the ground. This invasion, however, will destroy Iraq’s infrastructure and cost the lives of countless civilians—many of whom have already suffered under economic sanctions—all for the apprehension of one man whom, if Afghanistan serves as any clue, we may not even succeed in capturing in the end.

—Blake Jennelle ’04, Judd B. Kessler ’04, Phoebe M.W. Kosman ’05, Emma R.F. Nothmann ’03 and Benjamin J. Toff ’05