Bush vs. Hussein 2: the son follows in daddy’s footsteps
The Bush administration should consider the consequences of an attack on Saddam Hussein and Iraq before implementing their “regime change.”
COMMENTARY
Andrew Dyer

The Bush administration should consider the consequences of an attack on Saddam Hussein and Iraq before implementing their “regime change.”

The Bush administration is currently bandying about the need for a “regime change” when discussing what should happen in Iraq. This term is nothing but another in a long line of euphemisms like “collateral damage” for bombing an Afghani wedding party by mistake.

Let’s be honest with ourselves: “regime change” means assassinating Saddam Hussein. Such an elimination of a national leader violates our own laws.

There is much internal debate in the Bush administration as to whether we should attack Iraq. The public, however, only hears the faintest of whispers as to what is being discussed behind closed doors.

The current administration apparently values secrecy above open debate on a topic that will have a strong influence on the course of this country in the world community. Under the guise of national security, the public at large is being kept out of the loop.

We are transgressing an even greater rule which we expect all other nations to observe: Do not attack another country unless it is in self-defense. Is what they are referring to as a pre-emptive strike truly justified in this case? Speculation about the development of biological or gas warfare is not enough.

If the Bush administration has evidence that calls for a strike against Baghdad, this evidence should be placed on the table for the American people, Congress and our allies to evaluate before we find ourselves being bogged down in another Middle Eastern quagmire.

The Iraqi people are not going to rise up and welcome our invasion of their homeland. The Iraqi opposition is splintered and no more democratically inclined than Saddam. Going into Baghdad will require our own military fighting street to street in a city hostile to their presence.

The world’s last remaining superpower will win the war eventually, but how many Americans must die to fulfill a vague compulsion that our current president feels is more important than securing our borders here at home?The international public fails to see any upside or benefit from a U.S. attack on Iraq. Currently, no one except Britain has signed on to such a risky adventure, and some of our closest allies have advised against it. Former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft along with former Secretary of State James Baker, both advisors during George H.W. Bush’s administration, have warned that a venture into Iraq might very well spoil the international war against terrorism. It could also set the entire Middle East ablaze in a conflagration that would make the oil-field fires of Kuwait pale in comparison.

The scenario continues to become more and more dismal as one thinks of the possibilities. Unless the current administration can come up with enough evidence to convince the American public, Congress and the world that military action against Saddam Hussein is warranted, we should not, regardless of our need for oil, continue to bog down ourselves in distant parts of the world.

If President Bush were to look to the section of his history book titled Vietnam, he would be enlightened to the consequences of going to war without public support. President Bush has repeatedly said he is a patient man and that he will consider all options concerning the “regime change” in Iraq. One must hope that as he weighs the counsel of his advisors, he will follow the diplomatic path that is apparently being advocated by Sec. Colin Powell and not that of the bellicose hawks in his cabinet who wish to march gloriously into Baghdad over the corpses of our armed forces.

Andrew Dyer is a junior finance major from Dallas.