|
U.S.
should consider alternatives to war A massive United States attack on Iraq seems likely in upcoming months. The charges against Iraq are well founded: It invaded its neighbors and used chemical weapons on its enemies and citizens. We are right to be outraged about Iraq’s continued threat to peace. This does not mean we should trust our government to act in our best interest in dealing with this threat. Although it’s rarely reported, Iraq was once our ally. In the 1980s, we supported Iraq against Iran, supplying loans, helicopters, top-secret satellite photography and even anthrax spores. Saddam Hussein was not behaving like Mother Theresa. In 1987 an Iraqi aircraft attacked an American warship, killing 37 sailors. Hussein massacred Iraqi civilians in 1988 using poison gas. The Western response was to continue aid, encouraging further evil acts. In 1990 a delegation of U.S. Senators visited Iraq and expressed that Hussein’s problems were not with our government but with the “American media,” who were “spoiled and conceited” in their reporting on Iraqi human rights violations. On July 25, 1990, one week before Iraq invaded Kuwait, our ambassador told Hussein we had “no position” on “Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border dispute with Kuwait.” Iraq interpreted this as a green light to invade. With the invasion of our ally, Hussein was changed overnight into Genghis Khan. Reports of atrocities, long downplayed in official circles, became evidence of his evil nature. Sanctions were imposed on Iraq with devastating consequences for Iraqi children, causing nearly 1 million deaths. When asked in a 1996 television interview if the sanctions were worth human lives, Madeline Albright said it was “a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.” And we wonder “why they hate us.” Hussein is spending money on developing weapons and we’re doing next to nothing to stop him. One billion dollars worth of oil illegally flows from Iraq to Syria each year. According to the Feb. 14 Washington Post, our government, seeking a better relationship with Syria, “applied little pressure on Syria ... even though this revenue is one of the few ways Hussein can pay to maintain his military and finance any efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” Meanwhile the government is moving toward war. A White House official said it “will not take yes for an answer” from Iraq in getting weapons inspectors back and averting conflict. Our military is planning to invade Iraq from Kuwait. With nothing to lose, it expects Hussein to attack Israel or our forces in Kuwait with chemical weapons. Several thousand U.S. casualties are expected. A U.S. or Israeli nuclear counterattack might set off a war of unprecedented ferocity throughout the Mideast. There are alternatives to war. We could propose freezing Iraq and Iran’s weapons programs in exchange for U.S. withdrawal from the Persian Gulf and a similar freeze on Israel’s nuclear program. Or, in exchange for reductions in U.S. arms sales to Turkey and Saudi Arabia, we could negotiate dismantling Iraq’s weapons programs. To promote real Mideast peace and security, we need to take steps to reduce the region’s weapon stockpiles before a local conflict, such as violence in Israel, escalates with catastrophic consequences. Invading Iraq will only make such conflict more likely. For all of you ready for war, pick up a book on World War I. In it you’ll find pictures of soldiers blinded and burned by poison gas walking to hospitals single file, hands on the shoulders of the soldier in front of them. Take a long look and ask yourself if you’re comfortable with your friends coming home like that.
|
|
|
TCU Daily Skiff © 2002 |
||