|
| Is War With Iraq Necessary? Arguments For And Against | 
 | Map of Iraq
Photo: CBS
| (To let the politicians know where you stand, check out the links at the bottom of the page.)
Should the United States and its allies launch a military attack on Iraq? That's the issue being debated heatedly, not just in the halls of the United Nations and the U.S. Congress, but in living rooms and dorm rooms across America. It's a question with no easy answer.
Just about everyone agrees that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is an unpleasant guy. He's a brutal dictator who has shown little regard for human rights or human life. But does he pose a serious threat to those outside the borders of Iraq? That's where the debate over whether to attack this Persian Gulf nation of 23 million begins, but by no means where it ends.
In an effort to explore the arguments for and against the use of military force in Iraq, MTV News has sketched out the competing positions. To read the reasons why some say the U.S. should lead an attack on Iraq, read on. To start with the arguments why war with Iraq is a bad idea, click here.
Now Is The Time: The Case For War In Iraq
Saddam Hussein has proven himself to be a ruthless tyrant. He either has weapons of mass destruction or will have them soon. And he is just crazy enough to use them on neighboring states in the Persian Gulf region, on Israel, or on targets in the West. That's why it's imperative that the U.S. take the lead in disarming him — and do so sooner, rather than later.
"Why us?" some have asked. "We're half a world away from Iraq. Can't some other country worry about Saddam?"
No. As the globe's sole superpower, the United States has a responsibility to keep the world a safe place. If we don't take care of Hussein, who will? The Germans? The French?
Each day the U.S. waits gives Hussein another 24 hours to develop or stockpile his arsenal of deadly chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. This is why Secretary of State Colin Powell and his foreign policy team are working around the clock to get the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution forcing Iraq to allow inspectors unfettered access to all sites where it might be developing weapons of mass destruction, or face dire consequences.
Another reason why it is imperative to move quickly: it will be much easier for U.S. troops to stage an invasion of Iraq during the coming winter months than next spring or summer when average temperatures in Iraq can rise past 100 degrees.
It has been well documented that Hussein used mustard gas and nerve gas in 1988 to kill thousands of Kurds living in Iraq. If he was willing to use weapons of mass destruction on his own citizens, we can be reasonably certain that he would have no qualms about using them on others he views as enemies. In fact, he used chemical weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. (For more on Iraq's biological weapons capabilities, see CBS News' report on Iraq's bioterror arsenal).
Furthermore, Hussein has refused to grant United Nations inspectors complete access to facilities where such weapons might be in development. If he has nothing to hide, why won't he give inspectors free rein to investigate?
Hussein has a history of providing assistance to terrorists, and there is evidence that he has given aid and comfort to members of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network. For that reason, bringing Hussein to his knees will further the U.S. goal of destroying the terrorist network that organized the September 11 attacks. The longer the U.S. waits to act, the more time Hussein has to arm members of al Qaeda with chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons. According to President Bush, "This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al Qaeda as a forward army." All the more reason to act quickly.
Removing Hussein from power will also help the world's economy by lowering the cost of petroleum. Currently, oil prices are artificially high because traders are fearful about the prospects of war. This has inflated the prices of any number of items in which petroleum is an ingredient, such as gasoline or plastic products. Once the conflict with Hussein is resolved, oil prices will drop, which will ease inflationary pressures and help national economies around the globe.
The people of Iraq need the nations of the free world to restore their basic human rights. The recent "presidential election" held there offered a perfect example of the oppressive conditions under which they live. Voters were handed ballots on which only one name was listed: Saddam Hussein. Under the watchful eye of armed Iraqi soldiers, citizens were allowed to vote simply "yes" or "no" for Hussein. The final tally: 11 million for Hussein, zero for "no."
A more chilling example of Hussein's contempt for his people came when, in a puzzling act of mercy, the Iraqi president freed thousands of prisoners from the nation's notorious jails. The released prisoners have told tales of torture and execution. Meanwhile, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Iraqi women have reportedly been searching in vain for husbands, sons or other relatives who were jailed without trial years ago and who haven't been seen or heard from since. The recent emptying of the jails seem to have confirmed what these women have long suspected — that their loved ones were executed while in detention.
Finally, there is the threat that Hussein poses to Israel, one of America's closest allies. During the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq launched 39 Scud missiles into the Jewish state. It is no secret that he has supported terrorists who seek the destruction of Israel. In recent months his government has offered to pay $25,000 to the family of any successful Palestinian suicide bomber, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Contain And Monitor: The Case Against War With Iraq
Saddam Hussein has proven himself to be a ruthless tyrant. That much is true. But the rest of the pro-war argument is based on extremely circumstantial evidence and dangerous speculation.
There is no concrete evidence that Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. High-profile spokespeople for the Bush administration, such as Vice President Dick Cheney, have argued for months that Hussein is armed and dangerous but have yet to back it up with proof. Instead, the president and his advisors have more or less asked that the American people take their word for it. They need to do better if they're going to put the lives of thousands of soldiers at risk.
Even longtime Republican stalwarts with close ties to the Bush family have publicly questioned the administration's contention that Hussein is on the verge of possessing nuclear arms. Former Secretary of State James Baker and former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft have suggested the U.S. should push for the return of United Nations inspectors to Iraq before launching a military strike. If the threat of nuclear or chemical attack is so imminent then why has Secretary of State Colin Powell (who served as head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the first Bush administration) gone on record saying that he favors a diplomatic approach first and foremost?
The Bush team also contends that Hussein has ties to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has described evidence of a connection as "bulletproof." But the administration has provided no hard evidence to back up that claim. According to The Wall Street Journal, when speaking off the record or on background, U.S. intelligence officials acknowledge they haven't been able to establish with certainty the link between Iraq and al Qaeda.
There is a perfectly reasonable explanation why finding a connection has proven elusive. Apart from a shared hatred for the United States, Hussein and bin Laden have just about nothing in common. The goals of the two men are almost diametrically opposed.
Bin Laden aims to promote a highly radical, fundamentalist interpretation of the Qu'ran to the world's Islam population. He seeks to overthrow secular governments found in majority-Muslim countries such as Turkey with fundamentalist Taliban-style regimes.
Though significantly different from nations such as Turkey, Iraq clearly falls into the category of a majority-Muslim state with a strictly secular government. As a result, Hussein has long viewed the Islamic fundamentalist movement as a threat to his power. He waged a nine-year war against Iran, arguably the most prominent Islamic fundamentalist state on earth. Hussein has demonstrated repeatedly that his top goal is self-preservation. He has little to gain and much to lose by aiding bin Laden.
Hawks within the administration have long argued that Hussein's regime is a destabilizing force in the Gulf region and throughout the Middle East. But launching an attack on Iraq would fuel anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world and undermine governments in key states such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt and Pakistan in ways Hussein could never dream of.
The U.S. urgently needs the cooperation these nations for economic and counter-terrorism reasons. The Saudis, Egyptians and Kuwaitis produce millions of barrels of oil that the West consumes every year. If radicals were to gain power in any of the three nations, the price of oil would likely skyrocket overnight and deal a serious blow the world economy.
Pakistan is Afghanistan's next-door neighbor and an important partner in America's efforts to destroy the al Qaeda network. Fundamentalists have been gaining strength there recently, as demonstrated by their success in recent elections. They will be further galvanized and gain additional support from the streets if the U.S. launches strikes.
Haven't read the argument for war with Iraq yet? Click here.
To let President Bush know what you think, e-mail him at president@whitehouse.gov
To find the e-mail addresses of your Congressional representatives and let them know what you think, check out this webpage, courtesy of YouthNoise.
To learn how to organize your own pro- or anti-Iraq war event ordebate, check out Rock the Vote's site.
By Ethan Zindler
Do you think the U.S. should attack Iraq without the backing of the Security Council? Vote in the MTV News poll. Share your thoughts in You Tell Us.
 Back to Conflict In The Middle East |
|
