 |
the average American citizen realized this is a terribly unacceptable situation. Since the USA provides the primary physical force to contain Iraq, we are his logical targets.
It seems Europeans have a hard time understanding why Americans feel threatened by Iraq. We in turn have a hard time understanding why the Europeans do not feel threatened - or at least acknowledge the threat to us. It is clear Hussein has motivation to hurt Americans if he can - we have been the primary force that humiliated him in 1991 and we air patrol half of his country now. After Sept 11, we now see a plausible technique whereby Hussein could hurt America badly - we see that he could either send terrorists here directly or connect with some existing terrorist organization.
The political debate in America suddenly shifted. Before Sept 11, it was "do we contain Saddam Hussein, or let him go?" After Sept 11, the debate became "do we contain Iraq, or do we force him to disarm?" Simply letting Hussein do what he wants is no longer an option.
The best solution, preferred by nearly all Americans, is containment without war. No sane person wants war when other options exist. So the question becomes "is Iraq containment possible?"
On this question, reasonable people may have different views. But I am personally convinced long term containment is not possible. I believe the inspectors this time have been allowed back, only because of the real threat of a US-led invasion. The UN has failed to maintain sufficient pressure on Iraq to disarm him without this military threat. Unfortunately, we cannot maintain this military threat indefinitely. Either we do finally attack, or eventually we go home. If Saddam Hussein is still in power when we finally go home, I believe we will never have another opportunity to disarm him.
Now I will attempt to answer some common objections:
Since Iraq has not directly attacked anyone, how is this war justified?
Americans are also uncomfortable with the idea of preemptive military action. There is no question the argument is "weaker" than for example the recent conflict in Afghanistan. I personally admit a danger, that this could become a precedent for future conflicts which perhaps should be avoided diplomatically.
But that said, I believe this war is justified because it is effectively finishing the Gulf War in 1991: Saddam Hussein violated the terms of the peace agreement which left him in power after his invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
Isn't that merely an "excuse" to invade Iraq for other reasons?
I admit it looks like it - we are invading because we are afraid he will hurt us if we don't. However, his reason to harm us is exactly because we are the primary power which opposed him in Kuwait, and which would oppose him if he attacks another country again.
|
|
