 |
future perhaps with chemical or nuclear weapons - the US will be the only military force capable of fighting back. So again, the threat he poses with mass weapons is a threat against us.
Therefore I believe the USA has a legitimate right to act unilaterally. Never-the-less, I agree it is far better - for many reasons - to work with as large a coalition as possible.
And George Bush has done this. He has not acted unilaterally. Clearly the USA has the physical capability to fight Iraq with no outside help. Bush could have done so, immediately. But he did not. He went to the UN. He consulted with our allies. Many countries have indicated support for US actions, including many European nations.
How can the USA even consider acting without direct UN authorization?
In my viewpoint the UN has failed. The UN should have enforced its own resolutions during the 1990's. It didn't. The UN should have directly authorized force in resolution 1441, instead of the more vague "serious consequences". It didn't. I believe "everyone knew" last November, that the USA would go to war with Iraq if Hussein didn't disarm immediately. Now, assuming no last minute miracle, one of three things must happen:
A) The UN clearly authorizes military action, so the USA and others invade, OR
B) The UN does not further authorize military action, but the USA and others invade anyways, OR
C) The USA backs down and everyone goes home.
(A) is clearly the ideal choice. You might like (C), but please consider the consequences. In this case the USA is badly humiliated, George Bush in particular. Politics here would change dramatically. So, perhaps you would like this? Please think it through further. I believe such a defeat would lead to a "fortress America" mentality--the USA would withdraw from much of the world. Already many voices here are calling for US troops to pull out of Korea and elsewhere, including Germany. The Europeans laugh at us now for considering some countries "evil", but perhaps they will think differently when they become responsible for their own defense.
But what about (B)? If the war goes badly, the effect would be much like (C). But more likely, the USA and whoever joins us will win, and expose Iraq for what it is - the weapons programs will be exposed along with the torture chambers. At that point, the "loser" will be the UN and the concept of collective security.
Aren't you afraid of problems? The "Arab Street" and more terrorist attacks?
Yes, certainly. But I believe the danger becomes worse the longer we wait.
What if Saddam uses chemical or nuclear weapons?
|
|
