As I am sure most people have heard, seen or read, President George W. Bush and his administration are currently debating on methods of removing America’s favorite target, Saddam Hussein. Uncle Saddam, as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld affectionately refers to the Iraqi leader, is reportedly producing various chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. We force the issue by demanding that United Nations weapon inspectors be allowed to inspect Iraq at unannounced times and locations. While most political pundits agree that Hussein is not the most upstanding citizen of the national leader circuit, there are heated debates going on within our national security offices about what our nation should do about Hussein.
On one side, we have the aggressive-minded approach of a military intervention in Iraq that would culminate in the removal of Hussein and his government. While this sounds like a wonderful way of dealing with the Iraq issue, we have to consider the vast implications of such a move. However, we encounter several problems when suggesting United States intervention in Iraq. One difficulty has to do with the opinions of our allies. Even among the “U.S. friendly” nations, only England favors an American invasion of Iraq. Also, any military action guarantees human casualties for both sides.
So, are we willing to spill American blood in a desert in a land thousands of miles away to remove Hussein? The final and perhaps most important consideration are the consequences on the Iraqi government. Hussein rules Iraq with fear and public perception of military might. Once he is removed, Iraq will probably experience years, if not decades, of civil war. If we remove Hussein and cause these wars, there will be great political pressure on the United States to hang around and clean things up. Anyone remember a nation called Vietnam?
The other side of the debate involves no military intervention, just more economic restrictions and military inspections of Iraq’s arsenal. While most of our allies believe that this is the way to go, I would like to know how this is any different from what we are doing now. We have a large number of economic embargoes on Iraq, restricting even the most basic necessities of life from moving into the nation.
Food is in limited quantity in Iraq because of our restrictions. Who does this affect? A multi-millionaire tyrant who lives in a palace or the poverty and hunger-stricken people wandering the streets of Baghdad?
The current situation has inspectors visiting at announced time. This is an insult to the intelligence of the world. Announced inspections are far too casual and easy to manipulate.
I can already imagine the inspection team calling to arrange a visit: “All right, Saddam, we’ll be over to factory number eight at 2:30 Tuesday afternoon to check for anthrax production. Maybe we can get a round of golf in after the busy work. Does that conflict with anything on your schedule, Mr. Hussein?”
There are no clear answers to the problem in Iraq. While it is clear that he poses a threat to the world, removing Saddam Hussein would have dramatic consequences on the Middle East as well as the rest of the world. Over the next few weeks, it will be very interesting to see how our government decides on a course of action in Iraq. With all of the happenings of the past year and the tough decisions that lie ahead, Bush will certainly earn his salary.
Josh Johnson is a junior broadcast meteorology major. Send comments to [email protected].