Given that I have been a columnist for The Reflector for over a year, and my columns tend to discuss something to do with politics or public policy, some people enjoy debating the current issue of the day with me. I usually welcome these debates because understanding different points of view, especially ones I don’t agree with, helps me do a better job of writing and editing.
However, these debates can often be frustrating. See, some people, especially overly partisan folks, think that actions take place in a vacuum. In other words, policies don’t have any consequences apart from the desired result.
The latest issue du jour-should the United States invade Iraq? Some people like to tell me that the U.S. military should just sweep in, put Saddam Hussein’s head on a pike, and, presto-Iraq becomes a progressive democracy friendly to the United States, a model for other Arab states, and we never have to worry about extremist Islamic terrorists again.
Usually at this point in the debate, I remember Washington Post columnist George Will’s definition of the Law of Unintended Consequences, “…which are usually larger than, and contrary to, intended consequences.”
The consequences to examine regarding a war on Iraq are not whether the U.S. military can defeat Iraq. Personally, I have no doubt that the U.S. military can roll in Iraq. What concerns me is what happens afterward, i.e. how does the United States actually go about building a progressive, democratic, pro-American Iraq?
Conversely, other people say that we should avoid conflict with Iraq at all costs. Usually at this point, I start thinking about my own Law of Leaving Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Hands of Genocidal Dictators which states: when weapons of mass destruction exist, they will eventually be used on somebody. Since I place the same value on all human life, whether a person lives in Alabama or Afghanistan, the proliferation of WMDs is unacceptable.
The secondary consequences that should be considered here are: what happens if we just leave Hussein in power? He has been trying to get his hands on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons since he came to power in 1968. Even the French and German governments admit this.
For those of you who wonder about Hussein’s nature, read about the circumstances surrounding Hussein’s takeover of Iraq. This story comes from New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman’s book, From Beirut to Jerusalem.
Hussein had been the No. 2 person in the Iraqi government for several years. It became apparent that President Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr was ill and going to step down, so Hussein went about ascertaining his support among the Baath Party elite. He discovered that five influential members had hesitations about him taking over. In a move that would have made Adolf Hitler proud, he had these men, at least one of whom was considered his close friend, arrested and executed.
Hussein wasn’t afraid of getting his hands bloody. He was one of the members of the firing squad.
I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that war on Iraq is a necessary risk. I hope it doesn’t happen, because I have no illusions about how difficult it will be to put Iraq back on the right track. But if left alone, Hussein will become a real threat to the world, and the United States in particular.
Sure, other threats exist, namely North Korea. That doesn’t excuse ignoring the danger of letting a tyrant get his hands on WMDs.
I didn’t vote for President Bush. I disagree with many of his policies. That doesn’t mean he can’t be right once in a while.
Wilson Boyd is a senior economics major.