Lies, misleading claims and silly notions are flying from the
mouths of those who protest a war in Iraq. Following are some of
the most popular reasons for not going to war. Here they are
interpreted as they should be: debunked, explained and unmasked in
order to understand why war is a necessary option.
Bush has ignored all options except war. Those who take this
line of reasoning have been worked into such an anti-war frenzy
that they have forgotten that we are not presently at war with
Iraq. To deny that Bush has considered other options is to deny the
present state in which we currently exist. The fact that we have
not taken military action in Iraq demonstrates that Bush is not
only considering other options, but is presently exercising the
option of diplomacy.
America cannot fight this war on its own. America is the
superpower of the world and quite capable of handling a conflict in
Iraq. A unilateral war against Hussein would by no means challenge
the military’s capability. In fact, if we go to war, the United
States would be waging war against Hussein as just one facet of the
many-faceted War on Terror. Furthermore, if another evil were to
arise (North Korea, for example), America would be capable of
handling them as well. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has
remarked that we are capable of handling two major conflicts at the
same time. “We’re capable of winning decisively in one and swiftly
defeating in the case of the other. And let there be no doubt about
it,” Rumsfeld said.
Money used for war should be put into our country, not Iraq.
Objectors to war are correct in recognizing that money used for war
is our money, but they must understand that even money used to fund
a war in Iraq is money being put into our country. Money allocated
for defense fulfills the purposes outlined in the Preamble to the
Constitution. By removing Hussein, our government is providing for
the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity.
Inspections worked in the 1990s and will work if we let them
continue. Anyone citing successful inspections in the ’90s must
consider when these inspections took place and why they were
successful. The Gulf War set the stage. Only after a military
victory were inspections successful.
Bush has in no way impeded the present weapons inspections. Bush
understands that weapons inspectors are doing the best job that
they possible can. Hussein simply has not complied. He has not
disarmed.
War will result in high casualties. Casualties should come as no
surprise as a key component of war. Nations settle their arguments
with munitions when words will not work. When bullets fly, people
die. Of course this is what makes war so horrible, yet the loss of
lives on both sides is a necessary component. The author of our
Declaration of Independence put it this way: “The tree of liberty
must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and
tyrants.”
Our country is founded on the basis of a war at the American
Revolution. Should our fight for freedom and participation in other
wars have never taken place because of the loss of life that was to
inevitably occur?
War is not the only answer. War should be a last resort. Do not
be fooled by these lines when you hear them from those questioning
the war. What they really mean is this: No war is the only answer.
War is not a possible resort. Most protesting are not protesting a
war in Iraq. They are protesting war, period. If the presence of an
evil dictator who harms his own people, poses a threat to
surrounding nations, aids terrorists who will attack our country
and has been linked to the terrorist organization that has attacked
our country is not a reason for war, then there never will be
one.
Michael Stewart is a junior philosophy and religion
major.