What does the United States have to gain from a war with Iraq? Supporters of a war with Iraq say it will help prevent the risk of an attack by weapons of mass destruction developed by Iraq. Critics of a military action that say nothing will be gained, and the U.S. just wants to obtain the oil that Iraq controls. They claim that casualties will be too costly for America to afford. Nonetheless, America should act while others will not for fear of disturbing global peace. Iraq poses a “clear and present danger” to the security of the United States and the security of countries around the world.
For the past several months the United Nations’ Security Council has debated on whether or not to accept the U.S. proposal to force Iraq to comply the new and former resolutions. The new resolution calls for complete disarmament of Iraq and the re-entrance of weapons inspectors into Iraq. If Iraq fails to comply, then military force would be taken in order to disarm Iraq. This proposal met opposition from council members Russia, China, and France. They thought that the U.S. proposal was too aggressive and that the U.S. should not act alone without U.N. approval. For weeks they refused to believe that the only way to make Iraq disarm is through the threat of force and the fear of being wiped out.
Iraq for the past several years has violated numerous U.N. resolutions that call for destruction of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and allowance of weapons inspectors to monitor the disposal of such weapons. Ever since the end of the Gulf War, Iraq has disregarded these policies by removing weapons inspectors, which in turn has allowed Iraq to further research weapons of mass destruction. In 1998 the U.S. launched Operation Desert Fox with the objective of allowing weapons inspectors back into the country. After the operation succeeded and inspectors were allowed back in, all seemed well and little attention was paid to Iraq. Since political powers did not deem it worthy to check on Iraq and put their main focus on Wall Street, Iraq renewed their weapons program and everyone just did not pay attention. What did our leaders think they were making, snow cone machines?
After the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, the focus has shifted back on Iraq. Iraq has been known to help finance terrorist groups, which have anti-American feelings. With Iraq’s weapons program going unchecked for several years, there is no telling what they may have in their arsenal. The U.S. intends to stop Iraq from developing any more weapons of mass destruction before they are used against the world. Iraq can easily give these weapons to a terrorist group who will then try and use those weapons against the U.S. Stopping Iraq’s research of weapons of mass destruction decreases the chance that such weapons fall into the hands of a terrorist organization.
This past November the U.N. Security Council voted 15-0 in favor of the U.S. resolution. Iraq has seven days from the day the resolution was passed to comply. If Iraq refuses to agree to the resolution, then force will be used to disarm them. Hopefully Saddam is not smoking pot, and he will accept the resolution with open arms. The resolution also states that if evidence of Iraq’s non-compliance is shown, then it gives permission for the U.S. to act and force disarmament. Maybe this time around, the U.S. and Britain will not be the only key players in a war backed by the U.N. It is good to see the U.N. finally getting some backbone and not relying on the U.S. to do all the fighting while everyone else sits and tries to be politically correct.
Critics argue that a war with Iraq will prove too costly for the expected results. Some critics say Iraq poses no real threat and should be left alone. If the U.S. leaves Iraq alone, they will continue to research and build weapons of mass destruction, and they will use them to kill Americans on a large scale through terrorism. What will those critics say then when a nuclear device destroys New York because we did not force Iraq to disarm? Unfortunately, the critics do raise a valid point in concern with the loss of American life if we do attack. All of us are indebted to the service men and women of the U.S. They are willing to die so that everyone can enjoy the freedoms we have.
If Iraq does not comply with the U.N. and action is taken to disarm them, what will happen next? If force is taken against Saddam, more than likely he will be overthrown. Then Iraq will be leaderless, and the U.S. will have to step in to make sure all hell does not break loose. What might happen is kind of like the following:
“Should a US military campaign oust Saddam with reasonable dispatch, the United States would be swarmed, at least for a time, by well-wishers who would emerge from the sidelines to proclaim, “We were with you all along,” without so much of a hint of shame. After the fall of Saddam, the establishment of an interim Iraqi government and the lifting of UN sanctions, European politicians and businessmen–particularly French, German, and Russian–would flock in droves to Baghdad to reestablish their lucrative business ties severed by the Gulf War.”
There have been several suggestions of post-war government. One is that Gen. Tommy Franks will govern Iraq like Macarthur did in Japan after World War II. Another solution would be to let the people of Iraq decide who they want their leaders to be and for how long.
Iraq has been given a choice: disarm or be forced to disarm. Whether or not force will be used is up to Iraq’s government. If the U.S. does go to war with Iraq, I know for a fact they we will succeed. The U.S. aims to get rid of any weapons of mass destruction located in Iraq, which includes Saddam’s palaces. I hope that a war can be avoided since I do not want our soldiers or innocent civilians killed. But, if the Iraqi leadership decides not to comply, then action will be taken against them. This time, we are going to finish the job that we left more than a decade ago.