An unjustified war

With the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq, and the beginning of the Bush Administration's attempt to undermine the UN's work, a thorough reexamination of the rationales for war seems in order. As the countless viewpoints and op-eds published across the country suggest, there is presently no consensus in America on the need for a war with Iraq. Given the President's obsessive determination to finish what his father started, it is time to counter the assertions the President Bush has offered to rationalize his ill-conceived and horribly-timed determination to topple Saddam Hussein.

The call for an invasion of Iraq began shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11. Somewhat ironically, though, the events of Sept. 11 actually condemn the Bush administration's resolve to invade Iraq as nothing more than an arrogant desire to flaunt American power and secure access to oil. I have posed the following question to countless supporters of American military action, and none of them has been able to provide an answer: What has changed so dramatically from before Sept. 11, 2001 that now requires an assault on Iraq? Supporters of military action cannot find a convincing answer because the truth is that nothing has changed. There was no call for an invasion of Iraq before Sept. 11, and now there is. Nonetheless, no one _ let alone the leaders of the American or British governments _ can rationalize the change.

The most common excuse I hear from the American government, and from other defenders of the war, including some writing on these very pages, is that Iraq has the potential to support terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda. Notice that they justify war because of a potential threat from Iraq. They no longer claim that Iraq has in fact given concrete support to terrorists in the past. Until just recently, however, that was the claim of many pro-invasion advocates. Until the American government, and CIA Director George Tenet in particular, acknowledged that there was absolutely no evidence linking Iraq and Al-Qaeda, hawks had been arguing that Iraq had given financial and technical support to Al-Qaeda. In reality, evidence of such support is nonexistent. If the Administration wants clear evidence of links to Al-Qaeda, it just has to look south of Iraq, to Saudi Arabia. Naturally, though, the United States is willing to ignore this link, given the quantity of oil in Saudi Arabia and its willingness to host to American troops.

Next from the hawks comes the argument that Iraq possesses chemical and biological (and perhaps nuclear) weapons, threatening its neighbors and American interests in the Middle East. Certainly, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, but there is as of yet no evidence that Iraq has nuclear weapons, let alone the capability to deliver such weapons. However, there are many other countries in possession of these types of weapons, countries that are more inclined to flaunt them. North Korea, for example, recently disclosed that it has made tremendous progress secretly developing nuclear weapons, despite a 1994 agreement to stop such development. But the Bush Administration is willing to pursue a "diplomatic" course with Kim Jung-Il, despite the fact that a nuclear North Korea unsettles a region more than a non-nuclear Iraq, which itself is surrounded by other oppressive regimes equally "rogue" and similarly "evil" in their policies. The contradictions in American policy toward Iraq are innumerable.

Before Sept. 11, Iraq was not providing support to Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group; now, there is one less group for Iraq to potentially support. Before Sept. 11, Iraq had amassed a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons as large as it possesses today; now, with the UN inspections, that supply can be eliminated. Before Sept. 11, Iraq had not funded or supported a direct attack on the United States; now, with an invasion of Iraq, there will be even more resentment of the United States because of its Middle East policy, resentment that directly contributed to the attacks of Sept. 11. In other words, the pre-Sept. 11 threat from Iraq was even greater than it is today. The minimal threat that Iraq poses now _ which is arguably less than the threat from other countries that also possess powerful weapons and have actually supported and funded terrorist groups, i.e., Pakistan and Saudi Arabia _ does not warrant a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.

Essentially, then, what it boils down to is this: Saddam Hussein is a ruthless and brutal dictator who has nearly enslaved his people, and in the minds of the hawks, that justifies an invasion of Iraq. If that is true, then after Iraq I expect to see these same advocates of American invasion lining up to support military action in Africa, where there are countless dictators who are at least as savage as Saddam Hussein. Somehow, though, I doubt there will be a huge movement to intervene in Africa any time in the near future. Need I remind anyone of Rwanda?

Adam Mueller is a junior majoring in History who is studying abroad in Spain.