A liberal's case for war in Iraq

I would like to take this opportunity to offer a general response to the many Viewpoints of late that have been decidedly "anti-war." First I want to make clear that the argument that I am about to put forth is not one that came to me overnight. I have gone back and forth on this complex question for the past six months and I'll be the first to admit that this is not a cut and dry issue. I will, however, offer the two major reasons that I think that war is in fact necessary.

In 1945, the nations of the world came together to create the United Nations. This organization was to exist for the primary purpose of preventing world conflicts and keeping the peace. All member nations joined this organization willingly and agreed to abide by its mandates -- this goes for the United States as well as Iraq. And while I know that many critics will be quick to announce that the United States isn't exactly perfect in following the mandates of the United Nations, the United States, to the best of my knowledge, did not invade Mexico 13 years ago whereas Iraq did invade Kuwait 13 years ago. And at that time the United Nations agreed -- amidst worldwide protests from some -- that a coalition was needed to use military force to oust Iraq from Kuwait. The United Nations (this even includes France, Germany, Belgium, China, and Russia) agreed following the Gulf War that Iraq needed to disarm and that a group of UN selected scientists should verify Iraq's disarmament. That, at its most basic, was the last that the UN had to say about Iraq.

Since the end of the Gulf War in 1991, Saddam Hussein has offered token cooperation here and there. He's destroyed this stockpile and that stockpile while giving the UN verifiers the run around at countless other sites. If you own 50 guns when you're supposed to own none, does destroying 2 of them mean that you've destroyed all your guns? Of course not. Saddam has never come clean. The UN knew what weapon stockpiles he had at the end of the Gulf War and they know that he has not been able, even to this day, to account for many of these. The United Nations, the organization that every member has joined willingly, demanded that Saddam Hussein disarm and they have passed resolution after resolution reiterating this demand over the past decade. Yet he has still refused to disarm. If you don't think there is a need for him to disarm in the first place, then your complaint is not with President Bush but is with the United Nations. For it was the latter that demanded this, President Bush is simply looking at the situation and quite reasonably asking the United Nations, where's the beef? What good are the resolutions of the United Nations if they cannot enforce them? It would be like having speed limit signs on American highways without any cops to pull people over.

And to those who argue that more time and more verifiers are necessary, I ask: what good would either do? Secretary Powell made an airtight case before the Security Council two weeks ago that more verifiers and more time would do no good without more cooperation from Saddam Hussein. Imagine 100 UN scientists searching Boston for weapons hidden in basements and underground bunkers. They wouldn't find a thing -- and let's not forget that these verifiers aren't even checking basements and bunkers, they're looking at factories, warehouses, military bases, and former weapons sites and Saddam Hussein knows this. They couldn't possibly search every basement. Now imagine those same 100 inspectors searching all of Massachusetts or all of California (a state that is roughly equal in size to Iraq). Without Saddam Hussein voluntarily disclosing the location of these weapons, it is clear that 100 verifiers could not find the weapons if given 1,000 years. I see no reason why 200, 300, or even 50,000 verifiers would fair any better.

Still, I'm sure that many would say: so what? Who cares if Iraq has weapons? Well, first, I think Kuwait would care. And Syria. And Iran. And Israel. And Turkey. But we should also care, not because Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States -- and I wholly believe that it does not pose such a threat, no matter how much President Bush tries to convince me otherwise-but because we should all support the noble experiment that is the United Nations. The United Nations truly represents a new liberal world order but it has been proving itself ineffective and impotent in the face of crisis. If it does not act soon regarding Iraq, I fear that it may be signing onto its own demise. For the League of Nations eventually disintegrated for the same reason: it was incapable of dealing with crisis.

I will also contend that apart from the "legal" argument as supported by Iraq's non-compliance with UN resolutions, there is clearly and without a doubt a humanitarian crisis in Iraq. Some will argue that the United States is somehow responsible for the economic sanctions on Iraq and thus for the starvation of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. But let us not forget that these sanctions are mandated by the United Nations, not the United States. And if the rest of the world community recognized a need to lift sanctions and resume normal trade with Iraq, then it would do so. A clear example of this is Cuba. The United States is virtually isolated in its continued sanctions of Cuba and has been rightly condemned for that by many. The United Nations agrees to continue sanctions against Iraq until it disarms, again, until it complies with the UN mandates issued at the end of the Gulf War. And while this policy of economic strangulation has not been a success, Saddam Hussein could have put an end to this many years ago. He has not, and only he should be held responsible. He was the one, after all, that invaded his neighbor.

Moreover, Saddam Hussein has executed tens of thousands of political dissidents and prisoners over the past twenty years that he's been in power. So if you will discount my argument that Saddam Hussein needs to go to alleviate the starvation of the Iraqi people, then at least I hope that you will recognize the need for Saddam Hussein to go to alleviate the torture and cold-blooded murder of Iraqi political dissidents.

I think that it is a moral imperative for all nations of the world to put an end to the suffering of the Iraqi people. I do not profess to know what the Iraqi people desire. But I will take it upon myself to make the assumption that under Saddam Hussein's regime they have no choice as to realizing their desires, whatever they may be. It is my hope that an invasion of Iraq will swiftly remove Saddam Hussein and the loyal members of his regime. I hope that with the world's support the Iraqi people can then once again reclaim the country that is rightfully theirs. Only then can they even dream of having what they want. And this should have been the goal a decade ago.

I do question the timing of President Bush "bringing Iraq to the table" and I discount his two main arguments for going to war (that Iraq is an imminent threat and that it is linked to al-Qaeda). I also have found his cowboy diplomacy over the past six months or more to be abhorrent. But I think that it is time to stop quibbling and time to unite in our support of the liberation of the Iraqi people. The United Nations has before them the chance to do just that, and I think it is clear, albeit unfortunate, that only by way of military force can the world community dislodge Saddam Hussein.

Adam Schultz is a junior majoring in History and Political Science.