....LMB: "Jake's Position Statement"....

October 04, 2002

I am opposed to the proposed U.S. war on Iraq.

The main reason I am against this war is that it will likely cause terrible death and destruction. The first Gulf War killed over 100,000 Iraqis and left their country in a shambles from which they have still not recovered eleven years later.

In addition, there is the possibility of much more far-reaching consequences. The aftermath of such a war could possibly bring civil war, strife or destabilization to other countries in the region, like Turkey or Iran. During Gulf War I, Iraq attacked Israel in an attempt to draw both that nation and other Arab countries into the fray. It is likely that he would do so again, and perhaps this time Israel would not be so restrained. Which means that there is a chance that the invasion of Iraq could bring about World War Three.

Any plan that has such potential for catastrophic loss needs to have an extremely important justification. I can find no such justification for this plan.

The Bush administration's primary given reason for this attack is that Saddam Hussein has, or seeks to obtain, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The evidence of this is extremely flimsy, as no weapons inspectors have checked Iraq since 1998. Having examined all of the public evidence they have cited, I can only conclude that Iraq may have some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, but with very few effective means of delivering those weapons to enemies. Iraq does not seem to have any nuclear capabilities. One report claimed that if another country gave Iraq some uranium or plutonium, that Iraq could perhaps have a nuclear bomb within a matter of months. However that same report concluded that it was unlikely that any country would aid Iraq in this way. Without outside help, the report stated that Iraq would probably be unable to develop a nuclear weapon for at least five years.

Even if Iraq did have these weapons, that does not mean that the nation is necessarily a threat. Many nations around the world have some weapons of mass destruction, and no one seems particularly worried. After 12 years of media demonization, the American public seems content with "he has weapons of mass destruction" and "Saddam Hussein is evil" to consider him a threat. But Saddam Hussein seems primarily concerned with maintaining his own power. Using any of his weapons against the United States would be his downfall, because the Americans would not hesitate to retaliate. This U.S. attack would result in more destruction of his country, possibly his removal from power, and possibly his death.

And finally there has been some talk of the possibility that Saddam Hussein would give some of his weapons of mass destruction to terrorists who could then use them against the United States. Again, this seems unlikely because Saddam wants to stay in power. Most terrorist groups in the Middle East are Islamic fundamentalists who want to replace all secular governments with Islamic ones. Saddam Hussein's government is secular. Giving these weapons to the terrorists would be aiding potential enemies. Could he choose to ally himself with them against a greater foe, the United States? Perhaps. Could a terrorist-sympathizer in Iraq with access to these weapons give them to terrorists? Sure. Are these possibilities justification for war? I don't think so.

Perhaps there is other, secret evidence that the White House has which proves Iraq's danger more clearly? I don't know. It seems that if they did, they would present it to the public or at least publicly refer to it. They have been struggling to sell this war to the American people for months, and if they had this secret evidence, they surely could have used it in some way to be more persuasive.

So looking at the "weapons of mass destruction" argument, I find it extremely unconvincing. A dictator that may or may not have chemical and biological weapons, who would probably not use them against the United States unless he was under extraordinary circumstances, does not seem like much of a threat to me. Even more persuasive was the fact that, until the U.S. began trying to rally their support, none of the countries in the Middle East-- not even Iraq's neighbors-- were particularly concerned about Iraq or its weapons. If they live next-door and have no fears of Iraq, why should Americans when they're 10,000 miles away?

Given the flimsiness of this evidence, I conclude that it can't possibly be the real reason that the Bush administration wants to attack Iraq. I cannot believe that any world leader would look at the current dossier and feel that an attack on Iraq was more important than any other conflict or issue. Therefore this public reason must be a smokescreen to hide another reason for this attack, a reason that would not be acceptable to the American people.

So what is that reason? It's obvious that the sole goal of the Bush administration is "regime change" in Iraq. But why do they want that? The most popular theories I've read are: domestic politics; oil and control. "Domestic politics" argues that the sole reason the Bush administration wants to attack Iraq is to boost Bush's popularity and increase the chances that Republicans will win in the upcoming Congressional elections. "Oil" argues that this is simply the latest military venture to secure cheap oil for the U.S. I think that the best argument is "control," with the other two playing significant sub-roles.

In my opinion, the U.S. goal is to attack Iraq as the first step in trying to radically reshape regional politics in the Middle East. This concept is being tossed around by ultra-conservatives who have Bush's ear. I've read about it in terms of "democracy" and "defeating tyranny". I've also heard it referred to as "empire" and "Pax Americana".

In other words, given the importance of Middle Eastern oil to global politics, the United States government will take the steps necessary to turn all of the governments in the region into regimes that will do what the United States wants them to. This not only gives the US access to all the oil it needs, it also gives the country some leverage in deciding which other countries get how much oil for their own needs.

So that is my final stance. I oppose the war on Iraq because:

• it will kill many people;
  
• it will further destroy a ravaged country;
  
• it will destabilize much of the Middle East, possibly causing even more death and destruction;
  
• throwing the lives of millions into chaos to maintain one nation's global supremacy is utterly wrong.