Why there should be no war on Iraq
1. There will be great casualties in Iraq
I take seriously the commands of Jesus to "Love Your Enemies". This means that any policy we formulate must take account of its effect on all people, not only our friends and neighbours in The West. And any attack against Iraq will cause numerous casualties in Iraq. These casualties are no less important than (potential) casualties of terrorism in the West. A life is a life.
2. Anti-Western Sentiment
Attacking Iraq, without the support of Arab nations, will lead to more anti-Western and anti-Christian sentiment (and hence more terrorism) among Muslims.
3. Attacking Iraq could lead to Saddam using his Weapons of Mass Destruction
4. A pre-emptive strike is a dangerous precedent
The US is endevouring to set a very dangerous precedent: a "pre-emptive strike".
Throughout the Cold War, the world was probably saved from nuclear war by a "no first strike" policy by both the USA and USSR (and other nuclear powers). The prospect of the use of Weapons of Mass Destrruction (WMD) was so frightening, that neither side would used them unless they were attacked with WMD first. And because both sides were committed to not STARTING a war, no war (between the superpowers) was fought.
The "pre-emptive strike" policy goes against this. Instead of not going to war unless attacked (as in the "no first strike" policy), it is now wanting to wage war because Iraq MIGHT attack the USA.
It is saying that the CERTAINTY of killing thousands of Iraqis is preferable to the POSSIBILITY of having thousands of Americans killed.
That is ignorant arrogance at best, racism at worst.
How would America feel if Iraq attacked it, just because the USA had nuclear weapons and might use them.
The "no first strike" policy must be protected at all costs.
Is There any time to attack?
Note that points 2 and 4 would have been negated, to a great extent, if the international
community as a whole (Not merely the Security Council) had endorsed the attack.
My personal opinion was that, if the UN - including the Arab nations - had
decided that Saddam had to go, I would have reluctantly agreed with the invasion.
But there were much better ways to go, e.g. pressing for Saddam Hussein to
be tried for war crimes, as has been done with Slobodan Milosevic. If this
had been done a decade ago, then perhaps by now the Arab nations would have
got Saddam removed one way or another, and the we wouldn't have this new
wave of anti-Western sentiment to contend with.
Refuting reasons for attack
1. "UN has endorsed it"
(even though it didn't in the end)
- but many Arab countries disagree
- US is bribing/bullying
- Other countries (especially Israel) are in violation of UN resolutions
2. "Saddam is an evil ruler"
- but so are many others
- UN resolutions do not call for regime change
3. "Saddam has biological + chemical weapons"
Yes biological and chemical weapons are abhorrent and should be eliminated, but:
- There is no evidence that he has agressive intentions to use them on other countries.
- There is no evidence that he might pass them on to terrorists
- he has not used them for many years
- UN inspections are (were) working
- the world did not complain when he used them on Iran and the Kurds. Now suddenly they are worried when Westerners are threatened.
- attacking him could lead to the weapons spreading if they are not destroyed
4. "Saddam is not disarming so is in breach of UN resolution 1441"
- Nevertheless weapons inspections are (were) making progress.
- War should be a last option. We have not reached that point yet.
- Resolution 1441 does not provide a trigger for war. It says that,
if Iraq is found to be in breach, the UN Security Council should convene
"in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with
all of the relevant council resolutions in order to secure international
peace and security;". So while war is threatened, it is only to be
authorised by a further UN resolution.
5. "Not attacking is appeasement"
Not true, there is a 3rd alternative: containment.
(As was used against the Soviet empire during the Cold War).
6. "We must not repeat the mistakes of dealing with Hitler"
By 1938, Germany had the strongest military force in Europe, and had already taken the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia. The talk was not of a pre-emptive strike, but whether to defend against the actual reality of German troops in Czechoslovakia.
In contrast, Iraq is now kept firmly in check by no-fly zones, weapons inspectors,
and US (and allied) troops in neighbouring countries.
There was no way to contain Hitler (i.e. stop him from invading Poland, Belgium, France etc) in 1938-39. So there is no real comparison.
7. "US Troops cannot wait in Kuwait Forever"
This argument was put forward, in all seriousness, by Australia's Prime Minister,
John Howard. While it is true that US pressure led to weapons inspectors
being re-admitted to Iraq, that force was far less than the final force.
In other words, the huge increase in US troops was unnecessary if the
only goal was continued weapons inspections.
For instance, I was reading a December 2002 issue of Time magazine just after
the invasion started. It said that the US had 50,000 troops in the Gulf.
By the time the war started, this was 250,000 troops.
Article written: 11-Mar-2003.
Updated for the WWW (and point 7 added): 26-Mar-2003, and again on 24-Apr-2005
Home
Contact Us.
