Point/Counterpoint: War on Iraq

PRO-WAR

l a u r i e h i b b e t t

Saddam Hussein is not some maverick whose refusal to play by the rules gives him an aura of mischievous allure. He is a dangerous dictator and a serious threat to the world, although you couldn't guess it from the way some people are trying to save his skin--again. War is a horrible thing and not to be taken lightly, but it is irresponsible to hide beneath the righteous cover of pacifism and ignore impending dangers.

Some are rushing to Saddam's defense, saying that we can't be certain that he is a threat to the world. Scott Ritter, for example, has stated that Iraq does not have serious capabilities of destruction. Unfortunately, his assessment (with which other members of his team disagree) is based on information from incomplete and outdated inspections and cannot negate the mounting evidence to the contrary. Must we wait until Iraq or its possible terrorist henchmen unleash their wrath on us or on our allies in order to "prove" that Saddam is dangerous? We know that Iraq has nuclear, chemical and biological no-nos--and we know that Saddam hates our country. Many in the Middle East have similar aggressive tendencies towards America, and to allow them to accumulate the means to harm us has already proved to be fatal.

Another argument against military action is that the region is unstable and that the war will cause more trouble than it is worth. Post-war cleanup is also a sticky issue. Who will replace Saddam? What will happen to the Kurds? The oil? The region? Mid East politics are obviously volatile; however, should we only go to war in stable regions or in ones that will present no possible difficulties in the aftermath? The question of what will happen afterwards remains complicated and uncertain. However, we cannot allow those concerns to distract us from the primary issue (US safety), nor should we maintain the status quo because we are afraid of the future.

Why now, though? We've known much of this for years and have not done anything. The reason has a lot to do with security and a little to do with the UN. First of all, last year's attacks on American soil transformed domestic security into a pressing issue. President Bush has made it very plain that the US will not be threatened--and that the US has every right to do anything within its power to preserve its safety. Furthermore, the United Nations must hold Iraq accountable. The UN's bark is louder than its bite, as a decade of ineffective resolutions has amply shown. Can it prove that its decrees are more than idle threats? Unfortunately, the likelihood of effective inspections at this point seems low, and if the UN is unwilling or unable to save the world from Saddam, the US will be compelled to do it alone.

Saddam Hussein is a threat; that much is evident to everyone. Of course, no one wants to go to war. People will die, but this is a price that the United States cannot be afraid to pay. If Saddam Hussein remains in power, the Iraqi people will continue to suffer, the UN will be proved impotent, and the rest of the world will live in the shadow of an increasingly dangerous tyrant.