THE UNITED States' method of dealing with Iraq has landed us in a sticky situation. Our government is weighing issues of just war and precedent-setting, the best means of protecting global human rights, and threats to national reputation and security. This is not a simple discussion, but if we as a people are going to hold our government accountable in a decision that will affect our future as a nation and the future of international law, we have a responsibility to examine all aspects of a U.S.-led war on Iraq. While the months of August and September showed a post-Sept. 11 nation complacently accepting the Bush administration's rhetoric of homeland security as a reason for pre-emptive attack on Iraq, the American people -- having ceased to rely on the Democratic Party to vocalize anti-war sentiment -- are now coming out and questioning this move from a variety of angles.
Many disagree with those who support war on Iraq because President Bush's discussion focuses not on disarmament but on regime change. Many Americans are not interested in waging a war estimated to cost between $60 and $100 billion only to spend billions more in a post-war occupation of Iraq (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/cost_war020822.html).
We have no guarantee that regime change will improve the human rights situation in Iraq or that a new regime will be any more favorable to Americans. However, analysis suggests that by spending billions to attack Iraq we run the risk of destabilizing the entire Middle East, thereby solidifying anti-American sentiment in an entire generation of Arabs and increasing our risk of terrorist attacks. In a time when funding has already been cut from education and health care to support the "War on Terrorism," I am not willing to pour more of my money into a move that will increase the possibility of terrorist attacks.
One of the most widely accepted arguments against war relates to the precedent that the United States will set with this attack. Pre-emptively attacking a country is against the U.N. charter, and the United States has never before broken this policy. To attack a country because it is a "threat" is completely subjective. In helping to set the international policy that allows for attacks only in self-defense, the United States realized that global security will never occur in a world where nations can attack other nations pre-emptively and with impunity. While the United States currently has the luxury of being one of the most powerful global forces, we must remember that we helped create international policy against pre-emptive attacks for a reason. If power structures change, we do not want to live in a world where we can be attacked because someone questions our motives. Even if power structures don't change, we don't want to undermine the policy we use to keep China from attacking Taiwan.
We should not delude ourselves into believing that enforcing U.N. weapons inspections policy justifies violating U.N. policy against pre-emptive strikes. The United States should take this crucial moment in history to bolster the United Nations and reinforce international law instead of undermining it. Perhaps this will mean lending military support to the United Nations as we have done in the past: a discussion with its own pros and cons. That is very different than Bush using his Congressional mandate to force Iraq's disarmament.
Many Americans also recognize that although Hussein has committed atrocious human rights violations, the U.S. policies in Iraq have been similarly atrocious. UNICEF estimates that over 500,000 Iraqi children have died because of U.S.-led sanctions on Iraq in the last decade. Our sanctions and continued bombings have helped throw Iraq into economic despair. Iraqi citizens suffer daily, and the destabilization that will inevitably come with war will not help their situation. One can argue that destabilization and suffering for Iraqi citizens now will lead to a stable Iraq in the future, but the United States has yet to put forth a clear plan for a post-Saddam Iraq. Our failure to uphold our commitment to rebuild Afghanistan is poor assurance that we will do much better in Iraq.
War on Iraq has stimulated protest from every sector of society, uniting pacifists and the fiscally conservative alike in a variety of other concerns, only a few of which are included in this column. If you want to hear more, show your support for peace or simply witness a very diverse group of people coming together for a common cause at "Dissent is Patriotic: A Gathering for Peace" on the Lawn, Wednesday, Nov. 20 from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. This is a complex discussion, and if we value the future of global security, it is one we must examine more closely.
(Sarah Jobe is a fourth year College student.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
