WAR VERSUS peace, good versus evil: These are the types of juxtapositions that have characterized the debate over U.S. armed intervention in the Middle East. Like it or not, war is already underway. The United States is currently spending billions of dollars in a widely publicized military buildup in this region. This action is independent of U.N. action on a Security Council resolution and grossly overshadows any pretense at negotiations with an internationally insignificant France. As his minimalist mantra responded to media questions in the recent hour-long question and answer session, President Bush is resolute in pursuing armed, unilateral action against Iraq. This threatens the security of the United States in several clearly distinguishable ways.
Bush clearly, albeit repetitively, expanded his rationale for pursuing armed intervention, or "war" to most Americans: The United States was a victim of a devastating terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001. The President has sworn an oath to protect his country from another such attack. Saddam Hussein, if left unchecked, could execute or facilitate an even more damaging assault with weapons of mass destruction. Hussein has defied repeated United Nations calls to disarm. His continued defiance is unacceptable. If the United Nations balks at removing him, the United States, for its own security, must do so.
The logic is compelling. However, when weighed against the consequences of unilateral action, Bush's reasoning begs some skepticism.
First, consider the backlash from Muslim extremists after the United States initiates an unprovoked (substituted as synonymous with "preemptive") attack on a sovereign Arab nation. Initiators of conflict must seek peace as its aim, not create a greater threat than before the war began.
Second, the violence used against the enemy must be proportional to the suffering the United States has endured. Saddam may be a very bad man, but beyond stronger evidence tying him to September 11 the United States has no evidence claiming redress.
Third, the regime change proposed by President Bush will eliminate a strong leader who stabilized the nation through violence and fear. Removing this cancerous dictator will unleash intense political and economic chaos within the nation, and perhaps the region. Take the issue of the Kurds, for example; because of U.S. petitions for Turkish assistance, the American government has been enticed to sell out the most rebellious group toward Saddam within Iraq.
Fourth, war will create an unstable situation that will take an extended period of military occupation, economic and governmental reconstruction. All of this will be paid for by the taxpayers of the United States, as opposed to the first Gulf War, nearly 90 percent of which was paid for by others in the international community.
Fifth, we will alienate longtime allies and important players in the world economy by stiff-arming criticisms in the Security Council and then going to war unilaterally. This does not refer to France, whose threats to veto resolutions and belligerent attempts by Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin to pump up France's significance in world politics have been embarrassing to this 7-year student of the language and culture. However, Germany is widely regarded as the economic engine of the European Union; the same EU whose Euro has climbed against the dollar, thereby threatening the revaluation of crude oil, and dramatically impairing our international fiscal policy.
American power is not such that the nation can conduct policy independent of concerns over how such moves will be received internationally. After a decade of saturating the U.S. economy of the 1990s with their capital, insecurities over the war are already causing a depreciatory effect upon foreign investment. Thanks to his skillful manipulation of the media -- note not one tough question during last week's press conference dealt with the economy -- Bush has diverted attention away from our economic woes. However, his war agenda may in the end only accentuate these concerns.
The United States has backed itself into a corner by playing bluff with the rest of the world. Many believe that war is not the best option. Unfortunately, thanks to the maneuvering of the Bush administration, he has made it the only option. The President will not concede to world opinion. Nor will he acquiesce to domestic doves, thereby further diminishing his rapidly falling public approval rating.
Yes, Mr. Bush needs a war. He needs it for any hope of reelection. He needs it to retain American pride in the United Nations and in the Middle East. Congress has given up the constitutional right to stop the process through via resolutions earlier this winter, no matter what happens to public opinion in the next few weeks.
Never mind the theological or moral objections to going to war; it simply is not a good decision for the United States for all the reasons outlined above. Tragically, for the devoted men and women who may risk their lives to defend it and the families they may leave behind, the President has already committed our nation down this path. Like it or not, we're already there.
(Preston Lloyd's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at plloyd@cavalierdaily.com.)
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 | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
