How The War on Iraq is Unjustified
Currently the United States of America is anticipating a war with Iraq. The supposed premise behind this war is the protection of democracy and of global safety. That is of no surprise, as men often proclaim war in the name of peace. Nevertheless, I am not convinced by this paradoxical argument and maintain that this war is both unjustified and that it rests in ulterior motives.
President Bush has exclaimed that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and is a threat to the United States and the rest of the world community. The lack of evidence and reason to believe such claims is overwhelming. In an attempt to justify his claims Bush has presented Iraq with an ultimatum of allowing U.N. inspectors to conduct searches and investigations pertaining to Iraq’s weapons programs and to whether or not there are nuclear, chemical, and biological programs designed to produce weapons of mass destruction or facing the threat of military action for non-compliance. Much to no one’s surprise Iraq did comply. The inspections have returned little to nothing. In fact, the totality of what U.N. inspectors have accumulated thus far would amount to no more than speculation, which is not even enough to convict a person in a court of law due to reasonable doubt, much less an entire country! However, Bush being so hell-bent on war is not contented to allow inspections to serve their purpose. This raises the question: why?
Why is it that Bush has, in fact, overtly reneged on the very same inspections which he himself so adamantly insisted upon just days before? Could it be that the inspections were just an angle; that he expected Iraq to refuse the inspections thereby giving the U.S. a likeliness of justification to strike? Could it be that because inspections have had such infinitesimal returns concerning the prolific weapons of mass destruction that Bush holds Iraq in accusation of possessing that Bush has so quickly fled and abandoned the inspections process? I find it very difficult to refuse these things as possibilities.
A second and much weaker argument which Bush has presented to support his war is the humanitarian motivation. Seemingly appalled, Bush speaks out against the murderous nature of Saddam’s regime and his detestable treatment of his own people. Some venues of news and media go to great lengths to portray Saddam as an evil, unfeeling, cowardly, heartless man. Yet, multitudes of Iraqis continue to honor the same man and exhibit fierce loyalty. If anyone seeks to understand the role of propaganda in wartime the same needs only to look to this as an example. Show me one who cannot see the typical attempt at dehumanization of a proposed enemy which Bush is aiming to implant in the American public and I will show you one who is blind. How much easier is it to organize public sentiment against an enemy widely portrayed to be not human, but a vicious monster whose prey is his own people?
As to whether or not this war is influenced by a held grudge or vendetta passed on from father to son I will not go in great lengths to discuss. But, let me point out that in the history of the world and its rulers it has happened more often than not when son has succeeded father in rule that the son has aspired to carry on the ambitions of the father and/or regain supposed rightful territory lost. Furthermore, it is no unlikely thing for a son to seek to please his father by following in his footsteps.
But let’s give our Commander-In-Chief, the Leader of the Free World, President Bush the benefit of the doubt and suppose that he earnestly believes that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam is a ruthless thug of a leader. Does that, then, make his declaration of war on Iraq just? No! Here is why: Firstly, concerning weapons of mass destruction, even if bush believes that Iraq has them, it is well known and more easily proven that other countries who should not, have them as well. (That leads to a much bigger question of justice concerning who should and shouldn’t have weapons of mass destruction which would require more depth than I’m willing to permit here so not to digress.) For example the Mafia largely runs the economy of the former Soviet Union and weapons of mass destruction, even submarines, are readily sold on the black market! Surely Bush is aware of this alarming threat. Secondly, concerning the noble humanitarian argument, there are dictators all over the world conducting the same and perhaps worse crimes against their own people than those that Saddam is being publicly stoned for. I will not even mention America’s role in placing Saddam in a position to build such a regime as to why this war is unjust. That this particular regime seems to cause Bush and his administration such heartache while others just as ruthless are easier to turn a head from is a matter of curiosity to me. That such exemptions exist leads me to be suspicious and search out an ulterior motive. My question being: what is it about Iraq that is different from these other countries where people are persecuted by callous dictators and where weapons of mass destruction are known to be? My conclusion is that the weapons of massive destruction and humanitarian concern are merely arguments of convenience. My conclusion is that Iraq presents no more a threat to the U.S. vital interests than these other countries which possess weapons of mass destruction, exercise inhumane actions within their regime, and whom the U.S. can look away from. However, the thing that separates Iraq from these others is that it too contains the economic interest of natural resources, namely large oil supplies. Therefore it is convenient for the U.S. to attack Iraq in the name of protecting the world and democracy, for it is well known: “to the victor go the spoils”. And Iraq is abundant in spoils. For this reason, because it is convenient but not vital for America to attack Iraq, President Bush’s war is unjust. It is unjust because the men and women of the armed forces know well that their jobs put them in danger of death, but they also hope that their deaths would serve to protect the vital interests and safe being of America. To abuse their loyalty by using their sense of duty, by jeopardizing their lives, as a means to capitalize on a matter of convenience is the greatest injustice their leader, President Bush, could serve them. And the very same is precisely what he is doing. It is my sincere hope that Americans will not be blind to this and exercise the true nature of democracy and speak out against these things.
