From the Global
Exchange
August 27, 2002 (updated February 26, 2003)
The White House is set to launch a war against Iraq. Yet there has been no convincing explanation of why a war is needed. The international community is strongly opposed to a US attack on Iraq, leaving the United States with few real allies. A full-scale war against Iraq would isolate the US from the rest of the world, undermine the effort against terrorism, and senselessly kill tens of thousands of civilians. The Bush Administration is determined to initiate an illegal and ill-considered invasion. We the people must be just as determined to stop a war that threatens to tear the world apart.
1) There Is No Justification for Going to War.
What was Iraq's act of aggression against us that justifies war? There has
been no attack on the US, no Iraqi threat of war, no Iraqi connection to
September 11.
War should be a last recourse of self-defense, a step to be taken only when all other alternatives have been exhausted. What the Bush Administration is planning is an act of aggression, not an act of self-defense. The international coalition that fought the first Gulf War was cemented by the principle that one country cannot invade another without provocation. Now the White House is poised to dismiss the coalition to launch an unprovoked invasion of Iraq. This would violate the US's historic policy against using force preemptively. We should not go to war against a distant country that has not attacked us.
2) Iraq Does Not Pose a Clear and Present Danger
The White House says we should invade Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein from
using weapons of mass destruction. But during the 1990s United Nations weapons
inspectors dismantled all of Iraq's major chemical, biological and nuclear
weapons facilities and destroyed nearly all of Iraq's weapons and long-range
missiles. In terms of conventional arms, Iraq's military is now at one-third
of its pre-Gulf War strength. According to Ex-Marine and former UN Weapons
Inspector Scott Ritter, Iraq presents "absolutely nothing" of a military
threat. And given Hussein's natural desire for self-preservation, it is highly
unlikely he would launch any attack that would result in his destruction.
Since deterrence is working, why should the US start a bloody war that would
undoubtedly lead to massive human suffering? (1)
3) When It Comes to Invading Iraq, the US Has Few Allies
The international community supports sending weapons inspectors to Iraq to
disarm Saddam Hussein's regime, but it does not support the White House's
goal of "regime change." Many countries in the Middle East are opposed to
a war with Iraq. Our allies in Europe think an invasion is foolhardy. Anti-war
marches in England and Italy have drawn hundreds of thousands of people.
An invasion of Iraq would isolate the US from the rest of the world and shatter
the principles of international cooperation and mutual defense that are key
to US and global security. (2)
4) An Attack on Iraq Would Make Us Less Safe
An isolated US is an unsafe country. Attacking Iraq without provocation will
ignite anti-American sentiment around the world, disrupting efforts to weaken
terrorist networks. Any attack would also further destabilize a Middle East
already inflamed by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While the benefits
of invading Iraq are murky, the costs are all-too-clear.
5) A Costly Invasion Would Take Resources Away from Much Needed Priorities
at Home
This is a war of choice, not a war of necessity. And it's a poorly thought
out choice, one that will distract from the social problems here at home.
It is estimated that any full-scale invasion of Iraq will cost up to $200
billion. During the first Gulf War, allies like Japan covered 80 percent
of the cost. This won't happen again, leaving US taxpayers—already facing
budget deficits—to pick up the costs. Instead of spending $200 billion on
an unnecessary war, we should be investing in our nation's overcrowded schools
and failing health care system. (3)
6) Invading Iraq Would Be Extremely DifficultÐand Without a Clear
Victory
An invasion of Iraq will not be nearly as easy as kicking the Taliban out
of Kabul. Although Hussein's army has been weakened, Iraq's forces remain
large enough to put up a formidable defense. And it is likely that Iraqi forces
will be far more determined to defend Baghdad than they were to defend Kuwait
City, dragging US forces into a bloody fight in heavily populated areas.
And even if the US does overthrow Hussein, what next? As the experience in
Afghanistan shows, throwing out a government is easier than putting a new
one together. An invasion without allies would leave the US to enforce a
peace in a chaotic country fractured by ethnic conflicts.
7) A War Would Kill Thousands of People
An assault on Baghdad would result in far more American casualties than the
war in Afghanistan. And the toll on Iraqis would be far higher. According
to an estimate by Physicians for Social Responsibility, a full scale invasion
of Iraq could lead to the deaths of as many as 80,000 innocent civilians,
or approximately 100 times the number of people killed during the US bombing
of Afghanistan. (4)
8) We Should Not Wage a War for Oil
The Bush Administration says we must invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein has
violated UN Security Council resolutions, is abusing his own people, and
pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Yet the US supports the nuclear-armed
dictator of Pakistan and provides billions of dollars in aid to the governments
of Turkey and nuclear-armed Israel, both of which are in violation of multiple
UN resolutions. The blatant double standard makes one wonder: What is this
war really about? The short answer is oil. Iraq has the second largest proven
reserves of petroleum, and US oil companies, which exercise immense influence
over the current administration, are eager to tap into Iraqi oil. This is
wrong. We should not attack people in a far-off country to take their resources.
9) Other Options Besides War Are Available
When North Korea announced that it was close to constructing a nuclear weapon,
the Bush Administration didn't threaten war—instead, it started cooperating
with our allies in Asia to defuse the situation. The North Korean experience
shows a way of dealing with weapons of mass destruction and proves that negotiations
are preferable to war. If the White House's end goal is to enhance our security,
then dialogue is preferable to conflict.
10) Opposition to the War Is Growing
Americans know deep down that this impending war makes no sense. According
to recent polls, 40 percent of Americans are against a war with Iraq.
NOTES:
1) For more on former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter's analysis of Iraqi
military capabilities, see: "Is Iraq a True Threat to
the US?" by Scott Ritter Boston Globe [www.bostonglobe.com],
July 20, 2002. OR Ritter's Testimony before the US Congress, May 3,
2000.
2) Phyllis Bennis, a researcher with the Institute for Policy Studies [www.ips-dc.org], a Washington think tank, says that rather than having assembled a "coalition of the willing," the White House can only boast of a "coalition of the coerced." Chas W. Freeman Jr., who served as US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the first Bush Administration, refers to "a Coalition of the Sullenly Acquiescent." (see "Even a Superpower Needs Help," New York Times, February 26, 2003). In its drive to unseat Saddam Hussein, the White House has only reluctant allies, not genuine friends.
3) The $200 billion war cost estimate comes courtesy of Lawrence Lindsey, the former head of the White House's National Economic Council. Lindsey offered the numbered in a September, 2002 interview with The Wall Street Journal, and the figure was widely reported thereafter.
4) This figure comes from a report by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. The report is available online at: www.ippnw.org.