The Pros and Cons of
a U.S. Military Campaign to Oust
Saddam
Attempting
to disarm Iraq by diplomatic means - or just get
meaningful weapons inspections accomplished - is
sure to fail unless Saddam knows there is a
credible threat of force behind the world
community's demands.
But
what if the U.S. had to go it alone? A single
bullet won't do it. We'd have to take out not only
Saddam but also the existing power structure that
owes its status to Saddam's patronage. Should we do
it?
|
Pros
Reasons
to do it
|
Cons
Reasons
not to do it
|
|
1.
Koran commands Jihad for all Muslims anyway. The
one thing Muslims respect is strength. If they see
us take strong action they will be less likely to
engage in terrorism.
|
1.
Saddam, though a secular ruler, is a Muslim. Since
Koran's commandments for Jihad are strongest when
unbelievers attack first, at the margin we'll
incite more Muslims to become
terrorists.
|
|
|
2.
The U.S. law called the War Powers Act gives the
President authority to conduct war without a
declaration if Congress approves the action. Action
against Iraq was approved in 1991. Saddam broke the
conditions of the cease fire that ended the Gulf
War, so it can continue with no new approval.
Congress granted new approval anyway in
2001.
|
2.
We should declare war first.
|
|
|
3.
Saddam will stay in power if we do nothing. If we
take action, the Iraqi people will have a much
larger voice than they do now. Iraq does not have
the Judeo-Christian heritage required for true
freedom and democracy, but learning the lessons of
European history, the best chance for peace is to
force it down from the top by installing more
peaceful and tolerant leaders.
|
3.
We don't know who will come to power if we boot
Saddam.
|
|
|
4.
Hard to imagine that. Many regimes currently
tolerate terrorists or even pay them off because
they don't see any alternative. By being more
engaged in the region, we are likely to turn many
governments away from their current lax policies
towards terrorists.
|
4.
Our action might further polarize the Middle
East.
|
|
|
5.
Without Saddam's payoff money to suicide bombers
and their families, the Palestinians might be less
likely to bomb and more likely to negotiate. Arafat
would certainly see that being a terrorist is a
ticket out of power. Then the aid money he steals
might actually reach the poor
Palestinians.
|
5.
The real problem in the Middle East is the
Arab-Israeli conflict over Palestinian
statehood.
|
|
|
6.
Under Article 51, every nation retains the full
right of self defense, including the right of
anticipatory self defense recognized by
International Law. You don't have to watch a nation
build canons, point them at you, and wait till they
shoot before you take action. All we are doing is
enforcing the 16 U.N. resolutions Saddam has
violated.
|
6.
Unilateral military action would violate the U.N.
Charter and International Law.
|
|
|
7.
As unbelievers who do not live under Islamic Law,
we are and always will be an oppressor nation in
the eyes of Muslims. When the U.N. insists on
multilateral approval before a nation can defend
itself it is saying, in effect, that the nation is
not sovereign, it is subordinate to the will of the
U.N. Denying a nations sovereignty actually
violates the U.N. Charter.
|
7.
The legitimacy of multilateral action approved by
the U.N. is needed for the world to respect a
nation's military actions and not brand it a rogue
state.
|
|
|
8.
International law does not require a nation to wait
until it is attacked before it can defend itself.
If we had detected the Jap Pearl Harbor fleet
before they launched a plane we could have legally
sunk them.
|
8.
Launching a first strike would make us the
aggressor nation responsible for starting the
war.
|
|
|
9.
Saddam came to power by murdering his predecessor
and cuts off the tongues of those who even complain
about his regime. Serious opponents, including his
own son, he murders or maims.
|
9.
Saddam is the Iraqi ruler, we should not interfere
in Iraq's internal affairs.
|
|
|
|
10.
The sanctions were modified to allow Iraq to sell
oil and buy food and medicine. Saddam has corrupted
this modification and diverts money for himself,
including funding his development of weapons of
mass destruction.
|
10.
The real problem in Iraq is not Saddam, it is the
U.N. imposed sanctions.
|
|
|
11.
Saddam has and has used chemical weapons on
Iranians and his own people. The only delivery
system needed today is a Muslim willing to commit
suicide to cause terror.
|
11.
Saddam is not really a threat. We don't know if he
has nucs, and we do know he does not have missiles
that could reach the U.S.
|
|
|
12.
President Clinton was ready to take action in 1998
and Senator Daschle agreed with him. A War Powers
Resolution drafted by Daschle was put on hold after
Saddam agreed to abide by the U.N. resolutions. He
broke his promise.
|
12.
The Democrats have not seen enough evidence to be
convinced we should act.
|
|
|
|
13.
The President is responsible for the security of
all Americans, whether some, like German or
Japanese Americans in W.W.II, approve.
|
13.
U.S. Muslims might not approve of taking action
against a Muslim country.
|
|
|
14.
We have never received an accounting of all the
POWs taken by Iraw in the Gulf War. There is
evidence a U.S. Naval Aviator is still being held
by Iraq.
|
14.
U.S. military people are volunteers, they know they
take chances and they get paid for it.
|
|
|
15.
Overthrowing Saddam puts the Ayatollahs in Iran on
notice, and is likely to spark even greater
openness in Iran.
|
15.
Iran could hamper our efforts by mining the Gulf,
as they did in 1988.
|
|
|
16.
Being engaged on the ground in the region is the
only way to build a HUMINT network that can
effectively monitor Islamic terrorists.
|
16.
For all the money we've spent "liberating"
Afghanistan, there is still no permanent peace in
that country and terrorists still attack our bases
there.
|
|
|
17.
Ousting Saddam is the only way to open Iraq to the
Gospel.
|
17.
The Gospel is offensive to Muslims, we should
respect their religion and remain
silent.
|
|
|
18.
Most Muslim nations either harbor, pay extortion
money to, or provide other support to Islamic
terrorists. But they are not led by madmen who have
flouted 16 UN resolutions for 11 years. Iraq is
part of the war on terror. Terrorists can carry out
their attacks very cheaply. The more they are sure
that there will be tremendous retaliation - and
those who support them know this - the less support
terrorists will receive, and the less terrorism we
will experience.
|
18.
Attacking Iraq would hurt the war on
terror.
|
