Resources > Iraq: Why Rush to War?
Doesn't Saddam support terror?
No one except the Bush Administration- not even the CIA, not even our close British allies- claims that Saddam has aided Al Qaeda. Of the 19 9/11 hijackers 15 came from our 'ally' Saudi Arabia, none from Iraq. Their funds didn't come from Iraq, either. The war on Iraq will be a huge setback for the effort to fight Al Qaeda terror, stirring up many enemies and making life hard for allies.
Doesn't Saddam have chemical and biological weapons?
He may have some left, but with no planes or missiles able to deliver them to the U.S. Even his neighbors within reach of his missiles haven't seemed worried for the past decade. Israeli military leaders say they "don't lose any sleep" worrying about Saddam. Why are WE panicking? The recent CIA risk evaluation says he's unlikely to suddenly risk handing such materials to terrorists UNLESS the U.S. attacks Iraq.
Isn't Saddam trying to get nuclear weapons?
Probably, but unless he gets his hands on weapons material from Russia, he won't stand a chance for many years. If nuclear weapons material is leaking out of Russia, taking out Saddam won't protect us from Al Qaeda or any other hostile group who can buy it. Helping Russia safeguard its materials costs less than 1% of the initial expenses of a war on Iraq. The Bush administration has tried to scale back these safeguard programs.
Isn't Saddam a brutal dictator?
Yes, the same as he was when the Reagan/Bush administration supplied him with weapons while he gassed his own people, and the same as many other brutal dictators that the U.S. unfortunately continues to work with. Many Iraqis hate Saddam, but even anti-Saddam exile groups are very worried about what massive U.S. bombing will do to civilians.
Hasn't Saddam scoffed at U.N. resolutions?
Yes, but the rest of the U.N. knows the U.S. often has, also. The Mideast countries often point out that our Israeli allies do too. The U.N. reacted most strongly when Saddam invaded Kuwait, on flimsy pretexts. Bush now proposes that we invade Iraq, on flimsy pretexts. No wonder there's almost no international support.
Isn't it time to 'get the job done'?
When Bush Sr. stopped short of Baghdad, he had a good reason. No one knew what sort of chaos would be created if the U.S. tried taking over this large Arab country. Today, we still don't know. The other countries in the region- Turkey, Iran, Jordan, etc- all have expressed opposition to the planned U.S. attack , despite their hostility to the Iraqi regime. Maybe they know something.
Can't we make Iraq democratic?
The administration has finally leaked its plan for post-war Iraq: direct US military rule (NYT 10/11/02). This will be extremely expensive, and no one has any idea of how long it will last. We have no idea if civil war will flare up again between Iraq's Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites. Almost everyone agrees that popular reaction in the Muslim world will be fury at the U.S. That won't help us in fighting terror, in promoting democracy, or in making peace.
How much would it cost?
The administration is now estimating war costs of $200 billion. That's about $2000 for an average US family, added to the growing debt that taxpayers must pay. This time there aren't allies to pay most of the bill.
Couldn't we pay for it by pumping Iraqi oil?
That's what some in the administration have claimed. That is not exactly the way to win friends in the Mideast, or anywhere else where people worry we might grab their resources. Then again, we have no idea what will happen to the world's oil supply if the war in Iraq rages for a while. Whatever happens, it won't take the place of working toward energy independence, by government programs promoting common-sense conservation measures and renewable resources.
Even if it's costly in money and lives, shouldn't we make the sacrifice for our country?
All of our past wars cost the lives of some of our young men, and our richer taxpayers had to pay the dollar costs. Bush's wars are special. He's asked his CEO friends to 'sacrifice' by taking a series of huge tax cuts. If this war isn't worth enough for Republican donors to pay their share, maybe it's not worth enough to sacrifice lives for.
But this war must be good for somebody?
The President's chief political advisor, Karl Rove, promised Republican political operatives months ago that they could "Keep the focus on war". He kept his promise. That's good for candidates who don't want to mention their corrupt corporate sponsors, or what's happened to the budget, the economy, the environment, the uninsured, the poverty rate??.
Isn't there another way?
YES. We demanded that Iraq let the U.N. arms inspectors back. Iraq agreed. Take yes for an answer. Don't rush to war.