 |
By Matt Diller
We are all children of the CNN generation. We have grown up in a world when the news events of the day are broadcast directly to our homes, live and in color.
We all remember watching the Persian Gulf War unfold on television. When the dust settled, we watched as Saddam Hussein consolidated his power over his country, regaining near the strength he enjoyed before the war.
Although our government decided not to remove Saddam from power after the Persian Gulf War, the time has come for us to take that course. The present Bush administration has alleged that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction and has ties to terrorist organizations.
The administration also has said that Saddam is planning to use those weapons and those terrorist connections against the United States. The administration alleges that the United States should do something about that.
This suggestion has drawn the ire of the world. Some of our allies are not convinced that Saddam poses as big of a threat as we claim. Others are squeamish about the possibility of launching a war against Iraq.
Saddam does pose a threat, though. Forget for a moment about his ties to terrorism or his potential connections with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are cause enough to explore methods of removing him from power.
We don't need to find evidence that Saddam is producing weapons of mass destruction. He already has them. We also don't need confirmation that he is planning to use them. He already has.
During the Iran-Iraq war from 1980 to 1988, Saddam used chemical weapons against Iranian troops. He also used similar weapons against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq.
The person we are dealing with has, at the very least, the capacity to produce chemical weapons, and possibly biological and nuclear weapons. He has launched two wars of aggression against neighboring countries and has fired missiles against a third. He despises the United States.
I will admit that it is not likely that Saddam could, even if he wanted to, use a weapon of mass destruction on U.S. soil. He could very well, though, use such weapons against our troops in the Middle East and our allies in the region. That, to me, is a good enough reason to remove him from power.
Although the comparison of Saddam and Adolf Hitler has become something of a cliche in recent years, I think the following analogy fits my argument well. Much has been made of the failure of Britain and France to stand up to Hitler at Munich in 1938. Had they resisted his attempt to take control of Czechoslovakia, it is likely that World War II would never have occurred.
Imagine that Britain and France did resist Hitler and forced him to draw back from Czechoslovakia. Imagine, though, that he was still in power, possessed chemical weapons (which Germany, along with other countries, used during World War I) and still had territorial ambitions. Knowing what we know about Hitler, an attempt to remove him from power would have been justified.
This is roughly the situation we face now. Saddam was forced away from Kuwait during the Persian Gulf War, but he is still in power and would still take control of neighboring nations if possible. Any action taken to prevent a Hitler-like dictator from further aggression is justified.
However, careful consideration should be undergone before such action is taken. I have no qualms about an armed attack against Saddam's regime should that be the only alternative open to us.
My only concern about such an attack is of a purely military variety. I am concerned that this course of action would not be without extensive cost of both blood and fortune. To put it quite bluntly, there is great danger in undertaking any military operation, and a battle with the Iraqi dictator for his country may result in extensive casualties.
If there is any other viable method of overthrowing Saddam, it deserves a look. There are several resistance organizations operating against his regime, both domestically and overseas. Several have met with representatives of the Pentagon in recent months.
These organizations are potential agents to challenge the Iraqi government. The only problem with such a course, though, is that such an uprising may well upset the balance of power in the region and inspire additional revolts in neighboring countries, including our NATO ally Turkey.
Despite the potential drawback to this option, though, it deserves to be examined. A war with Iraq could potentially prove to be a drawn-out, expensive affair. While I have no doubt about the eventual result of such a war, I do have concerns about the cost.
There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam should be dealt with. The sooner, the better, for all of us.
Matt Diller is a sophomore in LAS. He can be reached at opinions@dailyillini.com
The Daily Illini
September 13, 2002
Saddam Must be Dealt With
|
|
|
