The current political, social, cultural and international environment is one of such complexity, such importance, that it is deserving of every individual's undivided attention.
The events of Sept. 11 have had a profound effect on American diplomacy, specifically in two areas. There seems to be greater emphasis on unilateral methods in the conduct of American foreign policy, as well as a new strategic doctrine of preventive war.
Both give an imperial dimension to American policy unmatched in prior experience. With this in mind, it seems that war is inevitable. So, in response to this inevitability, I would just like to go over the many reasons and arguments against this pointless endeavor our nation might embark on.
First, the Iraqi regime and its leader Saddam Hussein must be addressed. President Bush has long promised that Hussein is in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and is willing to use those weapons on the American people. Yet lengthy weapons inspections, led by chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, have not revealed conclusive evidence of Iraqi biological, chemical or nuclear weapons programs.
The only conclusive Iraqi breach of U.N. resolutions concerns its Al-Samoud two missiles, which fly farther than the 93-mile limit. However, these missiles are hardly weapons of mass destruction, and we are left to wonder exactly what weapons of mass destruction President Bush is speaking of.
Even if Hussein does have weapons of mass destruction, and is willing to use them on the American people as Bush says, then how is fighting a war with Iraq the best solution? Would not an attack on Iraq immediately provoke Hussein to use his weapons of mass destruction on the American people? Are we even willing to take the chance that he may use those weapons if provoked?
The logic of the Bush administration's argument for war seems to be very flawed. We can only conclude that Iraq does have these weapons and President Bush simply does not care what Hussein will do with them once war begins or that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction at all.
While lengthy U.N. weapons inspections have yet to prove Iraqi dissonance, North Korea and leader Kim Jong-Il have openly stated to the international community that they intend to continue with their nuclear power program. In fact, North Korea backed out of a Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and removed U.N. nuclear monitors from the country. Kim Jong-Il also threatens to back out of the armistice that ended the Korean War with the United States.
North Korea has recently reactivated its nuclear power program involving enriched uranium. Not only this, but North Korea's Taepo Dong 2 missile is reportedly capable of reaching Alaska, Hawaii and the West Coast of the continental United States.
North Korea is definitely in breach of U.N. resolutions, but Kim Jong-Il has warned the U.N. that his country will treat any economic sanctions as a declaration of war. Quite obviously, North Korea has the means to provoke the United States into a conflict, and seems to pose a more serious threat than Iraq.
Yet, the Bush administration has hardly even taken diplomatic measures to settle this conflict with North Korea, let alone military measures, as they have taken with Iraq.
Again, it seems that the logic of the Bush administration's argument for war is very flawed.
If Bush wants to fight a war with Iraq because they have weapons of mass destruction and will use those weapons against the American people, then what about North Korea? Isn't Kim Jong-Il as much as a threat as Saddam Hussein, if not more so?
Has everyone forgotten about Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the terrorist organization al Qaeda? Why hasn't the Bush administration caught him yet? Why should we start a war with Iraq if bin Laden has yet to be captured?
Wouldn't a war with Iraq provoke more terrorist attacks against Americans? Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are an indisputable threat to the U.S., more so than Iraq or North Korea. The events of Sept. 11 prove this. It seems that the priorities of the Bush administration do not concern the safety of the American people. Osama bin Laden has killed more Americans than either Hussein or Kim Jong-Il.
The U.S. is also extremely susceptible to attacks from bin Laden and al Qaeda, more so than from Iraq or North Korea. Why doesn't the Bush administration devote more resources towards bin Laden and al Qaeda? American policy nowadays is all backwards. It's as if the only reason our arguments are right anymore is because we say so.
