Do We Need to Go to War?

War on Terror Towards the end of the first week of the war against Iraq, public support for the war remained strong. To many people, Saddam Hussein's actions and failure to comply with weapons inspections leaves the United States with no choice but unlitateral military action. Syndicated columnist Mona Charon echoes these arguments when she maintains that Saddam Hussein continues to hoard weapons of mass destruction. Even UN Inspector Hans Blix, she argues, said that Iraq has failed to provide evidence that their store of weapons have been destroyed (Charon).

Charon believes that while Muslim regimes in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt "promote violence and religious hatred" (Charon). Even in comparison to its neighbors, however, Iraq is extremist and reckless. It has sponsored terrorist groups and has proven itself to be a bitter foe of the United States. Finally, Charon argues that disarming Iraq is crucial not only for the United States, but for the safety of the world.

Removing Saddam Hussein from power and laying the foundations for a functioning democracy will help defuse the Arab anger towards the United States and transform the entire region "for the better" (Charon). Despite the strong public support for the war, a significant cross-sectional faction of American society continues to raise its voice for alternatives to war. Columnist Jessica Tuchman Matthews argues that war is far from the best course of action when to address Saddam Hussein.

While the United States can certainly mobilize cooperation from other countries, few allies will help shoulder the costs of war and its aftermath. War also entails significant risks. There is the possibility that Israel could be dragged into the war, possibly through an attack involving lethal chemical weapons (Matthews). Matthews also cites the danger that high civilian casualties will fan the flames of enmity, even in the more moderate Muslim states. As a result, the war could serve as an even more powerful recruiting tool for al Qaeda.

Ironically, the effort to curb terrorism may very well end up motivating more terrorists (Matthews). Matthews also points out an aspect of war that most people fail to consider -- the "burden of a postwar Iraq" (Matthews). Assuming that Saddam Hussein is successfully deposed, the American public, Matthews writes, is completely unprepared to shoulder the fiscal and moral responsibilities of the military occupation and political reconstruction of a democratic Iraq.

Instead of war, Matthews advocates several steps that involve "coercive inspections," plans that would additionally be supported by the international community. First, the current UN system of selecting inspectors on the basis of geographic balance should be shelved. Inspectors should thus be selected on merit and technical expertise, even if that means former inspectors would be rehired. In addition, former inspectors recommend flying U-2 planes, which could effectively detect even underground activities using cameras (Matthews). Matthews also recommends other steps, such as the enforcement of "no-fly" and "no drive" zones.

If lethal sites are found through inspections or U-2 detection, the United States military has already shown they have the capacity to direct airstrikes aimed at these specific targets (Matthews). Matthews's article effectively sums up the major reasons for opposing military action against Iraq at this time. Though Charon may be right when she details the threats, full-scale military intervention should be the last step in addressing a rogue dictator.

In his rush to send in the troops, President Bush has severely damaged the United States' diplomatic and international relations with key European and Arab states. He has shown that his government is willing to go against the norms of international law, even when there are clearly other methods of dealing with the threat of Saddam Hussein. Though not without risk, the cost of using U-2 planes to back-up a qualified inspection team is nowhere near the costs of a full-scale war, both in dollar terms and lives lost.

The United States is the most technologically advanced country in the world, as demonstrated by its smart bombs and accurate patriot missiles. There is no reason why this country could not use the same technological expertise to disarm the Saddam Hussein regime without resorting warfare. Attempts.