Iraq conflict: causes, consequences, and regional impacts

¶ … attacks of September 11, 2001, we, as Americans learned that our country is not as invincible as we thought it to be. The United States can and has been hurt within this past year. Therefore, President George W. Bush's plan to attack Iraq seems to be justifiable so that America has a lesser change of getting bombed again. And, subsequently, being weakened further. By attacking Iraq, Bush's intends to protect America and possibly keep from having furthers attacks on our country in the future. However, some disagree with Bush about going forward with his plan to attack Iraq which poses a major conflict among the nation's government. Some of the nation's leaders believe that the plan will do more harm than good. It may cause Iraq to attack America with a lot of power which could do extreme damage due to previous attacks the country. And, by attacking that country, it could start a series of bombings and wars on one another that may led the fall of the strength of the nation. Even though there seems to be many downfalls to Bush's plan, the Bush Administration supports it since the chance of not doing anything could be harmful than actually doing something despite the conflicts in which it holds.

The Iraq Conflict began when the U.S. strategy toward Iraq since Desert Storm has failed, and it has no long-term potential. Also, there are other factors that contribute to the conflict such as economic sanctions are punishing the population but leaving the regime unscathed.

The administration's case for military action against Iraq boils down to this:

Iraq is actively seeking and close to acquiring nuclear weapons

Iraq has demonstrated its intent to dominate the Middle East militarily (Iran, Kuwait, even S.A.), a region of vital importance to U.S. interests

Iraq has demonstrated its willingness to support terrorism against the U.S. And its allies

It's a pretty potent combination. Imagine that Iraq detonates a nuclear device tomorrow (in a test). How does that change the political picture in the Middle East? Imagine, then, that Iraq re-invades Kuwait. Are we and other regional powers willing to risk nuclear confrontation to repulse it? If not, what are the poltical and economic consequences? Imagine that we learn that Iraq is sharing its nuclear capabilities with certain sub-national groups opposed to U.S. foreign policy. Are we willing to continue to risk an active global role in the face of such a threat?

While stressing that President Bush had made no decision about going to war, Wolfowitz made a vigorous case for U.S. action and insisted Washington "would not be hamstrung by the waverings of the weak or those (countries) who still hope to seek favors from the Baghdad regime."

He spoke out in a lengthy speech to a conference organized by Tufts University's Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis in conjunction with the U.S. Marine Corps.

It occurred as debates raged -- within the Bush administration and within the U.N. Security Council -- over a new resolution aimed at forcing Iraq to disarm.

Washington wants the United Nations to authorize the use of force if Iraq fails to comply. France and Russia are resisting this, at least until after U.N. weapons inspectors have a chance to return to Baghdad after a four-year hiatus.

Support for the French-Russian position appeared to be growing, as manifest by a U.N. debate on Wednesday in which countries warned the U.S. against military action before U.N. monitors resume their inspections.

In his speech, Wolfowitz argued that "the fundamental question is how to weigh the risks of actions vs. The risks of inaction." He acknowledged there are many risks associated with the use of force against Iraq but said the suggestion that removing Saddam's regime would cause regional instability seems "exaggerated."

Wolfowitz said that sooner or later the world will have to cope with Saddam's demise.

In the interests of minimizing whatever risks there are to larger regional stability, it would be far better for this enormous change to take place when the eyes of the world are upon Iraq and when the United States and a strong coalition are committed to seeing it through to a successful conclusion," he said.

In short, to take place on the world's terms, not on Saddam's or on some fateful roll of the dice," he added.

Wolfowitz dismissed skeptics who say an attack on Iraq would disrupt the U.S. war on terror. "It is hard to see how we can expect to be successful in the long run (in the anti-terror war) if we leave Iraq as a sanctuary for terrorists and its murderous dictator in defiant safety," he said.

To those who argue the United States should wait until the threat from Saddam is imminent, Wolfowitz countered that "the notion that we can wait until the threat is imminent assumes that we will know when it is imminent."

Noting that no one knew the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were imminent before they happened, he said the world "cannot afford to wait until Saddam or a terrorist supplied by him attacks us with a chemical, biological or... nuclear weapons to recognize the danger that we face."