President Bush's preemptive strike strategy and the Iraq War debate

President Bush's War On Iraq

President Bush feels the United States should launch a preemptive strike on Iraq, rather than waiting for sanctions by the United Nations.

He has received support from some political groups while facing opposition from others. Each side presents valid arguments on why they believe the U.S. should or should not go to war with Iraq.

Sanctions

In 1990, the United Nations imposed sanctions on Iraq after it invaded Kuwait. The invasion eventually lead to the Gulf War in 1991.

The U.N. agreed to lift the sanctions if Iraq would allow international inspectors to certify it had removed its weapons.

However, since 1998, Baghdad has refused to allow inspectors into the country until the sanctions are lifted, claiming the weapons no longer exist (Yacoub, 2002).

In May 2002, a new Security Council resolution dealing with U.N. sanctions was accepted by Iraq for a period of 6 months. Iraq was unhappy with the oil-for-food deal stating "these new measures exposed America's tendency toward harming Iraq (Yacoub, 2002)."

The Arab League felt Iraq made a positive step toward having the sanctions lifted.

Some critics feel the terrorist attacks on September 11 were in response to the United States involvement in the sanctions. The death rate among children in Iraq has gone up since the end of the Gulf War due to starvation, and many people blame the sanctions.

Others say the deaths are not caused sanctions, but by Saddam Hussein, who'd rather purchase weapons and indulge in luxuries for himself and top ranking officials, then buy food and medicine for the Iraqi people (Sanctions, 2001).

Why War?

President George W. Bush has suggested Iraq may be the next target in the war on terror, after accusing the Arab country of financing terrorism (International Conference, 2002).

Bush has placed Iraq on the Axis of Evil and declared Hussein "a threat to peace in the Persian Gulf (4 Questions, 2002)."

Some groups say a war with Iraq would overshadow any military actions since the Vietnam War, while others say this "could be and would be -the right war (4 Questions, 2002)." There are four questions that should be answered before the United States commits to invading Iraq.

Serious Threat

All groups agree that Iraq represents a serious threat. However, Bush must decide how big a threat Iraq actually is and when actions should be taken to eliminate this threat. There is a debate concerning how soon the United States should invade Iraq. Some "high-level Iraqi defectors say Hussein could have a crude nuclear device in hand within two years and the missile capable of delivering it at long-range within three (4 Questions, 2002)." This group is pushing for immediate intervention, while other groups are recommending patience until international inspections are allowed in Iraq to confirm the presence of these weapons.

The Arab Community

Bush must consider how the a war with Iraq would effect relationships with other Arab countries.

Most Americans feel that al-Qaida is more of a threat than Hussein, and worry that the U.S. would lose Arab cooperation if Iraq is invaded before the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is settled. However, those in favor of immediate action against Iraq point out that, despite worries about the Arab community, the U.S. will have to invade Iraq if Hussein does have nuclear weapons (4 Questions, 2002).

The Cost

All experts agreed the U.S. will win a war with Iraq, but they are concerned about the cost. Some warn a war could mean higher oil prices, sending a weakened U.S. economy into a recession, similar to the one after the Gulf War. Others are concerned about casualties due to the 400,000 well-trained soldiers of the Iraqi army (4 Questions, 2002).

Senate Hearings

In August 2002, hearings were opened by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to debate whether or not to remove Hussein from power. Experts in favor of this action testified that Iraq has recovered from the Gulf War and is in process of developing weapons of mass destruction (4 Questions, 2002). Other experts disagreed, stating it could be between one and five years before these weapons are deployed. They were concerned that if the U.S. invaded Iraq there would be higher oil prices and terrorist retaliation. These experts also debated whether the U.S. should attack before al-Qaida is neutralized and the Mideast crisis is resolved (4 Questions, 2002).

The Aftermath

The Bush Administration needs to address the question of what would happen after a war with Iraq.

Some say the United States military would have to stay in Iraq indefinitely until a democratic government can be established in Baghdad. Others argue it would be quite difficult to create a democratic society in Iraq and worry about future Arab relations (4 Questions, 2002). Those against immediate action point out that President Bush has not informed Congress or U.S. allies his plans for ridding Iraq of Hussein or what he feels Iraq will be like after Hussein is removed.

Addressing the Issues

President Bush must address the questions that were raised in the Senate hearings. If he feels it is in the best interest of the United States to removed Saddam Hussein, he must commit to his decision and convince the country he can do it right.

Once Bush makes the final decision to invade Iraq, military and tactical issues will need to be addressed.

Keeping the Public in the Dark

In an attempt to oust Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration has been quietly taking measures to prepare for a war with Iraq. The public is unprepared for this war, only being given the information this administration wants it to know concerning the increasing threat of Hussein (4 questions, 2002). Those who oppose a war with Iraq are extremely concerned about this and worry Americans will suffer due to the possible recession.

Opposition from Other Countries

U.S. officials announced in April they had no present plans to attack Iraq after facing strong opposition by the Arab summit in Beirut, Lebanon (International Conference, 2002).

The United States is pressuring Jordan, who is one of its allies, to support it's plan to remove Saddam Hussein. Jordan, however, is facing stiff opposition by Iraq and the public.

Iraq is Jordan's main trade partner and over 350, 000 Iraqis live in Jordan (Williams A18).

College students in the capital city of Amman are opposing an invasion of Iraq, believing the U.S. doesn't want to stop Hussien from acquiring nuclear weapons, but instead wants to control Iraq's oil supplies (Williams A18).

Iraq's View

In April, the United Nations was asked by Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri Ahmed to supervise an international conference. The purpose of this conference was to "identify what is terror and to root out its causes (International Conference, 2002)." The Foreign Minister referred to the United States when he commented on the fact that countries shouldn't use anti-terrorism as an excuse to attack one another. In May, al-Thawra, a Baath party newspaper stated "Iraq has no intention of threatening neighboring countries or world security (Yacoub, 2002)."

Recent Events

On November 17th, 2002, President Bush gave Saddam Hussein three weeks to either provide proof there are no longer weapons in Iraq or reveal to U.N. weapons inspectors the locations of "weapons of mass destruction (Jahn, 2002)." If Hussein fails to comply, the United States has warned of military action against Iraq. Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said it's up to Saddam Hussein to answer the "question of war and peace (Jahn, 2002)."

Support for an Invasion

National Security Adviser Condoleessa Rice is a strong supporter for a possible war with Iraq. Rice is concerned about Saddam Hussein and the destruction he is capable of.

At the University of Virginia, The College Republicans support President Bush's policies and are distributing pro-war pamphlets.

They are holding a rally in an attempt to draw attention to a possible war, while gathering support for their cause (Lamesa, 2002).

Democrats verses Republicans

Many prominent Democrats oppose a war with Iraq. Senator Edward Kennedy feels the Bush administration hasn't proved the United States is in enough danger to warrant a pre-emptive strike and war. Representative John Lewis of Georgia thinks President Bush is concentrating more on a possible war, than dealing with matters such as the economy and corporate corruption (Martz A1).

Republicans such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld feel a pre-emptive strike is necessary because rogue nations that support terrorists can cause situations that may "be more dangerous than the Cold War (Martz A1)." Republicans also believe a pre-emptive strike could deter another terrorist attack.

They admit going to war is not an easy decision, but worry there are more risks involved if nothing is done (Martz A1).

Conclusion

President Bush is trying to gain support for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. The issue has been addressed in Senate hearings with the Democrats encouraging patience and the Republicans urging a war with Iraq. Countries around the world are watching the proceedings and many have already decided if they are going to support the United States if an invasion does occur.

President Bush has many things to consider before making the ultimate decision of invading Iraq, such as the cost of war, how big a threat Hussein is and what the aftermath of a war would be.

Many Americans feel Bush should finally address these issues, make a decision to either invade Iraq or wait on U.N. sanctions and commit to it.