By Sudha Rajan
The Daily Cardinal
\For war is always the sanction of failure,"" Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin concluded a statement to the United Nations with this sentiment. He represents France, one of the many countries that oppose military intervention in Iraq. The U.S. government and media are insisting that war is the only path (ironically) to peace. Is it?
According to Hans Blix's most recent report, Iraq is complying with inspections, and steps, even if they are small, are being made toward disarmament. For example, Saddam Hussein has agreed to destroy Al Samoud-2 missiles that weapons inspectors claim violate U.N. regulations. As U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, points out on his Web site, there is no evidence that Iraq is connected in any way to the Sept. 11 attacks, that they actually have weapons of mass destruction or that they are an eminent threat to the United States. They have stated that they will not attack us unless we attack them first.
President Bush claims the main reason we need to invade Iraq is because of violations of U.N. regulations. If we are going to invade any country that is in violation of U.N. regulations, we're going to have to do a lot of invading, starting with Israel. According to Farouk Al-Shara, Syria's Foreign Minister, ""Israel was also exclusively in possession of nuclear weapons in the region, refusing inspections by the IAEA. That country continued to defy all the United Nations resolutions--over 500 of them, including 31 resolutions adopted by the Council itself."" The United States gives more money in direct foreign aid to Israel than it does to any other country in the world. And yet they are violating the very statutes we claim to hold in high regard.
We also have to examine the reality of what a war will mean. It will mean the deaths of thousands of innocent people, just as it did in the last Gulf War. Iraqis have been suffering and dying since the end of the war due to U.S. sanctions, while the sanctions have not had any noticeable effect on Saddam Hussein's rule. Another war would only create even more suffering and death. There is no way to separate the people from the country and regime in terms of war. U.S. troops will also have to risk their lives--even if none of them are injured, their lives will be disrupted. A war would also cost Americans billions of dollars--we haven't even officially started a conflict, and already we are spending $26 billion to ""persuade"" Turkey to support a U.S.-led war in Iraq. Our economy is already in a tailspin.
The pro-war side of this debate often claims that the anti-war side does not present a viable alternative to war. I'll present one right now: we do nothing. There is no need to go to war. Allow weapons inspectors to finish disarming Iraq. This will save lives, money and our international reputation. It's patriotic. As Ted Kennedy put it, ""It is possible to love America while concluding that is not now wise to go to war.""
