Journey To Iraq: The Freedom and Justice Way

Mushafau Ade Kukoyi
Andrea Modica
English 2030-001
June 14, 2005

Compare/Contrast Essay

Journey To Iraq: The Freedom and Justice Way

While there has been serious condemnation within the United States and around the world, concerning America’s invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003, some strongly believe it is the basic duty of the American government to defend its citizens against any form of external attack. This though, has constantly divided the country since then and many are asking the million dollar question: “If we had to do it all again, will we have done the same thing”?

Charles Krauthammer finds reason for optimism in this "unipolar moment," contending, "We are not just any hegemony. We run a uniquely benign imperium" (Weekly Standard, June 4, 2001). The Project for the New American Century, a public policy group whose supporters include Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz, maintains that America's extraordinary and unparalleled power is best used "preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles" (mission statement, www.newamericancentury.org). President George W. Bush reminded last year's graduating class at West Point that "the 20th century ended with a single surviving model of human progress." And, he added, "the people of the

Islamic nations want and deserve the same freedom and opportunities as people in every nation" (June 1, 2002, www.whitehouse.gov).

Michael Moore’s documentary film titled Fahrenheit 9/11 confirms the fact that there are other reasons why the present regime favored war against Iraq. In his film, he showed evidence that the Bush administration had oil and gas deals with Saudi and Afghanistan government. Furthermore, was interested in diverting the attention of the American people from the economic crisis at the time. "The framework agreement defines legal mechanisms for setting up a consortium to build and operate the long-delayed US$3.2-billion natural gas pipeline, known as the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline, which would carry gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to Pakistan. It would be one of the first major investment projects in Afghanistan in decades." Baglia Bukharbayeva "Pakistani, Turkmen, Afghan Leaders Sign US$3.2 Billion Pipeline Deal," Associated Press, December 27, 2002.

Throughout the 1980s, Iraq was a valued ally of the United States. In 1983, National Security Decision Directive 114 authorized the sharing of military intelligence with Iraq as well as arms sales through Chile and the shipment of dozens of biological agents including anthrax and dual use insecticides. This was necessary at the time, officials said. Iraq was the sworn enemy of America's enemy, Iran. (http://www.usip.org) “Questions have been raised about whether the United States not only ignored foreign arms shipments to Iraq, but actually encouraged or even arranged them. A former National Security Council official, Howard Teicher, said in a 1995 court affidavit that the CIA made sure Iraq received weapons from non-U.S. manufacturers.” Ken Guggenheim,

“War Crimes Trial for Saddam Could Reveal Details of Past U.S. Help,” Associated Press, January 24, 2004.
The lasting hope that Baghdad would become less oppressive and more responsible did not materialize. Ironically, Iran now shows more promise for reform than Iraq. The seductions of privilege and absolute control that accompany occupations may make it difficult to rule Iraq without hubris—but it is essential that the United States make the effort. Arrogance will almost certainly prove disastrous. Every gesture will carry political significance especially in an environment where international legitimacy for occupation is in short supply.

The inexplicable relationship between the Iraq government, Russian and France has revealed that Saddam is attempting to possess nuclear capabilities. On several occasions, the United Nations had confirmed that Iraq had been gathering a number of nuclear scientists in efforts to develop weapons, and if he could obtained enough uranium, he could have a bomb in a matter of months or even weeks. Furthermore, the Iraqi government kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors a number of times and even defied the United Nations once again when they said that they would comply. Why else would they do this except to hide their weapons of mass destruction?

Despite all the claims of the presidency, the CIA has steadfastly maintained that there was absolutely no evidence of any direct threat to the U.S. from Saddam. The Iraqi government had never attacked the United State targets except in response to the America’s attacks. Saddam’s regime tried desperately to avoid invasion that he knew could remove him from power and bring his quality of life to an end. Obviously, Saddam was a bully, a cruel and evil dictator who brought danger to his people and his neighbors, but he was no threat whatsoever to the United States.

It is widely believed that, Saddam Hussein is not a stable world leader. If you disagree, perhaps you should look at his record: using biological and chemical weapons on his own people, assassinating his relatives to prevent competition and his previous attempt to take over Kuwait. It seems pretty clear that he has a hostile, self-interested personality that is not bounded by any kind of human rights policy.

On the other hand, the Bush administration’s policy, that we have the right of "preemptive self defense," is not only absurd, but also a dangerous precedent that will destabilize international tensions. Internationally, a "preemptive first strike" gives terrorists and bullies the perfect excuse to invade their neighbors.

The Bush administration complained that Saddam was in violation of U.N. resolutions, including 1441 and others. In as much as this may be a fact, it is a matter for the United Nations to enforce as an international body. The United Nations, in its charter and many other resolutions, also forbids individual nations from initiating first strikes against other nations. If the U.S. disregards these provisions of the charter and other resolutions, we are in far more flagrant violation of United Nations authority just as Iraq. We threatened to invade another nation that bore us no direct threat. We threatened to do exactly the same thing to Iraq that Iraq did to Kuwait. If carrying out these threats, we became the rogue state, and we should expect the United Nations to take sanctions against United States. Perhaps the United Nations will demand that we remove our nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction.

The decision to attack Iraq and rid Saddam Hussein of his hold on power and the weapons he may possess, while successfully reconstructing and restoring authority to the Iraqi people was certainly a plus to democracy. Healthy and effective post-conflict initiatives will stabilize the region, empower Iraqi moderates to capture the national imagination, and allow the United States to bank on success to contain tensions and influence other developments in the Middle East and around the world.

On the other hand, failure to successfully secure a post-Saddam Iraq will not only reverse such advantages, it may lead to the collapse of the Iraqi state, the rise of another despot, or crippling economic uncertainty with global implications. Ultimately, post-war chaos and long-term disorder in Iraq may prove more destructive to human life, regional stability, and national interest than any attempt to oust Saddam Hussein’s government.

In conclusion, the accomplishments of an intervention, particularly one that is unilateral, could easily be subverted by losing the peace. American credibility is on the line. The United States has the resources and the expertise to win the war, but it almost certainly lacks the political will to successfully endure a post-war, multi-year marathon to rebuild Iraq alone. If the United States chooses war, it must summon the will to enlist significant allies, to attain international legitimacy, and to overcome an inherent aversion to nation building. If not, it should forgo war and pursue other means to resolve the crisis. Successful post-conflict reconstruction does not begin "the day after." It begins "the day before."

1. http://www.usip.org
2. www.newamericancentury.org
3. June 1, 2002, www.whitehouse.gov
4. Weekly Standard, June 4, 2001
5. Associated Press, December 27, 2002
5. Michael Moore’s documentary film titled Fahrenheit 9/11