Congress voted to give President Bush the authority to use force against Iraq. One of the arguments against this was that Iraq isn’t the worst or only bad country around. And there is some truth to that. Let’s face it, most of the governments in the middle east outside Israel are dysfunctional. Four governments stand out – Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia as terrorist supporters and exporters. 

Look at a map and you’ll see why taking on Iraq first makes sense – it holds the central position of those countries. We’ve beaten Iraq in war recently, the terrain is ideal for our Armed Forces, and occupying Iraq puts US troops on the borders of all the bad apples of the Middle East. The toughest nut to crack militarily is Iran, but it’s also the government that is least secure from internal revolt, so it doesn’t make sense to attack them militarily first. An attack on Syria would likely cause them attack Israel to try to bring all the Arabs in on their side and its worth noting they have the best terrorist connections. Saudi Arabia is still nominally our ally, thus hardest to move against politically. 

This isn’t an argument for attacking Iraq in and of itself. This is an argument for attacking Iraq IF you plan on taking military action to deal with Arab terrorism.

Tags: Iraq

I sometimes think I’m the only person who has a memory. I don’t just mean how some people borrow money from you and then act like it never happened. And I don’t mean how some people tell you on the eve of every war how it’s going to be a quagmire, and they act like they haven’t been wrong for the last, oh, five or six wars. Nope, what really bugs me is when people who consider themselves really smart tell me something that if I have any memory at all I’ll know makes them hypocrites. Consider if you will, the law professors statement on Iraq. In it, they make the rather grandiose statement that “A US War Against Iraq Will Violate US and International Law and Set a Dangerous Precedent For Violence That Will Endanger the American People.” Just how will this violate international law? Well, again I quote, “But the President ignores the fact that a US war, unleashed without the approval of the UN Security Council, against a country that has not attacked the United States, would itself be an unlawful act, in defiance of America’s treaty obligations, and a violation of US and international law.” Okay, I’m no lawyer, but last time I checked, we attacked Yugoslavia (Serbia) without UN approval, without congressional approval — Clinton didn’t bother putting it to a vote, he just said NATO voted to attack, so bombs away — and without Yugoslavia threatening the United States in any shape, way or form. Where were these concerned law professors then? Where were they for Panama, Grenada, and Haiti? I think they only protest when it’s a Republican president, but are silent when Democrats attack other countries without UN mandate, congressional mandate, or a threat to the security of the United States As far as setting a dangerous precedent — too late. 

You in the back are raising your hand in objection (or confusion) to my inclusion of Haiti – I’m talking about Clinton’s invasion, not anybody else’s. Maybe you forgot, but the 82nd airborne had actually taken off on their way to invade when the ruling junta took the money and ran — reportedly because their spies told them it was coming. So Clinton was trying to invade but his credible threat of force coupled with a large pile of cash rendered the invasion moot. There’s a perfect example of the willingness to use force achieving something; it’s too bad that as it turned out new boss same as the old boss.

Another point cries out for rebuttal: “Lawless international violence only breeds more killing of innocent people. The massive civilian deaths, the scarred and maimed children, the ruined and starving peoples, whose suffering is inseparable from warfare, can only spawn new generations of embittered peoples, new hate-filled leaders, new enraged individuals, determined to answer violence with violence.” This view of war is so last century, but inaccurate even then. Stalemates lead to further violence as the two sides try again to win; big victories end the violence as the losers accommodate themselves to the once unaccommodatable. For instance, the Germans felt that WWI ended in a draw militarily, so they tried again in WWII. If you want to talk massive civilian deaths, ruined and starving people, that’s the Germans immediately following WWII. If you believed the professors, they should have gone a couple more rounds with the Democracies; instead, they haven’t gone to war since, and they want to sit the Iraq war out, too. 

Would these professors have protested our response to Pearl Harbor? According to them, a military response would have only provoked the Japanese even more. They’re like the guy in the Life of Brian who tells the blasphemer to stop blaspheming as he is about to get stoned because he’s only going to make it worse for himself. “How can I make it any worse, you’re going to kill me!” the blasphemer replies. 

There are valid reasons not to go to war against Iraq. But this is just grasping at straws; worse for the professors, what if the UN and Congress do authorize force against Iraq?

Tags: Iraq