Protesters seem to want to appease a dangerous dictator

Arguments Aid the Cause OPINION | MAR 26 Guest Column The Shorthorn: David DeGrand

While our best men and women in uniform are fighting the evils of man, a minority still protests. These protesters and supporters of stopping the war fuel the logical need and reasoning for the current action in Iraq. The following are the top 10 points used by the “stop the war” movement and how they can be used to justify the war as well.

Point 1: War will mean thousands of civilian casualties.

Saddam has produced 20-plus years of civilian casualties. Over those years, he has gassed thousands of innocent Kurds; he had thousands of Shiites murdered; he caused tens of thousands of civilian casualties in his war with Iran, ordered the killing of thousands of Kuwaiti civilians in his invasion, ordered the execution of thousands of Iraqis and caused thousands of Iraqi children to die from starvation or lack of medicine. 

Contrast that with the few hundred civilians killed in Afghanistan by the U.S. military; American-lead intervention saved hundreds of thousands who would have starved to death, and the Gulf Conflict killed few Iraqi civilians.

A conflict and course of action that deposes Saddam and the leadership in Iraq will save thousands of lives with the possibility for a republic government founded upon democratic institutions and principles.

Point 2: It’s a war for Iraqi oil.

An easy solution for oil would be to lift the sanctions and make a deal with Saddam. Saddam has indicated an eagerness to sell his oil and make money. The United States, however, doesn’t need Iraqi oil since the Russians will be bringing on line new pipelines and oil wells.

Even so, given the problems in Venezuela, which was a major factor in the increase of oil prices, a war for oil would oust President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. There is no such plan, and there is no plan to cut the price of oil.

Point 3: War in Iraq will stir a new wave of terrorism.

This has been said for several decades. For example, during the Gulf Conflict a small number of people warned Arab streets would be in flames and Americans would be subject to many waves of attacks. Nothing of the sort has happened.

A more recent example is the conflict in Afghanistan, worse yet, bombed during Ramadan, it was supposed to prompt a worldwide uprising and terrorists in particular, against America. Again, that never happened.

Point 4: The Arab streets will erupt.

As in Point 3, this has been said for several decades. A swift and decisive victory as defined in just war, combat and strategy over Saddam will bring an increased peace and stability to the Middle East.

Even so, sad to say, the only streets erupting are American streets against the French and Germans.

Point 5: Attacking Iraq would be unprovoked aggression.

This is false in the understandings of just war, combat and strategy. No peace treaty was signed. Rather, a truce was signed and instituted. Thus the state of war resumes when the conditions are violated.

By attacking now, the United States would be ending the war, not starting it.

Point 6: America doesn’t have enough allies.

Forty plus isn’t enough? Is the case for war weakened in the slightest by the absence of the French or the Germans? No. Despite what a minority of people say, a war with Iraq would not be “unilateral,” which would mean the United States would be acting alone directly and indirectly.

Point 7: Give the inspectors more time and do not rush to war.

This is a common theme with many demonstrations against actions in Iraq. However, such a theme is deceitful.

The “stop the war” theme and supporters by definition do not want war, even with the United Nations inspectors finding weapons of mass destruction. The supporters of stopping the war seem to enjoy Saddam’s delaying game: Let the inspections continue until support in the United States for military action in Iraq dissolves and war is averted.

Then Saddam survives. Weapons of mass destruction should be destroyed.

Iraq has been in material breach of United Nations resolutions since a few weeks after the Gulf Conflict in 1991. New resolutions have been approved, inspectors were ousted on several occasions, the United Nations was made to look impotent and President Bush has taken all the steps asked of him before going to war.

Point 8: Containment is working.

With the presence of force, Saddam won’t attack Jordan or Syria or other neighbors. However, the more serious concern is the possibility of chemical or biological weapons being given to terrorists without anyone knowing.

Point 9: Win without war.

What a wonderful, drugged hippie perspective and flower-power idea. Sadly, however, we do not live in a utopian world, and human beings are fallible. This is what Saddam would want: With no war or course of action, he wins and emerges with the power to dictate the Middle East and a majority of Europe.

Point 10: Bush is seeking a new American empire.

I must let the Honorable Secretary of State Colin Powell answer this one. When heckled by a former archbishop of Canterbury on this subject recently, he said: “We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last 100 years ... and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in.” Well said.

God Bless America.

— Roy Mitsuoka, an interdisciplinary studies sophomore focusing on United States national security studies.