Table of contents
The point of view against invasion concentrates on the fact that most states in the world are not in favor of such an operation, and there is a probability that an attack would anger the Moslem world. In addition, it would also incur a great cost and the American occupation army will be trapped in Iraq for ages, i.e. if the U.S. won. The pro-invasion crowd senses that the Iraqi people are exhausted of Saddam and would rapidly greet an invading army. The annoyed Arab world would be as horrified as they were when the Afghan people appreciated an American invasion. As for the cost, an attack is cheaper than a biological weapons attack on the United States with Iraqi supplied material.
But there are other facets to all this. First, there is the hazard of Iraq giving terrorists chemical or biological weapons. Only terrorists whose aim is to annihilate the world would have a cause to use this method. Such groups are present, but they are not many There are also silent motives why Iraq's neighbors, and the rest of the world, resist an assault. Doing away with Saddam by military force frightens the other leaders of the Arab world because it may be successful.
Such an advance is also abomination to Islamic radicals, who want to reinstate Arab despots with "Islamic Republics". Europeans are in opposition to the attack because, it arouses repulsive memories of European colonialism that was invented to profit the victims, but didn't. Lastly, Europeans detest it when America takes some action Europeans either didn't think of, were short of the will to attempt or the courage to make it work. Maybe, attacking Iraq would be something unusual, and most people just dread the unfamiliar.
Order your custom research papers and term papers now!
A military operation to remove Mr. Hussein, however, would be the most momentous use of force by the United States since the Vietnam War. If President Bush undertakes such a mission, it will dominate the remainder of his term, radically reshape the politics of the Persian Gulf and Middle East, and have major repercussions for the global economy. Yet there has been little debate about the pros and cons of such a war. Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings planned for next week will be a start, but only a start.
The track record suggests that the United States can continue to contain Saddam Hussein without war, just as we deterred the Soviets during the Cold War and just as we have contained North Korea for half a century. Mr. Hussein values his hold on power and his life more than anything and has refrained from actions likely to lead to his downfall. Yet there is a serious case for overthrowing him if he continues to hide his weapons of mass destruction and deny access to United Nations inspectors. Although he appears not to have been implicated in the Sept. 11 attacks, he could decide to give biological arms to Al Qaeda in the future. He may also be gradually progressing toward a nuclear weapons capability. But the case for overthrow needs to be compared with the costs and risks of an invasion of Iraq.
It is easy to check materials for uniqueness using our high-quality anti-plagiarism service.
Order now »
